Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/23/2002 | By Kathy Boccella

Posted on 12/26/2002 8:34:04 AM PST by BuddhaBoy

Patrick McCarthy was floored to learn after his divorce that his 14-year-old daughter had been fathered by another man. He was even more stunned to find out that he would still have to pay $280 a month in child support.

"You have to be a stone not to react emotionally to something like that," said McCarthy, 41, a delivery service driver from Hillsborough, N.J. "The thing I found more disturbing was the way they treat you in court."

In New Jersey, as in most other states, children born during a marriage are the legal responsibility of the husband - even if he isn't the biological father.

Now some of these "duped dads," as they call themselves, are waging state-by-state battles to institute "paternity fraud" laws. Fueled by anger and raw emotion, they are forming grassroots groups and pressing for the right to use DNA evidence in court to be free of making support payments for children they didn't father.

New Jersey Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, which McCarthy founded, recently paid $50,000 for nine billboards along highways (and other ads) that show a pregnant woman and read "Is It Yours? If Not, You Still Have to Pay!"

"Why does a man who is not the father have to bear the financial responsibility for fraud?" asked New Jersey Assemblyman Neil Cohen (D., Union), who sponsored legislation allowing men to use DNA tests to disprove paternity and end financial support. The bill recently came out of committee and faces a vote from the Assembly.

But women's groups and child advocates are alarmed by a trend that they say could harm children.

"It's not as simple as, 'This isn't fair, I have to pay for somebody else's kid,' " said Valerie Ackerman, staff lawyer at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif. "Families are much more than biology."

It is not known how many men would try to disprove paternity in court, even if they could. An American Association of Blood Bank survey in 2000 of 30,626 paternity tests showed that 30 percent of those taking the tests were not the real fathers.

What is clear is that the law is not on their side. Most states require nonbiological fathers to keep paying child support even if they were deceived by their spouses, based on the 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband's.

For unmarried fathers, if the paternity is not challenged at birth, they generally do not get a second chance to raise the issue.

But more and more states are reshaping these laws. Men have won the right by legislation or case law to use genetic testing to disprove paternity in 12 states. Three more, including New Jersey, have pending legislation that let nonbiological fathers off the hook.

Since 1999, Pennsylvania lawmakers twice turned down similar legislation, introduced after a Reading man, Gerald Miscovich, sought relief from the $537 a month he was paying for a child who was not his. He lost the case and ended all contact with the then-4-year-old boy. Sen. Michael A. O'Pake (D., Reading) plans to reintroduce the bill next month.

Carnell Smith of Decatur, Ga., is one of two men who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after lower courts ruled against them. Smith is trying to recoup more than $40,000 from his ex-girlfriend after learning three years ago that her 13-year-old girl is not his. But the Supreme Court declined to hear his case, meaning he must continue to pay $750 a month in child support.

"It's not a gender war from my perspective. It's about truth," said Smith, who founded U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. His group - whose slogan is "If the genes don't fit, you must acquit" - lobbied for the law that Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes signed in May.

Others have not been swayed. In October, California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a paternity fraud bill, saying the measure would only delay child support collection and let some biological fathers wriggle out of parental responsibility.

Child advocates agree. They worry that children will be traumatized by losing the emotional and financial support of the person they know as "Dad."

"I would think if there's a close parent-child relationship, then the matter of whose DNA the child is carrying wouldn't matter that much," said Laura Morgan, chairwoman of the American Bar Association's Child Support Committee. "It's too easily reducing parentage to dollars and DNA."

In many cases, a man suspects a child is not his and chooses to raise the child anyway, said Paula Roberts, a lawyer at the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington. But after a divorce "he has a new wife and she's saying, 'Why are we paying for this kid?' Now he wants out," she said.

"What kind of damage have we done to the kids if the person they know as their father wants out?"

Some of the new statutes give fathers two years to contest paternity. Men say such deadlines are unfair because women can sue to establish paternity at any time in a child's life.

But Ackerman, with the youth law center, said "you give a person unlimited time to establish paternity, it leaves a child in limbo their entire lives."

Those pressing for the new laws say they do not anticipate wide-scale child abandonment. Cohen, a lawyer who has represented both men and women in these types of cases, said that "when [fathers] have a relationship with their son or daughter, they don't necessarily walk away from the child. They just don't want to have the financial responsibility."

But he has also seen men who were "so angry and upset over being lied to, they walk away," he said.

