California Men Gain Rare Victory in Political Gender War as DNA Bill Passes

Sacramento Bee ^ | May 29, 2002 | Dan Walters

[janetgreen]

Among its other shortcomings of omission and commission, the California Legislature is a very inconsistent purveyor of public policy, constantly enacting legislation that reverses other laws, sometimes even within the same legislative session.

While the syndrome is not a new one, the rapid turnover of legislators mandated by term limits may exacerbate it as it damages institutional memory. New people have new slants on matters of public policy and are not shy about engraving them into law, regardless of how they may conflict with past policies.

[janetgreen]

Many men are forced to pay child support even though it is proven by DNA testing that the child belongs to someone else. Ex-L.A. District Attorney Garcetti smirked about this. This Assembly bill is a small victory for men in that situation.

[Postbro1]

The chicken isn't hatched yet. There is no bounds to the insanity the Dems (& Davis) exhibit when it comes to this kind of stuff. The fact that men proven not to be the biological fathers were previously told they had to support these children was preposterous in the first place. This is one of those things that helped to move me away from my Democrat/Liberal upbringing.

[janetgreen]

This site is very informative: http://ancpr.org/articles_on_paternity_fraud.htm

Californians should contact their representatives and ask them to sponsor such legislation. It will be interesting to see what our dim-bulb governor does.

[Jeff Chandler]

This is definitely flamebait.

If it's a newborn and it's not his he shouldn't have to support it. If it's past the toddler stage and he has a father-child relationship with the kid and he finds out it's not his and therefore doesn't support it... here goes... HE IS NOT A MAN. A man wouldn't ruin a kid's life because the mother is a whore; he'd continue being "Dad" to the kid.

[Free the USA]

I agree but haven't had much luck debating RogerFGay on that issue on another thread. DNA Paternity Fraud Case To U.S. Supreme Court

[Woahhs]

Are you speaking ex cathedra on this your holiness?

[niki]

What happens when the whore (mother) gets together with the biological father, cuts off contact between the non-biological father and the kid(s), and the non-biological father has to keep paying?

[Jeff Chandler]

Are you speaking ex cathedra on this your holiness?

You can call me "Jeff".

[Jeff Chandler]

What happens when the whore (mother) gets together with the biological father, cuts off contact between the non-biological father and the kid(s), and the non-biological father has to keep paying?

Sounds like she's making it impossible for him to be Dad to the kid.

[Woahhs]

I would never be so presumptuous ;)

[Jeff Chandler]

If a man has a father-child relationship with a kid, the only thing he should care about is how he can help the kid. That shouldn't depend upon whether or not the kid has his DNA, or if he gets to see the kid, or anything else. I'm not talking legally, I'm talking about the right thing to do. Under no circumstances should he contribute in the slightest way to the notion that the kid is being abandonded by his father. You see, it's not about the father, it's about the kid. You gotta do right by the kid, even when life is unfair (life IS unfair, doncha know?)

[Woahhs]

Jeff, would I be correct if I guessed your age is somewhere under 30?

[Jeff Chandler]

30 is just a speck in the rear-view mirror.

[Jeff Chandler]

Why in the world would you suspect someone espousing a philosophy of honorable behavior for fathers of being so young?

[patriot_wes]

But critics said it would plunge more children into poverty, and Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said it would resurrect the "age-old double standard."

What BS, these kids have fathers! Let the mothers find them and hold the real fathers responsible. And if they don't even know who the real father is maybe they ought to be jailed until they can remember!

[Woahhs]

Then you have my admiration. It is my experience that dying as a martyr is much easier than living as one. Thankless sacrifice is usually rewarded with bitterness.

[niki]

Five years down the road- this man has not been able to have any contact with the kid, there is no longer a father-child relationship, the guy now has a new family and his own kids to support.

He should be forced to take from his kids and support another man's child? And the real father does not have to pay support.

[Woahhs]

Why in the world would you suspect someone espousing a philosophy of honorable behavior for fathers of being so young?

Because such "honorable behavior" is usually pretty thin in the "experience" department. Besides, I question the assertion of "fatherhood" as well as "honorable behavior" by your definition.

[Jeff Chandler]

Why in the world would you suspect someone espousing a philosophy of honorable behavior for fathers of being so young?

Because such "honorable behavior" is usually pretty thin in the "experience" department. Besides, I question the assertion of "fatherhood" as well as "honorable behavior" by your definition.

---

Put yourself in the kid's place. If you have been living with the kid and acting as his father, then you are, as far as the kid is concerned, his father. The kid doesn't care about DNA. You're Dad. If you're Dad one day, how can you (with honor) discard the kid the next? If you loved him as a son (or daughter) one day, how can you not the next? Do you have any idea how that will effect the child who, up until ten seconds ago, was yours? With the kind of  mother posited in the hypothetical, the last thing the kid needs is abandonment by the man he knows as his father.

I think the key to your confusion can be found in your words: Thankless sacrifice is usually rewarded with bitterness. Parenthood, like marriage, or any other loving relationship, is indeed very much about sacrifice. And if you only sacrifice of yourself with the expectation of reward, you don't understand the meaning of parenthood, or even of love itself.

---

I question the assertion of "fatherhood" as well as "honorable behavior" by your definition.

A father is the man who does the job of fathering. Sperm has nothing to do with it.

An honorable man does not abandon his children, even the cuckolded ones. He sucks it up and takes it like a man. (Didn't your father ever explain these things to you?)

[Jeff Chandler]

Five years down the road- this man has not been able to have any contact with the kid, there is no longer a father-child relationship, the guy now has a new family and his own kids to support.

He should be forced to take from his kids and support another man's child? And the real father does not have to pay support.\

I can see your point.

How old was the kid when they broke up? It makes a difference. If he was 3 that's one thing. If he was 10, the man is still Dad to the kid, and the fact that Dad hasn't been allowed to see the kid is the real travesty. How hard did he try, or did he allow his bitterness to impede his efforts? Did the courts let him down?

My point of view is that child support should not be dependent upon visitation, but hampering or denying visitation should be severely punished. As always, it's about the kid, not he parent.