Posted on 11/30/2005 9:00:49 PM PST by 11th_VA
If I were young Billy Mason's attorney, that would be my strategery. I'd demand, under oath, that the mother provide a list of every male she'd ever had sex with up until the birth of the child. Then I'd sue every single one of them for paternity - they'd have to take a DNA test to prove it wasn't them. Once the biological father is determined, sue him for the amount of child support from birth on.
Your attitude breeds even more cynicism toward law and women, if that's possible.
This is actually a pretty common occurance.
I'm one.
That's a choice you should be able to voluntarily make for yourself.
What an honest fella. I wonder if he has any parental rights to have a relationship with the kid? After all we love our children even if someone walked in today and told us that they weren't 'ours'. As a mother of a child who was adopted and a child who is biological, they've both grown in my heart. I couldn't give either of them up. My husband and I couldn't be without them.
"It seems to me that people are missing a very obvious strategy for him to use. He should sue for custody. Then wait for the feminazi's to come out of the woodwork screaming about it."
That would be a good idea if he truly wants the child in his life now. But the article does not say this.
What if the father or state-assigned father can't handle it?
That's an interesting thought. I will need to think more about it.
If it is between the father, who had sex with the woman and help to conceive the child, or the state/taxpayer as support, the state/taxpayer is going to choose the father.
The young man in this story did not help to conceive the child.
Can you answer the original question? What if the father or state-assigned father can't handle it?
What happens then?
If the father cannot pay support, then either the mother supports the child on her own or the state takes over, seeking reimbursement from both parents if possbile.
I know it is.
check out this video (work safe):
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=10873
Find the real Dad and sue him.
Sue the Mom now.
Yes that's right, the State takes over in the sense of Foster Care.
Parents, if there are any known, are responsible for the accrued cost of Foster Care, once they become capable of working.
The problem here is the law.
At a minimum, the law should require a man, especially young men like in this case, to acknowledge that rights to disassociate from the support order are extended for only one year. Paternity testing should be mandatory if the alleged father is a minor. If the alleged father is an adult, he should be given the option to request paternity testing at the same time that he signs his warning of a one-year limit.
I believe in some states such as California, paternity testing does not have a limit on time.
In the case here, I would think the mother should go to work and pay the state for Foster Care if she can't handle working and raising a child.
Of course she likely won't be able to pay the full amount for Foster Care on a monthly basis, so her accrued arrearages would have to be paid off over the course of her lifetime to the State.
Of course she could avoid these consequences by naming who the real father is, if she knows.
Better yet she would have a family of parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles that would provide her support while she attends community college to train herself for a job that would allow her to raise her child.
But to saddle a young fifteen year old with false burden is not the answer.
I agree. Paternity testing should be mandatory if the alleged father is a minor. If the alleged father is an adult, he should be given the option to request paternity testing at the same time that he signs his warning of a one-year limit.
I agree, and actually I would extend mandatory paternity testing to all unmarried potential fathers. I think it would simplify matters, remove the pressure to trust their girlfriend to tell the truth, and deter women from naming someone who they know is not the father of the child.
Any change in the state law would have to provide an alternative remedy for these situations. Someone other than the non-father would have to assume the burden of child support payments. Perhaps it would be the actual father, the state, or some combination. While a change in the state law might not permit Mason to recover past payments, it might end his obligation once the new law was in effect and an alternate source of child support income was established.
While the above would probably fail, writing a few letters and making a few phone calls to his state representatives is a hell of a lot cheaper for Mason than a state supreme court appeal.
I assume that the appeal to the state supreme court would also fail. The article mentions that Mason spoke to a judge and a county attorney, and he obviously spoke to his own attorney, so it is safe to bet that he now has a good idea of his chances of success on appeal, and has apparently decided not to proceed. While the author of the piece seems to be surprised by the judgment against Mason, I have heard of at least five similar cases that had the same outcome as this case. The non-father was ordered to pay. However unjust, this seems to be settled law in some (most?) states.
The mother in this case seems to have incurred no liability at all for her unethical actions. She knew perfectly well that the paternity of the child was in doubt, but she didn't tell Mason, thereby saddling him with over $100,000 in bills for her child. She probably didn't tell the actual father of the child either, depriving him of association with his son. The son will learn the truth, if he doesn't know it already. Do you think that might be a bit traumatic, for him to learn that his father isn't his father? The mother appears to have seriously harmed Mason, her son, and the real father, and her punishment for doing this will be zip. Oh, I forgot, she is an oppressed single mother valiantly struggling against patriarchal oppression, and besides, holding her accountable for her actions would just harm the child. How could I forget?
Actually, this predates the feminazi's by many generations. It's been the law of the land for centuries.
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.