These non-dads, who network via e-mail and compare hard-luck stories, say the issue goes beyond monthly child support checks.

"To not allow DNA testing is not allowing the truth to come forward," said McCarthy, who would like to see every child's DNA tested at birth to prevent mix-ups. "My contention is every child has a right to know who their biological parents are."

Even though McCarthy's daughter looked nothing like him, he never suspected she was not his until his ex-wife blurted it out during an argument, he said. He used a home DNA kit and a cheek swab to confirm there was virtually no chance the girl was his.

With no legal standing, he continued supporting her and began lobbying for a change in the law. Though their relationship is strained, the girl, now 19, still calls him "Dad," said McCarthy, who lives with his second wife and their two children.

What really galls these men "is the fact that you have to pay support to an ex-wife who lied to you and deceived you," McCarthy said. (Like some other men in the movement, he declined to provide information about his ex-wife.)

One man who would greatly benefit from the new laws is Morgan Wise, of Big Spring, Texas. A train engineer, he was married for 13 years to a woman who had four children. The youngest had cystic fibrosis. After he divorced in 1996, he said, he took a test to see which cystic fibrosis gene he carried.

No such gene was found. DNA testing showed that three of the four children were not his.

"I cried. I got angry, not toward the children but toward my wife," he said.

His wife, Wanda Scroggins, said that he knew "there was a possibility" the children weren't his. She said they both had affairs during their marriage and he agreed to raise the children as his own.

They also agreed to keep the truth to themselves, but Wise told the children one day while they were at school. It cost him visitation rights for two years.

In another blow, a Texas court ruled that he still had to pay $1,100 a month in child support. In January, the U.S Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal.

Recently, Wise began spending time again with the children, but the relationship is rocky.

"If it's your kid, no matter who the biological father is, how does that matter?" Scroggins asked. "He was there when they were born, he changed their diapers, saw their first steps, kissed their boo-boos. How do you just stop that?"


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dna; fraud; paternityfraud; theft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-379 next last
At the rate that these cases are happening, it is only a matter of time before DNA testing is mandated for all births.
1 posted on 12/26/2002 8:34:05 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
The law is simple, womens' rights and mens' responsibilities".
2 posted on 12/26/2002 8:43:55 AM PST by Righty1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
What is so sad about all of this is that children are no longer valued. They are reduced to a bargaining chip.

Truly sad.

I know there are exceptions on either side, but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

3 posted on 12/26/2002 8:46:12 AM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
The title is a little misleading:
30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.
That's 30% of the cases that go to DNA / blood testing, not 30% of the whole population. I'm sure you didn't mean to insinute this, about did a spit take when I saw it.
4 posted on 12/26/2002 8:47:02 AM PST by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
That's what you risk when you marry a girl that is willing to sleep with you before marriage.

There's no difference between being unfaithful to a current husband and being unfaithful to a future husband except the nature of the excuse.
5 posted on 12/26/2002 8:47:37 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy; RogerFGay
The quantity of states banning paternity fraud is growing, and I believe Vermont even fines deceptive mothers (or is trying to). We're getting increasingly organized to end this injustice.
I suppose it's no longer possible to create a paternity fraud "ping" list, but at least a keyword category can be created under "paternity fraud" that interested folks can search for from time to time.
6 posted on 12/26/2002 8:47:56 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

In the case of the mothers it is a total majority that have behaved badly.

7 posted on 12/26/2002 8:48:06 AM PST by Between the Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
The REAL LAW says,
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8 posted on 12/26/2002 8:48:36 AM PST by whipitgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Patrick McCarthy was floored to learn after his divorce that his 14-year-old daughter had been fathered by another man. He was even more stunned to find out that he would still have to pay $280 a month in child support.

In a sane society, that should be grounds for the man to walk away without any legal obligation.

9 posted on 12/26/2002 8:49:18 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
What is missing in the arguments advanced by the duped fathers is that the biological father is shirking his responsibility. It seems to me that this is more an issue of making the real father come across with the child support. That would also neutralize the oppositions' position.
10 posted on 12/26/2002 8:50:02 AM PST by familyof5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
At the rate that these cases are happening, it is only a matter of time before DNA testing is mandated for all births.

And that would be an excellent idea. The man no longer has to hear the emotional "you don't really love me because you don't trust me" noise anymore and the woman would KNOW that if she runs around and gets pregnant she will be found out.

