Despite the victim being a man, occassionally justice wins out (via Instapundit).
Labels: men's rights
posted by Helen at 10:49 AM
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Contributors
Previous Posts
- John Hawkins: Blogging While Female.
- Homeschooling: A Boy's Path to Learning English?
- Do Women Lie More?
- David Harsanyi: Where have all the superheroes gone?
- Live Through This
- Percentage of Male Teachers Hits 40-Year Low
- Can Hybrid Cars Interfere with Your Pacemaker?
- The Truth about Domestic Violence
- Is Obama Feminized?
- Are Single Sex Schools Really the Answer?
20 Comments:
Wonderful to hear it!!!!!!
Prevention is being proposed. The usual suspects who are more interested in perception than reality are getting the vapors over it, of course.
Peregrine John,
Thanks for linking to the proposed legislation. From what I read, a DNA test is conducted no matter what...whether the father wants one or not. Being that there are a high percentage of kids who are not the father's biological child,even in married couples, I wonder how this will play out.
Is there any better example of how anti-male the law is than this tale and how this fact can be obscured by a dishonest, spinning media report, typically, written by a woman.
A.
Mr Samuels got screwed big time.
And Ms Evans got virtually everything she wanted-- she lied about paternity, forced him to pay her for 11 years when she knew he wasn't the father, then terminated his legal rights as a father, and then the judge declares that her boyfriend is jointly liable for the back support, ie, he can be held solely liable if she reneges/runs off !
This being a woman-- nice work if you can get it. Just screw everyone and get away with it.
B.
1.
First a woman lies and claims her baby is his and he consents to a court order for child support. Nice , naive, responsible guy --the kind women prey upon.
Ever wonder why the simple naming by a woman of a man as the father is accepted as presumptively true ?- and the courts and state go after him for child support -- on her say so alone ?...
Follow the money-- the goal is to find the nearest available man to support the child so she will not go on AFDC and drain the state treasury. Its an income transfer from men to women-- like most law concerning men and women.
2.
He then pays support for some 11 years .He must be very poor as 14.4 k is really low -- or maybe there is some offset that is not mentioned by our girl reporter.
3.
His rights as a father are terminated by court order when another man shows he is the biological father and assumes the only legal criterion of fatherhood-- the DUTY to support the child..
Thats right-- his rights as the father of the little girl are terminated after paying child support all these years. His relationship with the little girl ? Who cares-- get lost. Men are wallets. Fathers only have financial obligations to women and children-- they don't have rights.
C.
This article deserves some careful review-- because the spin job is so well done.
1. The sub-title
"Parents owe.. in case of mistaken paternity".
It was the WOMAN who lied and named him the father and that was the sole source of his child support obligation.The case is about fraud, which is intentional, as the judge found -- but its a "mistake" here.
Women don't lie and defraud men and then terminate their legal rights as a father-- they make "mistakes".
2. The judge makes a finding of fraud and requires the woman and her boyfirend to pay the child support back apparently from his own sense of injustice. He may not have the power to make such findings and issue such an order. Regardless-- Mr Samuels rights as a father are terminated by a DNA test-- regardless of his relationship with the little girl for 11 years. By law. Thats the story.
3. Ah-- Ms Jarret of the "Child Support Recovery Unit "--
a. "Recovery"-- hilarious-- the "rain forest" used to be the "jungle", too.
This woman is a great liar.
b. This has happened before, she says-- a judge ordering back child support be returned for fraud ? Never. In I think virtually every state, no judge can order that by law.
( Hell-- that would deter women from lying-- and no one wants to stop women from lying-- about rape or domestic violence or anything. )
c. " Usually there is no intent to defraud" because women who sleep with a several men just have no idea who Daddy is ! They have to put a name down-- any name will do. If you don't know who the father is and you then file a case for support with the government naming a man as the father- you are lying. But Ms Jarrett doesn't care if he is the father or not-- she just wants to funnel money from the nearest available man to this woman and her child. Otherwise the state will have to support the "little slut".
Women's idea of being independent of men-- is living apart from them and forcing men to support them . Income transfers from men to women by state action and irrational law. Hear women roar !
d. Our female writer says that Child Support Services "helps" and "assisted" "families"-- no-- they help single women get income transfers from men at the point of a gun.
e. After some 9 years , suddenly the woman and her boyfriend decide to get a DNA test. Why ?
