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?"
Since the Catholic Church are the only ones against birth control,THEY should be financially responsible for all "fatherless children" if the father can't be found or can't afford to pay child support.
I had the Maury Povich Show running in the background the other day while I was on the computer,and he was doing one of his paternity shows. One girl on there was 17 years old,and had already ran 9 males (I won't say men)through DNA testing without finding "my baby's daddy",and said she had 3 more possibilites,and was looking forward to returning to the show to prove one of them was the father.
BTW,one of these young males (probably about 20) already had 6 babies by other women. No job,but kept saying "I support my babies,I support my babies". This probably means he buys them a pack of M&M's sometimes.
ROFLMAO! The surest way to turn Cindrella into the Wicked Witch of the West is to marry her.
I had a friend (now dead) who had the same thing happen to him. He built his wife a new house to her specifications on a lot next to her mother as a wedding present. 8 years later she and her boyfriend are living in the house,and her boyfriend is even driving the new car he had just bought for her. He had to sell his business in order to settle up with her,and ended up moving into a house trailer on property his father owned. He ended up drinking himself to death last year.
You're kidding? The rythmn method is more of a lottery than a form of birth control.
I worry my friend will do the same. We watch him closely, because he wants her dead.
It all depends on which tune they're hummin'.
You forgot to add these days.
Traditional attitudes of love and marriage evolved because the people and societies that adhered to such ideals prospered, while people and societies espousing other ideals set themselves on the path to extinction.
But the mechanics of it all are beyond the understanding of the average idiot--so the leaders of religion and state simply said those values are spiritual commandments, and believing that was enough for the superstitious majority not to argue about it.
But now, in a society used to comfort and safety and less suffering, from whose members even the dying are hidden, the need for superstitions (or religion, if you like) is forgotton; yet understanding the true value of tradition is still beyond the masses.
And so they fornicate with increasing abandon.
Thought I'd addressed that. It is unreasonable to demand that he support this child. Doesn't he have easy grounds for adultery? He has formed no longterm father relationship, because the child is not yet born. Were I the judge, however, I would not demand return of past support, unless the influence is in the division of assets during divorce proceedings.
Other children make things stickier. Are they his? Like I have said, there is no justification for compelling a man to support children not his own. But I don't necessarily count past support in that equation, depending on the circumstances. To do otherwise is to try to hold a minor accountable for a debt, and to involve the government in something that they cannot really do.
Family court is an awful place for more people than outraged "fathers." I know of one circumstance where the law clearly allowed an older minor child (over 13) a "say" in her custody, but the judge refused belligerantly to allow her to even speak. She had waited months for the court date to explain her situation, and the judge turned his back and threatened her with foster care if she got out of line.
What can you do except hope for a special spot in hell for a judge like this?
Mandatory DNA testing (like mandatory blood tests) is a way to avoid more contractual messes by eliminating them up front. It will force women to be faithful as the results of unfaithfullness will be seen.
You seem to always forget that "we" are the state. There is no Caesar, there are only the laws that we citizens decide will govern us. If we do not police our own contracts then who will. It is easy to say that gov should have no say in marriage or family matters but eventually there will be a case where the family needs help from outside to settle a contract (such as paternity). Whoever that help is, is the government, as we are all the government.
You can hide behind the "government is bad and unbiblical" bogeyman all you want but it won't change the fact that OrthodoxPresbyterian is part of this government and that if OP doesn't like something than he has failed his civic duty to change it.
God Save America (Please)
The issue is, does the Bible authorize the State to mandate DNA testing for all births??
Since the Bible DOES NOT render this Power to Caesar, you are once again at war against the Law of God in your State-worshipping advocacy of rendering unto Caesar that which is not his.
You seem to always forget that "we" are the state.
You seem to always foprget that we can commit sin, such as sinning against the Law of God by rendering unto the State that which does not Biblically belong to the State.
When we commit sin, by rebelling against the Law of God and commissioning the State with UnBiblical powers, it is necessary that we repent of this God-hating rebellion, and eliminate the UnBiblical arrangements of Power.
There is no Caesar, there are only the laws that we citizens decide will govern us. If we do not police our own contracts then who will. It is easy to say that gov should have no say in marriage or family matters but eventually there will be a case where the family needs help from outside to settle a contract (such as paternity). Whoever that help is, is the government, as we are all the government.
Certainly, the Courts will settle a Contract dispute. That is a very different thing from writing the contract FOR the contractors in question.
You have correctly identified the State's ONLY proper role in Private Contracting -- the Court's adjudication of contract disputes. Where there is no contract dispute, the State has ZERO Biblical role whatsoever in the Private Contract.
You can hide behind the "government is bad and unbiblical" bogeyman all you want but it won't change the fact that OrthodoxPresbyterian is part of this government and that if OP doesn't like something than he has failed his civic duty to change it.
"Government" is not "bad and unbiblical" per se; rather, UnBiblical Government is Bad and UnBiblical (gee, whouldathunkit?!).
A Government which is rigidly constrained to the precise civil duties which are specifically delegated to the Magistrate by the express Words of the Bible, is a Good Thing. Any other sort of "government", must be brought into Conformity with the Law of God.
And, since I know that Judment comes first upon the House of the Lord, I feel that I am certainly doing my part towards that end -- by confronting fellow Christians, and reminding them that the professing "Church" cannot very well claim to be the Bride of Christ while it is yet the Whore of Caesar.
LOL! I ain't going there!
Does the bible authorize the state to enforce speed limits?
Does the bible authorize the state to enforce decency on the airwaves?
Does the bible authorize the state to enforce fair advertising?
Does the bible authorize the state to enable education?
Does the bible authorize the state to enforce product liability laws?
Does the bible authorize the state to enforce private contracts at all?
Does the bible authorize the state to free slaves?
The answer to all of these is no. The bible merely says that God puts those in authority in authority and that we are to obey those given rule over us (as long as we can still obey God while doing so)
If we limit ourselves to only what the bible authorizes we'd have to call all the amish sinners as even they deal with some things not authorized. (They have radios in their barns? they ride in someone else's motorized vehicle?) We must obey the bible But we also must have discernment to apply what it says to new situations and technologies as well.
Just because government has a hand in it doesn't make it evil. Just because the church does it doesn't make it good (see any member denomination of national council of churches)
No one is "whoring" anything to caesar here. caesar doesn't exist. The citizens of this nation have gotten together and decided that the government (that is, us) will enforce certain provisions of social behavior. The Christian in this country failed, not in allowing that formalization of our values into law, but in not defending that law.
If we do not participate in making the laws in this land then homosexuality will be not only enabled but enforced, marriage will die, and Christianity will be illegal in a very short time. ONLY Christians participating in running this country keeps us from heading head first into hell on earth. If we fast and pray for our country but do nothing else our country will die. We must be involved in our government.
You are of course free to believe whatever you want but you cannot hide from the fact that God made us stewards over this earth and Stewardship includes governance. We ignore our duty to be good active citizens at our peril
GSA(P)
You're lying through your teeth, because you do not want Government to be limited to its Biblical job description.
Let's take them each in turn:
The answer to all of these is no.
No, as always, you're wrong. Like it or not the Bible has the answer to every single Ethical question, including the question of "what laws SHOULD we write, or NOT?"
The Bible always has the answer to every ethical question -- your anti-christian attacks on the sufficiency of Scripture notwithstanding.
Just because government has a hand in it doesn't make it evil. Just because the church does it doesn't make it good (see any member denomination of national council of churches)
If the State "has a hand" in anything save that which the Bible specifically authorizes to the State, then it is doing Evil.
Here's a basic Spiritual Rule of Biblical Law for you -- If an action is not a morally-correct action for you to perform as a private citizen, then it is ANTI-CHRISTIAN for you to command a Magistrate to perform that action.
Anytime that you command your vote-hired Magistrate to perform an Action under "color-of-law" which would be an un-Jesus-like act of Un-Biblical Property-Invasion if you performed it as a private citizen, you are using the State as an excuse to commit immoralities of Violence.
The Bible has a word for that sort of abuse of power -- Spiritual Whoredom.
YOU, and messiah-state "christians" like you, seek to make the Bride of Christ into a violent, blood-drunken, Caesar-worshipping Whore.
Rule number two is ...
Truth, the recognition of reality, can be ignored when it conflicts with Faith.
Why no compassion or mercy for the defrauded non-father? He, too, is innocent. His "paternal responsibilities" don't "end" -- they never existed at all. But by confiscating most of his income to support the adulteress and her randomly conceived children, you'd deny him the financial resources he needs to start over with an honest woman and have children that are really his. The result is extreme genetic unfairness.
As for the fate of the child: -- if a MAN commits fraud (say, on Wall Street), nobody ever claims that he should somehow be exempt from going to jail, or get to keep the stolen money, just because his kids might suffer. Quite the reverse: although everyone feels sorry for his children, it is universally accepted that their sufferings are his own fault -- and NOBODY expects the fraud victims to pay child support to the jailed corporate raider! But if a WOMAN commits paternity fraud, she is somehow exempted from either punishment or restitution, to "spare the kids suffering!" Why the double standard?
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.