We desperately need accountability put back into our marriages

God Save America (Please)

11 posted on 12/26/2002 8:50:02 AM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
30% huh? Makes sense. I've always believed I am 30% Estonian.
12 posted on 12/26/2002 8:50:28 AM PST by Revolting cat!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
That's 30% of the cases that go to DNA / blood testing

Isn't that what a "Paternity Test" is?
I don't think there is anthing misleading about the title.
13 posted on 12/26/2002 8:51:00 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
But women's groups and child advocates are alarmed by a trend that they say could harm children.

A rat is a dog is a pig is a feminist (...with profound apologies to rats, dogs and pigs).

14 posted on 12/26/2002 8:53:43 AM PST by martin gibson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Righty1
Another sign of sickness in our society - the woman gets a free pass to "use her body" any way she wants and the man gets to pay for it. If they start making the woman tell who the real father is, and then charging him with the responsibility of support, justice will be better served. Only the sick and perverse would argue that the man who is being duped is the bad guy in cases like this...Just where does the woman's responsibility (other than the free and unfettered use of her body) start?
15 posted on 12/26/2002 8:54:12 AM PST by trebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
One more reason why I plan to live and die as a single.
16 posted on 12/26/2002 8:54:47 AM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
My first thoughts too, lelio. 30% of the cases that raised suspicion not 30% of all children born. Fear this is getting out of hand. In my own family, there are many who insist a particular girl is not the child of her father. That the girl is the spit of her father's sister at that age carries no weight at all. Quite frustrating to see this. And sad. For the child's sake, I would think the benefit of the doubt would apply.
17 posted on 12/26/2002 8:55:18 AM PST by Let's Roll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
DNA testing at birth is the way to go. Just mandate it, so the guy doesn't have to be the jerk to ask.

It is a neccessary evil for several reasons. The greatest is health. How often are transplants needed? How often are genetic disorders passed down? It is better for the health and safety of a child to know who the biological father is, in case a situation like that arises.

Conversely, a man learning he isn't the father at that time, should be allowed off the hook then, but if he decides to stay with the mother, and the child, he can't let himself off the hook later. The argument is true. A man can't be the parent of a child, then 10 years later, say, oops, not mine, cya.

The DNA testing would accomplish the goals both sides claim to have. Child being supported, no fraud. If we had rationality in government, this would happen. Every kid deserves to know who is their father.

18 posted on 12/26/2002 8:57:43 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lelio
You are right, of course.

30% of the time when men suspect that they are not the father, DNA testing confirms their suspicions.

19 posted on 12/26/2002 8:58:40 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
In a sane society, that should be grounds for the man to walk away without any legal obligation.

Tell that to the poor kid that thought he was her father for 14 years.

I'm not defending the disgusting behavior of the mother, but the poor kid doesn't deserve to be dumped at this stage of her life. Being a 14-year old girl is difficult enough without having this to deal with.

20 posted on 12/26/2002 8:58:46 AM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
Georgia just passed a law criminalizing Paternity Fraud as well.
21 posted on 12/26/2002 9:00:09 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: whipitgood
The REAL LAW says, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Your "REAL LAW" -- number three -- also forbids you from working your slaves on the sabbath.

22 posted on 12/26/2002 9:01:20 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
>>>I know there are exceptions on either side, but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.<<<


I'd agree, if you'd replace the word "adults" with the word "mothers".
23 posted on 12/26/2002 9:02:42 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
"30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men...."

As Yogi says..."90% of the game is half mental"
24 posted on 12/26/2002 9:02:53 AM PST by TRY ONE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Http://www.PaternityFraud.com is run by the abovementioned Carnell Smith of Georgia, who wants back-payments to which he's entitled. They just got a law enacted in Ga. but it apparently doesn't entitle him to the back payments.
25 posted on 12/26/2002 9:03:38 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I'm glad I went and had a vasectomy after we were done having kids - if the wife ends up pregnant boy is she in trouble. :-)
26 posted on 12/26/2002 9:04:23 AM PST by gura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
One more reason why I plan to live and die as a single.

Me too, brother.

There is nothing on this earth that would convince me to get married and have children in this society. I enjoy my freedom. I've never been in a court room for anything except for Jury duty, and I want to keep it that way.

Beyond that, single women are EVERYWHERE these days, so single in no way means lonely.

Someday, Vasectomies are going to be as popular as cosmetic surgery.