They want to terminate his paternal rights for some reason.
So they get the DNA test, the current boyfriend is the father, they petition the court to establish paternity, and the court terminates Mr. Samuels RIGHTS. SInce he is legally not the father , he can no longer be compelled to pay support. But he also loses all legal rights as a father. Amazing.
f. I love the hearing--
Mr Samuels has never heard of this boyfriend and had no idea she was seeing anyone else. ! Ms Evans claims she asked for a paternity test at birth-- but Mr Samuels REFUSED-- I can see the judge rolling his eyes at that monstrous lie.
Then the judge hold that being a father means you are liable for support from birth . So the boyfriend was liable from birth by definition and he shares her obligation to repay Mr Samuels.
g. Thenwe are back to MS JARRET OF THE GESTAPO FOR MORE LIES--
--oh a man NAMED by a woman can REQUEST a paternity test --
"Request"-- he has to pay for it and hire an attorney, while the state hauls him into court on her uncorroborated word. And most states allow only a narrow window to contest paternity. If you don;t do it then, you are barred from ever presenting DNA evidence that you are not the biological father . For some reason, DNA can terminate your legal rigjhts to a child, but not your legal duties.... Hmmmmm. Obviously there is another agenda than justice.
It gets funnier.
We are told that the Child Support StormTroopers can help with collecting support-- but VISITATION-- ensuring legal rights for men-- sorry -- we refer the "parents" too "mediation". Read-- fuck you, men-- we don't give a damn if you see the child. We only want your money. If you want to see the kid-- get the mother to agree with you and go to private mediation.
Women utilize the power of the state to force child support from men-- men are told to ask the woman if she agrees and then go to a counselor to talk over if the mother wants you to see your child and when it is convenient for her. And nothing has any legal effect.
But Child Support Services does " help fathers with employnment issues " ie, - get a job scumbag and pay up !
This is a very funny article.
* Also--There is a financial reason somewhere why the boyfriend suddenly steps forward to legally declare paternity.
**Mr Samuels finds out his 11 year old daiughter is not his and
his rights as a father are terminated by court order solely on the basis of a DNA test ( amazing how men can show they are NOT the father by DNA test and not only can they not receive back child support-- they must continue to pay child support ! See "Paternity by Estoppel" " "He who acts like a father is a father"-- but only to pay money and "Best Intersts of the Child", where a man cannot get a DNA test because it might harm the child to discover he is not her/his father !!!)
In research in Behavior Genetics-- adoption studies, family studies, etc=-- where it is essential to determine the degree of genetic relatedness of everyone-- researchers typically find from 2-5% of families, married couples, have children in them who are not the father's-- and he is unaware of it.
The father is not told. Some reason is invented for notifying the family that they will not be needed for the research project.
This is rather shocking to most people. As the wife is not merely fooling around, but has actually become pregnant by another man, and passes the child off as her husband's.
( When I was a kid , the child that didn't resemble his brothers and sisters was referedto as ' "the milkman's")
If its 2 % of families-- that sounds low, but think of 2 out of every 100 families in a city-- or a large neighborhood.
I have personal knowledge of situation like in the article, where a high school friend of mine found out after his divorce and several years of child support that his beautiful, beloved daughter of 16-- was , in fact, not his child biologically.
In MS, its irrelevant, like most states I think.
But the pain is compounded by anger at the deception and the idea that justice obviously entails that the support money will be returned and his obligations ceased. But if the child needs it and you have treatede her as your daughter all these years-- obviously you keep paying. Its that damn wife you are angry at.
But getting back support and ceasing future obligations --thats not the law-- as the law rarely serves the ideals of justice, but is primarily a tool to express public policy. Go to law school and you find that the pontifications of lawyers and judges is typically BS-- and reflects public policy choices, usually concerning money, and reflects the reigning political ideology.
That is why the law usually makes no sense-- until you follow the money and look who has political power and who is manipualting the law to serve their ideology.
I have two obeservations:
He won a judgement. He has to collect on it, and will probably have to pay to do so.
Why is the mother's boyfriend having to pay it back too? Let her pay it back - and then let her collect from him.
Better than nothing, I suppose. But still an empty gesture.
It has always been a case of "Mama's Baby - Pappa's Maybe."
This is probably the only case I've heard of where the biological father is ordered to pay back child support. Good. Deception should be punished.
However, there's another side to stories like this. My oldest stepson's girlfriend (now ex-wife) got pregnant 4 years ago. The baby girl was obviously not my stepson's biological daughter but he stepped up. To him, she is his daughter and he's the only daddy she has ever known. To me, she is my granddaughter. You see, I consider my stepsons as my sons. Some bonds are deeper than genetics.
From the article: "Usually there is no intent to defraud, Ms. Jarrett said. Mothers who have had relationships with more than one man might not know who the biological father is without a DNA test."
Dr. Laura once wrote a column using this promiscuity defense to hold women blameless after they have committed paternity fraud. In other words, it's OK if a woman is wrong about who the father is, if the reason is that she was a slut and doesn't actually know.
To lovemelikeareptile:
David Buss has informally cited a study by a female cancer researcher who found a 10% rate were the nominal biological father wasn't the actual biological father.
Question: Does the "informed consent" for the study go so far as to actually tell the participants of this information will be withheld? I suspect that making this public would reduce the pool of potential participants.
"... but he stepped up."
-----
No, he didn't "step up to the plate" like a strong baseball player. That is utter weakness to let that woman simply do whatever she wants and get away with it (on his dime, no less). I also have an idea what his motives are.
Women get away with this crap precisely because men are weak and pussy-whipped.
2nd Lt. A .L. Murphy, ret.:
Very good analysis.
I'd like to see a study showing how much money is flowing from men to women in society. Not just alimony, child support, court-ordered divorce settlements etc., but also inter-spouse transfers, inheritance transfers and informal amounts (i.e. in dating and the like). Plus the net amount taken from men in taxes and given out on a net basis to women in society.
This would be something like the gross national product of a country.
Money is taken from men - who are increasingly being mocked and ridiculed in society - and given to women who are praised for their independence. When in reality a lot of them are sitting on their fat butts watching Oprah. And this is all to create the "illusion" in society that things aren't as they really are.
It likely helped that the biological father was willing to take over payment and have custody of the child.
"Usually there is no intent to defraud, Ms. Jarrett said. Mothers who have had relationships with more than one man might not know who the biological father is without a DNA test."
Funny how these women so often go after the man with the most money.
Mozilla ping.
IE ping
Weird. Everything works now.
JG, you might have a look at this link
http://www.womenslife.net/why.html
and this
http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Household_income_in_the_United_States
and this
http://www.wife.org/primetimewomen.htm
In the consumer sector, women bring in half or more of the income in 55 percent of U.S. households.
In 27 percent of U.S. households, single women are the sole earner, and 30 percent of working wives out-earn their husbands.
Women are estimated to make 80 percent of all household buying decisions. This includes handling the majority of purchasing in such traditionally male categories as investments, automotive, consumer electronics, and home improvement
you have to do a bit of reading back and forth, but the problem is a lot of women will mention 76 cents or 78 or whatever is in vogue. when in reality its all about choice.
it brings to mind an old quote, whats hers is hers, and whats his is hers as well. Women have the legal powers today, women have far more rights, any woman who defrauds a man should pay, fraud is fraud. women like the woman mentioned make men think its not worth it, women are all lying whores/prostitutes, and they are, they use they kids to make money. and a fair few women are like that. Why do you think men are so anti woman on here, because we see stories like that and think, it may happen to me.
The judge ordered the biological father to pay the non biological father. So ultimately, it was another man who got screwed in order to provide justice for this man. If the biological father had not been discovered, I am pretty sure the woman would not have been ordered to pay back the money to the guy from who she swindled all the money.
@redrajesh: The judge ordered the biological father to pay the non biological father. So ultimately, it was another man who got screwed in order to provide justice for this man. If the biological father had not been discovered, I am pretty sure the woman would not have been ordered to pay back the money to the guy from who she swindled all the money."
_____________
I think a more appropriate ruling would have been to order the mother to pay it all back to the father.
The back child support issue should have been resolved in another case or oder.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
xxx383視訊xxx383視訊xxx383視訊xxx383視訊xxx383視訊xxx383視訊xxx383視訊xxx383視訊sex520免費影片sex520免費影片sex888影片分享區sex888影片分享區sex520免費影片sex888影片分享區sex888影片分享區sex888影片分享區sex888影片分享區sex888影片分享區qq美美色網影片qq美美色網免費看qqgirl美美色網情
Post a Comment
<< Home