27 posted on 12/26/2002 9:05:27 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lelio; BuddhaBoy
>>>The title is a little misleading:
30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.
That's 30% of the cases that go to DNA / blood testing, not 30% of the whole population. <<<


The way he has written it seems clear enough to me. I have noticed, though, that some mothers or at least women in this forum get particularly nervous and antsy when the paternity fraud topic comes up, and they seek to find fault wherever they can...
28 posted on 12/26/2002 9:06:05 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
The only real solution is to mandate DNA testing at all births. That way, everyone is apprised of what is what.
29 posted on 12/26/2002 9:06:23 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

Bad behaviour usually has consequences. So be it. Let the mothers who commit this fraud deal with it instead of rewarding them.

30 posted on 12/26/2002 9:07:27 AM PST by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gura
I got mine years ago, without kids. I had my swimmers frozen for a rainy day, in case I decide to have a mini-me someday.
31 posted on 12/26/2002 9:09:30 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
Kids suffer because of this, but two wrongs dont make a right. They need to start going after the real fathers, and making them pay the child support through the surrogate, if that man wants to maintain a relationship.
32 posted on 12/26/2002 9:11:41 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Just so men know their place in the world, remember this:
33 posted on 12/26/2002 9:12:35 AM PST by shadowman99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I'd like to throw an example in here, a little twist, just for the sake of discussion on this pressing issue. Anyone may address, though it is directed first at BB.

Example: fortyish millionaire male with a lifetime of enjoyable serial monogamy with a number of concubines, contented enough, to share in his prosperity and his stated infertility.

His latest acquistition, rescued from a (maybe) abusive relationship, comes with her a girl child, not his biologically. Sort of a double rescue from life's Humane Society, supported in his household like a convenient combination of pet and personal appliance. My, and he does fancy himself the hero.

For about three years now, he's been playing Daddy. No marriage, but establishing a personal and familial bond, particularly in the lonely heart of this child. Promises of college. Enjoying himself immensely with the novelty but, alas, he bores easily. He will, I am sure, someday max out his quick fortune through self-indulgence, and this child is just another indulgence.

Tell me, upon his inevitable boredom with this arrangement, does he owe anything morally to this child, when he eventually sends her away? Legally would be something else entirely. Just curious. Does he just get to use her and send her back to the Pound? I'm not too interested in Mommy, here. Just the child plaything. BTW, this is a fertrue example.

34 posted on 12/26/2002 9:12:40 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
I have noticed, though, that some mothers or at least women in this forum get particularly nervous and antsy when the paternity fraud topic comes up, and they seek to find fault wherever they can...

Thanks for pointing that out. This subject does make some Freepers VERY uncomfortable. I wonder why?

35 posted on 12/26/2002 9:13:12 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Your procedure seems fair to all. Hopefully, DNA testing can be made faster. I've heard 2-6 weeks - that's a long time with a new baby in the house and the father not knowing whether to bond or not. That sounds pretty awful. Also think automatic re-testing at a different lab should be done if the results don't match.
36 posted on 12/26/2002 9:16:12 AM PST by Let's Roll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
No discomfort here, from this mommy and wife. My kids all look like Him. I assume you don't want only male responses to the issue you bring before FR?
37 posted on 12/26/2002 9:22:34 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
>>>Tell that to the poor kid that thought he was her father for 14 years. I'm not defending the disgusting behavior of the mother, but the poor kid doesn't deserve to be dumped at this stage of her life. Being a 14-year old girl is difficult enough without having this to deal with.<<<


Then that is all the more reason why duped dads should be allowed to walk upon learning they'd been deceived. It gives mothers the incentive to stay in contact with the REAL fathers, and not to perpetrate a fraud for years. If mothers give a rip about anyone but themselves, then this legal reform will give them a chance to prove it.
38 posted on 12/26/2002 9:23:57 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
>>>Georgia just passed a law criminalizing Paternity Fraud as well.<<<


What happens to the deceptive mother?
39 posted on 12/26/2002 9:25:07 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a paternity fraud bill, saying the measure would only delay child support collection and let some biological fathers wriggle out of parental responsibility.

Gray Davis logic! Determining who the child is somehow lets some biological fathers wriggle out of parental responsibility.
40 posted on 12/26/2002 9:25:45 AM PST by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
Your procedure seems fair to all. Hopefully, DNA testing can be made faster. I've heard 2-6 weeks - that's a long time with a new baby in the house and the father not knowing whether to bond or not. That sounds pretty awful. Also think automatic re-testing at a different lab should be done if the results don't match.

I wonder if this would result in a big surge in abortions, by women scared to death of what would happen if their husbands (or boyfriends, or whatever) discovered that they weren't the father.

41 posted on 12/26/2002 9:26:53 AM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I know your example is true, because Washington, Oregon and California have created laws about this very topic.

My answer is a resounding NO!

Here is why.

Right of association is established in the Constitution. It assumes no liability or responsibility for the mere act of associating with, or NOT associating with another citizen.

If the mother of the child was concerned in the least, then she might have either pressed for marriage, or left the relationship earlier to protect the emotional needs of her child.

There are no laws (except in the states that I mentioned) the require someone who is generous at one point, to be obligated to continue such generosity over the fact of a child becoming accustomed to such largess.

The states that have instituted laws forcing step-parents or boyfriends to support children that are not their own, are acting in a purely un-constitution manner; allowed only because those states have activist judges who don’t care what the constitution says.

The first responsibility of a parent should be to protect their child, so I blame any mother who allows her child to become emotionally attached to someone who is not committed to both mother and child.

I have advised all men to stay away from single mothers for this very reason. Not that single mothers are all bad, but because in certain states, a man can be held responsible for children not his own, merely for associating with her and her children for an extended amount of time.

Women with children need to establish a man’s intentions early on in a relationship, in order to protect their children. If a man isn’t marriage or father material, then what happens next is HER responsibility. If she decides to carry on with a relationship with a man who won’t marry her, then whatever happens after that is her problem, not his.

The fact of a man having a lot of money does not justify him being forced to share it with others. Emotions don’t belong in the law.

42 posted on 12/26/2002 9:27:42 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
>>>single women are EVERYWHERE these days, so single in no way means lonely<<<


Evidently more men are waking up to the harsh legal realities and refusing to marry these gals.

As for the popularity of vasectomies, I humbly predict that someday folks will reproduce through cloning more frequently than some care to realize. The "genetic lottery" problem is avoided, that way. Vasectomies should, in fact, become far more popular as a result. Forest Gump said "life's like a box of chocolates; you never know WHAT you're gonna get" and the same can be said for traditional methods of child-rearing.
43 posted on 12/26/2002 9:27:54 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
In a sane society, that should be grounds for the man to walk away without any legal obligation.

Or at least issue an automatic judgement against the fraudulent mother to re-pay the amount of child support extorted when the child turns 18.

The judgement may not be collectable, but if there is now vigorous enforcement of child support, there should be just as vigorous and equal enforcement regarding paternity fraud. However, I am still in favor of the "father" paying support until 18. The child is an innocent bystander in this situation.

44 posted on 12/26/2002 9:29:48 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
In the past, I have addressed questions you've put to me. Now I'd like to hear a response to #34, if you would be so kind. I've stood the whole issue on its head , but it is an actual child in this real circumstance. What do you think are the moral obligations entailed in the relationship I described?
45 posted on 12/26/2002 9:29:52 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I definitely want female responses!

I just notice that there are many people made uncomfortable, and I wonder why.

Don’t take that as not wanting responses from women, I welcome and encourage them. I only hope that they remain on the topic, and not reduce the thread into finger-pointing and flame wars.

46 posted on 12/26/2002 9:30:39 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
It works both ways... Women should make sure the men they are marrying haven't fathered any children either... Because if the author of this article has his way that could affect a man's current marriage...
47 posted on 12/26/2002 9:32:29 AM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shadowman99
Re#33.

Great post, and completely true I'm afraid.

48 posted on 12/26/2002 9:32:35 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
I'm afraid she's out of luck all around. He's had a succession of tattooed bimbos for his delectation over the years, but it startled me when he brought home one with a child and started doing the Daddy Strut. The child even has some class. Alas, for her.
49 posted on 12/26/2002 9:33:29 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
DNA testing at birth is the way to go. Just mandate it, so the guy doesn't have to be the jerk to ask.

A new law to protect fathers from an old law. To mandate paternity tests at birth is to assume the mother is guilty. Neither you nor I would like any laws passed requiring us to prove our innocence. We should not require them of others. Two wrong laws don't make it right, just get rid of the old law.

50 posted on 12/26/2002 9:33:53 AM PST by Between the Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-379 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson