What if Shriver had to pay for a child that wasn't hers?
So the news is blaring about how Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child with a woman working in their home over ten years ago. While I feel sorry for his wife, Maria Shriver, one thing she does have on her side in this situation is the law. Imagine if she had been a man?
I was watching the Today show about this case and the hosts of the show were all atwitter about how women were so upset by this type of infidelity, to the point it made their skin crawl and anyone should understand. Unfortunately, if you are male in this country and your wife has a child by another man, that's your problem. The women on the show acted as though only men were unfaithful.
Apparently, they never read (or neglected) the studies such as one from U.S. News & World Report stating "Studies of blood typing show that as many as 1 out of every 10 babies born in North America is not the offspring of the mother's husband."
A man has no choice but to pay for a child in this situation should he find out ten years after the fact, or even sooner. Not only does a woman not pay, but I heard a news show saying that Shriver may be entitled to compensation in a divorce if Schwarzenegger paid any support for the child. Imagine the outrage if Shriver was kicked in the gut not only with the news of this illegitimate child but double-kicked when told by the law that she now had to contribute to the child's support until the child was 18? It is unimaginable. Not so for men.
Why is there no similar outrage for men in this situation?
Update: "Schwarzenegger May Not Be the Legal Father Says Celebrity Attorney Andree Taylor" (thanks to the reader who emailed this article).
I was watching the Today show about this case and the hosts of the show were all atwitter about how women were so upset by this type of infidelity, to the point it made their skin crawl and anyone should understand. Unfortunately, if you are male in this country and your wife has a child by another man, that's your problem. The women on the show acted as though only men were unfaithful.
Apparently, they never read (or neglected) the studies such as one from U.S. News & World Report stating "Studies of blood typing show that as many as 1 out of every 10 babies born in North America is not the offspring of the mother's husband."
A man has no choice but to pay for a child in this situation should he find out ten years after the fact, or even sooner. Not only does a woman not pay, but I heard a news show saying that Shriver may be entitled to compensation in a divorce if Schwarzenegger paid any support for the child. Imagine the outrage if Shriver was kicked in the gut not only with the news of this illegitimate child but double-kicked when told by the law that she now had to contribute to the child's support until the child was 18? It is unimaginable. Not so for men.
Why is there no similar outrage for men in this situation?
Update: "Schwarzenegger May Not Be the Legal Father Says Celebrity Attorney Andree Taylor" (thanks to the reader who emailed this article).
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 2:57 PM
108 Comments:
In some US states, I know that Pennsylvania is one (and it is even supported by recent case law), you are required to pay child support if you are the biological father OR you were married to the woman.
Really.
For me, it's just another line item in the long list of reasons not to get married.
If you are a chivalrous dude, you better be REALLY rich (like Paul McCartney) and then it doesn't matter. Otherwise, you're just stupid.
"Studies of blood typing show that as many as 1 out of every 10 babies born in North America is not the offspring of the mother's husband."
-----
I've seen numbers on the Internet a lot higher than that - for instance from blood banks - but I think the number is high enough from whatever source for men to give it a second thought.
But they won't.
Maybe my research is flawed, but it was my understanding that the presumption of paternity is public policy in ALL 50 states and DC.
...and if anyone can explain to me why this ridiculous law is still on the books, when we have both blood and DNA tests, I would love to hear it. As it stands, it just enables women to ruin men's lives...and send them the bill.
Sounds t me like we really do need that "Equal Rights Amendment".
For men who meet women romantically after they have pulled something like this:
Why do you have any interest in even talking to them? I don't even personally want to fuck them. My disgust is too much.
Where are all these desperate men coming from that they can use once again after they have pulled this crap?
@JG:
Please read Chapters 1 and 2 of "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Dr. Robert Glover. You will learn why, due to 50 years of feminism and an education system that is 97% female, this country is FLOODED AND SEETHING with Beta "Nice Guys" who haven't the remotest notion why they have balls in the first place.
Mystery Solved.
Seriously. This country is so f-ing matriarchal and feminized that it's a wonder men even exist at all.
I'd say it's because nice guys get their teeth kicked in.
Let's just say I found foreign mores and amours more to my liking, so I can claim no first hand experience.
There are some wonderful women in this country. (My daughters are two of them. Both taken, sorry.) There are, however, enough clinkers that American women get a bad name.
Foolish people, looking for justice when all you will get are laws.
@:"Studies of blood typing show that as many as 1 out of every 10 babies born in North America is not the offspring of the mother's husband."
@JG said..."I've seen numbers on the Internet a lot higher than that - for instance from blood banks - but I think the number is high enough from whatever source for men to give it a second thought."
______________
I wish we could know the real numbers. It's probably a bit less than 1 in 10, but I doubt it's higher.
Of course, feminists wouldn't have any room to talk after all their 1 in 4 women is raped nonsense. On a side note, I read on Alkon's blog where rape is down 86% percent in the United States since 1991. Under feminists logic, back in the 80s 4 out of 4 women were raped. Crazy huh?
Back on topic, for all feminists nonsense about how bad women have it, if all the female-favoring laws still have them talking like they're living under the Taliban, what in the hell would it take for them to say its fair?
As an ancient Roman once said of marriage, "Sexus ut vos adepto non tanti suscipia stupri."
Actually, the Shriver situation most closely resembles the first wife-second wife conflict or the conflicts often seen in polygynous societies. Wives in the U.S. normally expect that ALL of a man's income/wealth/etc will be used to benefit her and her children. Of course these wives are pissed when they find out that some of it is being diverted to other women's children!
Women in polygynous societies expect this from the start. It's part of getting married in those societies. On the other hand, I've also heard of the income of second wives being used in the determination of child support due the children of the first wife. That just strikes me as adding insult to injury.
As for the 10% percent paternity fraud figure, if you believe Wikepedia, that number is probably too high. Interestingly enough, David Buss gives that figure in the penultimate chapter of the revised version of "The Evolution of Desire", based on data from a female cancer researcher who wished to remain anonymous.
I just finished "Premarital Sex in America" by Regnerus and Uecker. In chapter 3, they cover the Double Standard of male and female conduct, or rather they dance around the issue. I contacted Regnerus and asked him to read Robyn Blumner's Fathers Day 2000 column. I also suggested that he talk with Buss. (They're both at UT-Austin.) His reply was a bit eerie. There was no indication that Regnerus had known about the paternity fraud gotcha for married men when he wrote the book. Regnerus also claimed to have read parts of Buss' book, but seems to have discounted it, just like any good sociologist would.
Ern, you could do us the courtesy of providing a translation.
I'm feeling a bit trollish tonight (sorry Doctor), so here goes:
"Because evolutionary biology has bred men to want to provide support."
Likely men don't complain because they are not important to lawmakers.
Our society says women who complain deserve help, men who complain deserve scorn and ridicule. Is more scorn and ridicule something you want in your life?
For those baffled as to why this unfairness exists....
...you are still assuming that 'feminists' see men as fully humans.
They do not. They view men as a resource to be pillaged, nothing more.
Appealing to any sense of fairness is beyond futile.
ZorroPrimo,
To answer your questions :
1) Feminism is expensive. It takes a ton of money to create the illusions that feminists want to establish as facts.
2) Seizing money from men and giving it to women is the only way. 70-80% of ALL governent spending (SS, Medicare, etc.) is a transfer of money from men to women.
3) Now that biological fathers are being tapped out, the state is going after single guys who might have babysat a child a couple of times. Yes, it is true. No man should have any contact whatsoever with a single mother. The state will find a way to take child-support payments from you.
4) Men have no one to blame but themselves for NOT FIGHTING BACK.
Trust,
, what in the hell would it take for them to say its fair?
They are not actually expecting their demands to be met. Women just make demands for the purpose of 'testing' to see if a man is strong or weak.
You would benefit a lot by reading Roissy's archives for the next 15 days..
Ern, you could do us the courtesy of providing a translation.
Okay, although the translation will probably clarify why I put it in Latin to begin with:
The sex you get isn't worth the fucking that you take.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
Major-General said...
"Likely men don't complain because they are not important to lawmakers."
I disagree. Unfortunately, the implication in men complaining about female behavior is that women are not the Pure and Innocent Victims of Patriarchal Oppression, which has been the only acceptable viewpoint for the past 30 or 40 years. Feminism has taught women that they can be manipulative, hypocritical and treacherous bigots toward men and still be wonderfully caring and giving people. Why? Because men deserve to be punished.
kmg said...
"Men have no one to blame but themselves for NOT FIGHTING BACK."
Bullshit! Why is men withdrawing from interacting with women on an "intimate" level an immoral and untenable response to feminist bigotry? Go take a Learning and Conditioning psychology class. You'll find that attempting to withdraw from painful stimulus is the NORMAL response. There are cultures where men and women live almost completely separate lives. What's wrong with that? I sometimes wonder if men aren't nice to women only because we want to get laid occasionally.
I'm pretty sure that women will be surprised when most or all men openly regard woman with the same contempt that Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly and Catherine Mackinnon have/had for men. And, if, like Glenn and Helen, your only child is a girl, that possibility is probably more than slightly frightening.
@kmg said... You would benefit a lot by reading Roissy's archives for the next 15 days.
__________
My question was more illustrative. I know nothing will satisfy them. It's about power, not equality.
I've read a lot of Roissy.
Given Maria's family background and the proclivities of her family, I wonder if she isn't more angry that Arnold did not have the woman abort the inconvienent child. That sounds more like the Kennedy way.
Trey
"... I wonder if she isn't more angry that Arnold did not have the woman abort the inconvienent child."
-------
There's no need to hurry - they could always send a robot back from the future to terminate her.
Thank you, Ern.
Presumptive paternity goes back to the Middle Ages. It descends from English common law written in the 14th century, during the Cult of Mary (all women are virtuous) and the Age of Chivalry (all men have to prove themselves).
This is the reason why I have never married. There is absolutely no way I'm going to agree to a fully binding legal contract whereby there is even the remote possibility that I have to pay for some other man's bastard. Period.
I read an article some years back that said 1/3 of the paternity tests performed in this country prove that the husband is not the father of the child. So I think the 1/10 number is more than a little low. It should be more like 3/10.
It's 10:00 PM. Do you know where your wife is?
Good one JG. I laughed.
Trey
GawainsGhost said...
"I read an article some years back that said 1/3 of the paternity tests performed in this country prove that the husband is not the father of the child. So I think the 1/10 number is more than a little low. It should be more like 3/10."
The 3/10 figure typically comes from self-selected samples where the men already suspect cuckoldry by the women. Clearly the men are often right. The 1/10 figure is typically from a more random sample and should be more indicative of the population as a whole. In Buss' case, the original research pertained to the genetics of breast cancer.
Well, that number comes from married men who were smart enough to ask for a patertinity test. Who knows what the actual number is. I suspect it's much higher than most people are willing to admit.
I do know this. Almost every girl I dated had a boyfriend. But none of them hesitated to go out or to a hotel room with me. Think it's any different for married women? Please.
There are literally millions of men in this country paying child support for children they did not conceive.
Ern 7:59 AM "Okay, although the translation will probably clarify why I put it in Latin to begin with...."
I've been slowly learning just how foul-mouthed those great Roman writers were.
Sarah Ruden writes about this in her recent book "Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time". (The book is about how her Classical scholarship led her to new insights into the language of the New Testament.)
Trust:
You are "hoping" the number is less than 1 in 10 doesn't make it so, just "hoping" out loud muddies the conversation.
BobH
You said "I sometimes wonder if men aren't nice to women only because we want to get laid occasionally."
The joke is this: Why do women have vaginas? Answer: So men will talk to them.
I have heard tell of a guy who married a women who had children from her previous marriage. After 6 months he adopted her children. 6 months later she divorced him, asked for and got child support. Men who were victims of rape have been required to pay child support.
Women are far more likely to marry a man for money and not for love. They are likely to stay with a man they don't even like because leaving a gravy train is too much work. At least whores are honest about what they are doing.
I am intrigued by all this. I have seen a picture of the little boy, and he looks just like Arnold with a big smile. cute as a button. It seems, everyone knew.
I would advise Maria to move to a house a half mile from Arnold and continue whatever relationship is comfortable. I would advise them to welcome this new ten year old to the family and make sure everyone understands that the kids now have an enormous cool family, lots of other kids to have fun with. Sure Arnold strayed but he always was a skirt chaser and this is Hollywood. let's not get on some stupid high horse because AS strayed a decade ago. Every child should be loved and wanted, and I bet this kid turns into a star.
Returning to the question in the post, it seems to be that the law treats men and women differently and so why don’t men demand to be treated by the standard currently applied to women. For one thing, I’d prefer to see the standard applied to men also be applied to women and not vice versa. You shouldn’t get married if you plan on taking only the benefits of your partnership and refusing to deal with the rest. Nobody’s perfect or perfectly selfless and inevitably you will be faced with the consequences of some decision your partner made that was clearly not in your own best interest. Maria Shriver might feel humiliated, betrayed and angry, but it shouldn't follow that such feelings relieve her from having to share in the cost of her spouse’s extramarital child.
Isn't California a marital property state? Each share the debts and wealth of the other. However, in a divorce settlement she should ask that child support comes from Arnold's share of the split.
Weren't her denials of his womanizing instrumental in his getting elected? At least California is a desert, and there weren't any narrow bridges to drive over in the middle of the night.
Niamh said...
Child support laws pin responsibility to presumed and putative fathers (including men married to women having another man's baby) to protect the children, not necessarily to punish the men or to support feminism.
Effing incredible. Do you really believe the bullshit you have written? After the woman betrays her husband and her marriage vows, now she is worried about the child? Try not getting pregnant by violating your marriage vows and the trust of your husband. How about not screwing around with other men when you're married? Want to do that "marital act" with a man your not married to? Get a divorce. If the "mother" was really worried about the well being of her child she would have said child with her husband. Or not have children at all. Children deserve to grow up in a loving home with their biological parents. Those parents have obligations to each other and to their children to create a loving home. Any woman who would be so self-indulgent to have a child fathered by somebody other than her husband lacks the moral standing necessary to be entrusted with raising a child.
Truly entitled. Women can do what they want with whomever they want and some sap will pick up the pieces and shut up while doing so.
There are two issues here. The first is the mistaken belief that the presumption of paternity is irrebutable. In Georgia, the only jurisdiction I can speak with authority, a genetic test that establishes the putative father is not the biological father would, absent mitigation (prior knowlege or consent) relieve the man of a legal obligation to support the child.
All well and good, the men can stand up and cheer.
But what about the kid? If you've been raising a child as your own for ten years and discover upon divorce it is not yours, do you abandon that child who sees you as father? The wife might have hoodwinked the father, but the father is an adult and (in theory) can deal with the trauma of his wife's infidelity, but the tender child... how much therapy is (s)he going to need to recover the multiple shocks of divorce, the infidelity, and suddenly, through no fault of his or her own, a father who suddenly denies the love and relationship the child has always relied upon.
If one has the choice between paying child support and maintaining a relationship with the putative child and not paying child support and ruining that child's life I think the better man chooses the relationship, which will last a lifetime, over child support, which will end in a few years.
@Ern,
Thanks for the quote - can you tell which Roman(?) it was that gave us this pearl of wisdom? I might need to see if he has any more nuggets...
Now, the flip side of being financially responsible for a child is that the putative or presumed father also gets to have custody of the child.
You'd have a point if the father actually got real custody of the child. Since the best most such men can ever get is "joint custody," it's still pure, unmitigated injustice.
Why don't these laws treat women the same way?
For the rather obvious biological reason that maternity is easily established at birth. So Maria Shriver could never be in such a position because she wouldn't have lived for ten years assuming she was the child's parent.
You can disagree with the policy of not allowing fathers to challenge paternity at any time, but don't pretend it's some equal rights issue.
It's like asking why men aren't protected by public breastfeeding laws.
Niamh said...
"Child support laws pin responsibility to presumed and putative fathers (including men married to women having another man's baby) to protect the children, not necessarily to punish the men or to support feminism.
"While it is technically unfair to require a man to pay for a child that he thought was his because he was married to the mother during her conception, pregnancy, birth and 10 years thereafter; it would be even more unfair to tell the now 10 year old child 'hey, I know we all thought that I was your daddy, and you've bonded with me, but since the DNA tests have excluded me - TOUGH LUCK!'"
I've heard that argument before and absolutely reject it. The plain fact is that the woman has deliberately or otherwise committed FRAUD. The kid being rejected is not being victimized by the man or men but rather by the mother, who gets away with no social sanctions. That woman should be sent to jail for several years but, of course, that would "injure" her innocent child(ren), so it'll never happen. Do you suppose that a man's innocent children aren't also "injured" when he goes to jail, for example, for armed robbery?
Women have a nifty racket going.
Presumption of paternity did not originate from the feminist movement, and it's a recent invention. In fact, in recent years (see, for example, the Ben Wyrembek case) there have been increased challenges to the principle of presumption of paternity.
The good thing is that genetic testing for paternity is getting cheap and easily available. Recently a guy I know, who had been paying child support for two kids for quite awhile married the mother of a third kid. She insisted on genetic testing, and, surprise, surprise, the second kid wasn't his.
The usual problem though is that if you wait, genetic testing usually doesn't help. Why? Because the law in many states has determined that the good of the child overrides the rights of the father, and society doesn't want to support that kid.
CA has traditionally been at the forefront of this nonsense. There was a week of Day by Day cartoons awhile back on this - one of the main characters, Sam, got served for paternity. Ultimately, Sam was able to disprove paternity by flashing her breasts at the judge.
Which is part of what was going on in CA - women would have all the guys in the phone book served who had similar names, and then one of them wouldn't show up in court. He would, by default judgment, be determined by the court to be the father, and be stuck paying child support for the next 18 years for the kid of some woman he had never met.
But, as I said above, genetic testing is now cheap enough that these sorts of scams by women are going to start drying up.
Most people don' know how 'child support' (aka stealth alimony) really works. For one thing, it transfers the tax burden onto the man.
Read here for a mathematical walkthrough of how child support works.
CS is as close to slavery as has existed in America in the last 140 years. It is exceptionally well-designed by feminists to enslave men, and call all critics as 'anti-children'.
You can disagree with the policy of not allowing fathers to challenge paternity at any time, but don't pretend it's some equal rights issue.
You're absolutely right. It's an issue of adultery. Our society hypocritically demands that the government regulate every aspect of married life except adultery because heaven forbid that the state actually punish sexual immorality between consenting adults. Nevermind the fact that the cheated spouse never consented to the violation of their legally-recognized marriage.
"it would be even more unfair to tell the now 10 year old child ..." -- Niamh
I agree. Just what kind of person would do this their spouse for 10 years as well a child, their own child, for the same length of time. At the very least it's fraud, and I hardly think it out of line to dare call it child abuse. Just what punishment should such a heinous woman face for such things? A strongly worded letter from a judge that frowns on her shenanigans?
"The man who has financial responsibility without biological connection can then use his custody rights to make the life of the mother (and possibly the child) a living hell."
Absolutely, after paying for her lawyer due his debt bondage -- that's slavery, yo -- levied against him without a criminal conviction -- Lincoln lost -- he'll just rush right out with his new found fortune buy one for himself as well. A real his and hers set.
The problem here is that we're forcing one victim to pay compensation to a second independent victim by giving the money to the perp. As you're a wise chica in the legal profession perhaps you could give us your opinion on how that would truck with rape?
Ya know, have one rape victim pay victim's comp to another by having the state destitute her to give money to the rapist. We all cool with that or what?
Women have a nifty racket going.
But when the costs come back to women, it will be severe.
Who becomes criminals? The children of single mothers.
Who are the easiest victims of such criminals? Single mothers.
There is a reason that nosociety that deviates from traditional monogamous marriage (which only works if it is a good enough deal for the MAN), survives very long.
CS is as close to slavery as has existed in America in the last 140 years.
What about the draft?
It is laughable when 'feminists' claim to care about children.
1) No one who cares about children would encourage the split-up of the child's parents, which always puts the cild at a disadvantage in life.
2) No one who cares about children would advocate partial-birth abortion, or push for the next level of feminist desire - the 'right' for the woman to 'abort' a child up to 3 years AFTER birth. Also known as infanticide. Or murder.
Yes, 'feminists' want to expand partial-birth to 'post-birth abortion'.
What about the draft?
Bullshit. The draft is not as severe as men being enslaved by their ex-wives on a 'no-fault' basis.
So a man is enslaved simply because SHE does not love him?
That women are OK with this effectively proves that no society can survive 100 years of women voting. If you disagree, check back on the state of America in 2019.
Milwaukee - you're battling a strawman. Niamh did not say the woman is suddenly concerned with the child. He/she said society and laws have been concerned with support for the child since the middle ages.
A "Non-paternal event" is one of the most interesting and frustrating connections in genealogy now that DNA testing is available.
Frankly, I was rather pleased to learn that 90% of children born to a married couple can know their biological parents were married to each other.
Another point that Niamh made was a compliment to men in general. That is that it's not unusual for males to care for, raise, and support children that they know (or at least suspect) may not be theirs biologically.
Jane said...
"Presumption of paternity did not originate from the feminist movement, and it's a recent invention. In fact, in recent years (see, for example, the Ben Wyrembek case) there have been increased challenges to the principle of presumption of paternity."
You might want to tell Robyn Blumner that, 'cause she seems to think otherwise...and she's a lawyer.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/061800/Perspective/Can_it_truly_be_Fathe.shtml
(How many times have I posted this URL on one of these threads...six maybe?) As far as I know, paternity fraud is actually illegal in only one state, Maryland, because a single prosecutor took a case all the way to that state's supreme court, with a question: Do the details of this case fit the State of Maryland's legal definition of fraud. The court said yes. There are maybe five more states where the guy can get out of child support payments. In the other 45, including NY, where I live, men are told "TOUGH LUCK!".
In Bobh's link Gerald Miscovich got divorced knowing that he and his wife, both blue eyed, had somehow produced a brown eyed child. For what ever reason he didn't raise his reasonable suspicion during the divorce. He let the presumption of paternity go unchallenged and through that choice became legally liable to support the child, so he's hardly a poster boy for "paternity fraud"
By the same token, Mrs. Miscovich probably had a good idea that Gerald wasn't the true father, but accepting Gerald's decision not to challenge paternity may not be so much fraud on her part as it was a recognition of his willingness to be the child's father.
the idea that the state has to protect men from this sort of "paternity fraud" is unfounded. Gerald had the opportunity to protect himself and chose not to.
the idea that the state has to protect men from this sort of "paternity fraud" is unfounded. Gerald had the opportunity to protect himself and chose not to.
I think that one reason that women were able to hide paternity and cuckold their husbands in the past is that it was all done within a small community, many of which had limited genetic diversity. If everyone in town is a blue eyed blond, then another such would not likely be noted. Today though many have much broader genetic opportunities, and it is becoming ever more evident that women cheat too, and, yes, stick their husbands with the support for their children by other men.
My theory is that women have always done this sort of thing. Not all women, of course, but enough women to significantly affect societal morality. Women cheating on their husbands is most likely a significant reason why adulterers are still executed in some societies.
What must be remembered is that when a woman has another man's child, and then his husband pays to raise it, the husband expends scarce resources furthering some other guy's genes.
Someone suggested an evolutionary reason that men will sometimes willfully support children they know are not theirs. Someone else suggested this is noble. I agree with the evolutionary argument; namely, the woman is known to be fertile if she already has a baby.
Child support is not stealth alimony, it is one-man welfare reform. Rather than the state pay welfare, individual men do. Any argument that this is for the good of the child ignores the fact that the wayward woman is paid the child-support, and the alpha male gets off scot-free.
Hunt Brown said:
>If one has the choice between
>paying child support and
>maintaining a relationship with
>the putative child and not paying
>child support and ruining that
>child's life I think the better
>man chooses the relationship,
>which will last a lifetime, over
>child support, which will end in
>a few years.
The issue here is that it is NOT the man's choice.
The real result in 49/50 states is that a man who is not the father is put in debt bond peonage by the state -- which gets a percentage -- for 18 years AND HE IS DENIED ANY CUSTODY RIGHTS.
The family courts 99% of the time fail to enforce a father's visitation rights when a mother frustrates them with no penalty to the Mother.
The usual result is that the mother leaves the state the chuckhold is in, and then files for non-payment in the new state.
Further, let be clear, the person who ruined the child's life is the woman who committed fraud upon both the chuckhold man AND THE CHILD WHO WAS DENIED A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS _REAL_BIRTH_FATHER_.
Weren't her denials of his womanizing instrumental in his getting elected?
Yes, they were. Shriver liked the power and prestige her husband's position afforded her. Now that he's out of office and can no longer offer her those benefits she's throwing him under the bus.
The first is the mistaken belief that the presumption of paternity is irrebutable
Georgia is just about the only jurisdiction where that's true. There are 49 other states (plus territories) where it isn't.
I think the solution to this problem is fairly simple. Require genetic testing at birth to determine paternity. Allow married couples to "opt out" by signing an agreement to that effect that by waiving the paternity test he is surrendering his legal rights to challenge paternity in the future and in the event of the dissolution of the marriage, he will be responsible for child support. At the same time, put laws on the books of every state getting rid pf presumptive paternity via marriage and make false claims of paternity fraud under the criminal (not civil code) so that some poor guy walking down the street doesn't get nailed when some slut needs a convenient name to put on the birth certificate. (Assuming no presumptive father is standing by at the birth.)
Getting rid of all presumptions under state and federal law that "marriage" somehow confers government benefits or obligations would be a good start along with drastically scaling back the power of family court judges.
Ron -
It was actually a neighbor of mine about fifteen years ago when I was living in Silicon Valley, and I think it unlikely that it was original with him. The ancient Roman thing was partly a joke and partly an excuse to put it into Latin to avoid using the f-word.
k said...
I think the solution to this problem is fairly simple. Require genetic testing at birth to determine paternity. Allow married couples to "opt out" by signing an agreement to that effect that by waiving the paternity test he is surrendering his legal rights to challenge paternity in the future and in the event of the dissolution of the marriage, he will be responsible for child support.
Pre-nuptial agreements are ineffective in many states because of the presumption of coercion in forcing the woman to sign. Asking a father to give up the right to contest paternity at birth is asking them to waive a huge right when he is in a vulnerable position. What father, believing the child just born is theirs, is going to ask for a paternity test or forever give up that right?
Con men know that it is easy to cheat somebody who trusts you. The man trusts the woman and gets shaken down. Plenty of men have done the same to women. Unfortunately women seem to have laws that better enable the women in their fraud.
It's very simple really. The biological father should be required to pay child support.
That's the way it is for single men, unless you have an affair with a married woman of course.
In Casino Royale James Bond indicated he preferred married women, as there were fewer complications, for him.
Before wide spread use of oral contraceptives promiscuous behavior by women was dangerous because of the risk of pregnancy. If a woman gets pregnant she can get an abortion without the fathers permission. He can not force her into an abortion. He has no say in the matter, and is on the hook for child support if she has the baby.
You write laws that put the burden of responsibility on the responsible party(ies). Otherwise you have something completely outside the pale of what this country was ever supposed to be.
I know a couple that decided to call one kid the limit, so the guy had a vasectomy. He was busting my chops one night over beer about how I am "afraid of commitment" (cue hysterical laughter and a lecture on no-fault divorce). I asked him if he knew what presumptive paternity was. Big shock, he never heard of it. Brief lecture on PP. The smile melted from his face when I said that his wife could literally get pregnant from some other guy (she'd have to, since he's shooting blanks) and he would be legally and financially responsible for the kid. I made him Google it in front of his friends. He's never busted my chops for staying single again.
And he really, really hates it when I send roses to his wife.
...and if anyone can explain to me why this ridiculous law is still on the books, when we have both blood and DNA tests, I would love to hear it.
It reduces welfare. That's it. If you whine and cry about the cost of welfare in this country be sure to give yourself a pat on the back for ensuring the continuation of such policies - because you are responsible for their continuance. If conservatives and libertarians didn't whine so much about the cost of welfare, these policies would no longer exist. These policies exist because someone actually does have to pay for that kid. Since the actual fathers of those kids are probably no longer in the picture (if their identities are even known) and since conservatives don't like welfare, the only other source of money is the guys that these whores are married to. Want to put an end to it? Demand that the state pick up the tab for these kids until the actual fathers can be found. Otherwise, shut up!
JG --
"Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound."
Got that right. When I ran my stunt group, our motto was Innocentibus Tutandi Non Illis Stipabimur.
GawainsGhost sez: "I do know this. Almost every girl I dated had a boyfriend. But none of them hesitated to go out or to a hotel room with me. Think it's any different for married women? Please."
--------
I had a big post prepared. I decided not to post it.
Instead: It's my opinion that lots of married women fuck around. Really. Even the ones you wouldn't suspect.
Here's the real deal:
If you get married, just do what she says.
She has the big club of divorce swaying behind her back. You know it, and she especially knows it.
Of course it's unfair, but no one cares. You are going to work for her. You are a wage slave. She is your boss. A little different than you suspected? Tough shit.
"The problem here is that we're forcing one victim to pay compensation to a second independent victim by giving the money to the perp."
Concise and too true.
If the father is to be responsible for the child he had the emotional but no biological relationship then he should be awarded custody of the child. It would be in the child's best interest.
If the dad could not serve as father because he was too hurt by the fraud and betrayal, then he should be free to leave. The sins of the mother are visited upon her children too.
Trey
"Instead: It's my opinion that lots of married women fuck around. Really. Even the ones you wouldn't suspect. "
What ever happened to the good old days when if a man found his wife in bed with another guy he could shoot both of them on the spot and it was justified? That's why we need double barreled shotguns. I am pretty sure pump-action shotguns don't come with double barrels.
Planned Parenthood does plenty of abortions for minor girls who were impregnated by a man old enough to make it statutory rape. But there are no prosecutions. Lots of "immaculate conceptions" out there, no fathers around. This whole business sounds like a game of hot potato. The sap who marries a cheating woman is caught holding the hot potato, and he pays. In the case of the African-American community, where 70% of households with children are single parent households, the welfare system is subsidizing this behavior.
Where are the comments from the players? The men who are accomadating the cheating wives? Seems like most of the men commenting are ones who have been burned.
J. Bowen,
Otherwise, shut up!
You are a slimy mangina. You just refuse to hold women to any standard of accountability, which makes women hate men like you.
Things should be back to where they were in the old days - a woman who as pregnant out of wedlock was on her own. That reduced unwanted pregnancies by a lot.
No welfare. No child support. Natural law. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you don't subsidize it, you get less of it.
Gawain'sGhost,
It's very simple really. The biological father should be required to pay child support.
Ah...hence the many attempts by women to trap men into pregnancies by stealing used condoms, etc. 21 years of free support awaits.
Plus, these idiots think that 'child support' is spent on the child, when it is really a percentage of the man's income (see link further up).
Idiots who think like GG are the reason over a million innocent men are in jail today.
This supports my assertion that 'conservatives' will support any and all leftism that can be packaged as 'chivalry'. Chivalry repels women, but conservatives don't know that.
Note how these fools just cannot bring themselves to hold women to any standard of conduct.
"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability."
Pearls.
I am not an idiot. I just know women, because I've been on thousands of dates with hundreds of them. I just refuse to buy their bullshit.
And as far as marriage goes, I disagree with the terms and conditions of the contract.
I'm a broker. I've negotiated high dollar deals with multi-millionaires.
It's very simple really. You have two parties. One, the man, does not agree to the terms and conditions of the contract. The other, the woman, insists on the terms and conditions of the contract. Why? Because it gives her power.
This is a deal that cannot be made. You're a broker, what are you going to do? Because you don't get paid unless a deal is made.
The only solution is to change the terms and conditions of the contract.
Presumptive paternity is off the table. There is no way I would agree to that, not knowing women the way I do. No fault divorce is out the door. The marriage contract as currently written is a license for abandonment, betrayal and bankruptcy.
She can't abandon me, she can't betray me, she can't bankrupt me, if I don't marry her. Only a complete fool would give a woman that kind of power over him.
I'm shocked, I really am, at how few men understand the simple solution. Change the law. Absent that, marriage is a loser's game, especially in today's court system.
I'm rich. I make a lot of money. I don't carry debt. I also don't pay child support for some bastard who isn't mine.
I'm a man. I know what I'm doing. I am fully aware that any time I engage in a sexual relationship a child could be the result. And I accept that responsibility without question. I will support and raise any child that I conceive. I am not about to support and raise every child she conceives.
You always know who the mother is. You never know who the father is. It's an old saying with much wisdom.
@KMG: Keeping living in your imaginary world where women are held accountable because you think they should be. In the real world, where everyone actually does live, women are allowed to do this because someone has to pay for their bastard children. The money in question can come from one of three places: the actual father, whatever guy the skank happens to be married to, and/or the government (aka, everyone else). In these cases, the actual father is probably not around anymore or was never known in the first place, which leaves only two options: whatever guy the skank happens to be married to and/or the government. Well guess what, conservatives and (to a much lesser degree) libertarians have had some partial success in keeping the cost of welfare down by limiting who can get what and how much they can get. So guess what, that leaves only one option: whatever guy the skank happens to be married to.
It doesn't matter what you, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, or anyone else opposed to welfare thinks ought to be done about this. The fact is, politics demands that someone pay for those bastard children because most people don't want to see them eating bugs out of the ground - which is what will happen if nobody pays for those bastard kids. Bills have been introduced to combat this problem and they're always killed because politics demands that those bastard children not die of starvation. Until conservatives and libertarians and Republicans and men's rights groups and whoever else is opposed to welfare programs demand that welfare programs be dramatically expanded (which means higher taxes) to make sure that those bastard children don't starve, this problem will not go away. And until they all do that, they are just as responsible as those skanks for what those skanks are getting away with. That is reality, so get used to it.
I think you'll find, J Bowen, that when you take away someone's parachute, they're much less likely to jump out of the aircraft. It is, in fact, the profluence of parachutes that is behind the mass defection from otherwise perfectly decent aircraft.
So let's not resort to hyperbole and blaming the pilot.
J. Bowen said...
...and if anyone can explain to me why this ridiculous law is still on the books, when we have both blood and DNA tests, I would love to hear it.
It reduces welfare.,
That myth has been shattered many times. Study after study has shown that the lack of child support is not putting or keeping women on welfare.
It's pretty simple. Poor women tend to have babies with poor men. You can't get blood from a poor turnip no matter how hard you try.
Politics make strange bedfellows. Men's Rights have two enemies ... the feminazis who want to drain the men ... And the social conservative who are stuck in a Victorian Age mindset. They put women and motherhood upon a pedestal and worship them. Both the feminazis and the socons blame the men.
The money in question can come from one of three places: the actual father, whatever guy the skank happens to be married to, and/or the government
What happened to place #4: the mother? She neither secured the cooperation of the man by getting him to marry her, nor was she responsible enough to have sex with a guy whom she knows. Her penalty for being stupid is paying for the kid herself.
when you take away someone's parachute, they're much less likely to jump out of the aircraft
We have a phrase for that: moral hazard. Similarly, were auto liability insurance mandated to have unlimited payouts one would expect driver behavior to deteriorate.
Allowing women to cuckold, (forcing men to pay child support for children that aren't theirs), the men they enter into long-term relationships with disincentivises men from going into a long-term relationships with women altogether.
While the courts may think they are acting in the interests of children, in the long run they will harm children greatly as there will be no men around at all to provide for them as they will all have adapted and became cads rather then providers, so as not to be exploited by unscruplulous women.
Social marxism is going to do to society what economic marxism did to the economy of the Soviet Union.
@Chris_3721:
Precisely. Judging by the freefall of marriage and the rise of the pickup artist coterie, it won't be long before the lefty idiots try to issue sex licenses to men (England is getting close to just that). If marriage isn't repaired to be equitable to both parties, it will continue to die a quick death and we'll become a nation of single mother families.
But, hey, that's just what Hillary & Co want, anyway, right? And men will have to pay a "male tax" to subsidize the daycare industry.
I'm just glad I'll be dead before I have to see it happen.
Hunt Brown sez: "There are two issues here. The first is the mistaken belief that the presumption of paternity is irrebutable. In Georgia, the only jurisdiction I can speak with authority, a genetic test that establishes the putative father is not the biological father would, absent mitigation (prior knowlege or consent) relieve the man of a legal obligation to support the child."
-------
As I wrote above, that's not true in some states, Pennsylvania being one of them. You can be ordered to pay child support if you were married to the woman, regardless of whether you are the biological father or not.
Also, I have *heard* that in California (anyone here who knows about family law in California?) you can be ordered to pay child support if you have a "substantial bond" with the women (i.e. you live with her in a sexual relationship or the like).
I don't know if that's true or not, but I don't doubt that legislatures are moving that way for whatever chivalrous reason.
" Study after study has shown that the lack of child support is not putting or keeping women on welfare."
Subsidizing women to have children without a father is what keeps women on welfare. We pay them to stay on it. Benjamin Franklin said that a country that cares about it's poor will make the uncomfortable in their poverty.
Here we make them fat.
Trey
@ZorroPrimo
"And men will have to pay a "male tax" to subsidize the daycare industry."
But if there is no point in men being providers, then there is no point in them earning more than the bare minimum to survive. It'll be pretty hard to tax that to pay for state-wide support of children. Furthermore, men without posessions or families can be quite dangerous as they have nothing to lose, and lots to gain from acting like criminal, thuggish badboys in order to impress women. I predict a future of ever increasing crime and ever decreasing public services as the feminist establishment consumes itself.
I wonder if the women who intitiated this and the women who are complicit in it will one day realise, "Shit, we killed the goose that layed the golden eggs!"
...and I forgot another detail. If things actually get THAT bad, you'll see men in the mid 20s having vasectomies by the drove.
One way or another, Abdullah is going to come out wildly ahead in the birth rate contest.
It strikes me that the bitter men here at Dr. Helen's place are really nothing more that extremely strong Looser Magnets ... seriously strong. The claims they make regarding relationship with women prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I relish the thought of something striking you.
chris_3721: Child support can be ordered based on "imputed income". That means - probably in violation of the 13th Amendment - that you either get a job or you will go to jail. Really.
Quasimodo: Maybe it's venting, maybe you're all above us here (then why are you here?), maybe stuff like this happens. Can I guess that you're fairly young?
Quasimodo,
So any man who dares complain about women or the injustice of the law against men is labeled by you as a "Looser Magnet"? "Looser Magnets" in my book are those men and women who believe that unjust laws are justified if someone is male.
"Imputed income" is this: If a man has been making 100K and decides not to pay alimony or child support, and so loses his job on purpose, he is still required to pay. If the man loses his job through no fault of his own, he is still responsible to pay. Thus the surgeon can't all of a sudden become a beach bum to avoid paying.
what, then, is the unjust law? is requiring non-custodial parents to pay child support unjust? is it unjust to require a father to either challenge the presumption of paternity or accept it unjust?
I see the law as fairly neutral in those regards.
I imagine that alot of the angst surrounding this is the fear of the unjust woman who knows she has foisted another man's child upon her husband... but that's not an unjust law, that's an unjust woman.
and in many instances, despite her betrayal, she may not know the child is not her husbands, and he may not want to know, he may want to continue a relationship with his step-child, and that means playing the role of father both emotionally as well as financially.
What I don't understand is why this conversation cannot be had without the ad hominem attacks, (mangina and loser magnets) the blatant misogyny, and the unsupported statements regarding the law and its application when it comes to custody and child support.
"Thus the surgeon can't all of a sudden become a beach bum to avoid paying."
But he could always not become a surgeon in the first place.
Hunt Brown:
There's a real undertone to your comments.
If a woman foists another's kid upon her husband, why should the money come from him? The undertone in your comments is that the woman is too weak and stupid to earn good money herself to pay for everything.
If that's the case - that women are stupid and weak - then out with it. Have the courage of your convictions, Bubby. Let's see how that one plays out.
Otherwise, I think that women can be treated like men in this regard. I have seen how fathers with custody are treated - they have to pay for everything. That's reality. Let's introduce the Little Lady to reality, and she may have to adjust.
Don't forget that a woman has TOTAL control over the process.
If she gets pregnant, she can abort it, or dump it at a fire station or police station ("Safe Haven Laws") or adopt it out or even friggin' kill it without getting much more than house arrest in many cases. Or she can decide to make the man pay for it.
Dumpling has all of the choices at her disposal.
I'm a believer in the principle that responsibility should be attached to authority in any area, and that absolutely conflicts with the present-day situation regarding child support. Woman has 100% of the choices and authority, men has 100% of the responsibility.
Sorry, I don't think women are that weak and stupid.
If a woman foists another's kid upon her husband, why should the money come from him?
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL STATES, BUT GENERALLY THE RIGHT ANSWER ON THE BAR EXAM IS THAT A FATHER CAN CHALLENGE PATERNITY AT THE TIME OF DIVORCE. USE IT OR LOSE IT. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STICKING YOUR HEAD IN THE GROUND AND HAVING A CHILD FOISTED UPON YOU
The undertone in your comments is that the woman is too weak and stupid to earn good money herself to pay for everything.
I APPRECIATE THAT IS HOW YOU HAVE INTERPRETED MY COMMENT
If that's the case - that women are stupid and weak - then out with it. Have the courage of your convictions, Bubby. Let's see how that one plays out.
THAT'S YOUR STRAW MAN, I'LL LET YOU KNOCK HIM DOWN
Otherwise, I think that women can be treated like men in this regard. I have seen how fathers with custody are treated - they have to pay for everything.
MY EXPERIENCE IS DIFFERENT. I HAVE WON SOLE CUSTODY FOR FATHERS AS OFTEN AS JOINT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE PARENTS KNOW WHO THE CAREGIVER TO THE CHILDREN IS AND THAT PERSON USUALLY RETAINS CUSTODY.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Looser magnets" s/b "Loser magnets"
Grammar Nazi signing off.
ZorroPrimo:
I just ignore it now. So many people write "looser" for "loser".
A "looser magnet" would be a magnet that is more loose, kind of wobbly, than a different magnet.
I used to care.
jg, the caps suggest I'm not proficient in nor confident of my ability to use html code.
if you want to know more about me and my qualifications I suggest you either click on the blogger link or go to "gooddivorces.com"
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quasimodo is part of the 'third gender' that is forming in the West - the mangina.
Here is the role of the mangina :
Women want to have sex with PUAs
PUAs want to have sex with women.
Quasimodo gets to pay the bills.
Everybody wins!
Husband: Where have you been until this late hour?
Wife: I was shopping, there was a midnight madness sale at the mall.
Husband: Why is there alcohol on your breath?
Wife: They had a free wine and cheese tasting at the sale.
Husband: Why is you blouse on inside out?
Wife: I must have put it on that way when I was trying on blouses.
Husband: Where's the stuff you bought?
Wife: I didn't find anything I liked. Aren't you glad I didn't spend any money?
Husband: Hmmm.
Wife: Don't you trust me?
A man will believe anything if he really, really wants to.
I think you'll find, J Bowen, that when you take away someone's parachute, they're much less likely to jump out of the aircraft.
Again, in the real world that we all actually live in (versus the make-believe world that you want to live in), the parachute isn't going away. Those women are going to get money from someone, and that someone will either be the actual fathers (who, in many cases aren't around), the guys they're married to, or the government. There are plenty of solutions to this problem in the make-believe world where you are free to create the rules that govern politics. My god, we could shoot the women, have the government take away all of their kids, mandate DNA testing at every live birth, force the women to return the child support, and so on. But we don't live in that make-believe world. We live the real world and in the real world those women have to get money from somewhere, so get over the idea of them not getting money from either the government or whatever guys they happen to be married to.
That myth has been shattered many times. Study after study has shown that the lack of child support is not putting or keeping women on welfare.
Tell that to former governor Gray Davis who, in his veto message for AB2240, a bill intended to provide relief for victims of paternity fraud, said:
Personal service, as required in the bill, would establish a higher standard of service for paternity actions than all other civil actions. This higher standard does not directly address paternity fraud or prevent fraud in the future but instead would adversely impact the establishment of paternities. Thousands of paternity judgments are established timely each year by serving individuals by substitute service or by mail. The bill’s requirement of personal delivery service would severely delay this process, but more important, would provide biological fathers the ability to evade service of process [my emphasis], preventing the establishment of paternity in the majority of these cases and allowing the avoidance of parental responsibilities. This would directly impact child support collections and would jeopardize California’s ability to meet federally required performance measures putting California at risk of losing up to $40 million in federal funds. [emphasis added]
In addition, AB 2240 has substantial federal compliance problems that would adversely affect California. The bill’s requirement of a paternity questionnaire, signed by the
mother, would prevent the filing of a paternity action in cases against the father if the mother is deceased or unavailable, or if she simply refuses to cooperate. This would prevent moving ahead on cases even if other evidence establishes paternity. This would also apply to foster care cases where federal law requires the establishment of paternity and child support. AB 2240 would prevent California from proceeding on a large number, if not most, of foster care cases, putting California out of compliance with federal law.
This is about money. Many states depend upon federal grants to support their child support systems. If the states can't declare the guys these whores are married to to be the fathers of those bastard children, then they can't declare any guy to be the father of those bastard children when the actual father isn't known. That means states lose tens of millions of dollars in federal grants - which means those states have to raise taxes to pay for the welfare that those women will surely need...because those women are going to need it when their husbands divorce them and they're left to pay for those kids on their own.
This is about money. It's that simple. And that money is going to come from somewhere. And, as former-governor Gray Davis made clear, the rights of the victims don't matter.
What happened to place #4: the mother? She neither secured the cooperation of the man by getting him to marry her, nor was she responsible enough to have sex with a guy whom she knows. Her penalty for being stupid is paying for the kid herself.
In a utopian world where individual rights actually existed and mattered, you'd be correct. There would be a 4th option. But guess what? We don't live in that world. Those women are stealing money from innocent guys for a reason, and that reason is because they don't have that money themselves.
And whether anyone likes it or not, more than 25% of single mothers are on welfare - which means they A) qualify for it and B) probably need it. If millions of women were all of a sudden completely cut off from their financial providers because they were outed as the whores that they are, the welfare rolls would soar - just like the bankruptcy rates for women do when they become divorced or single mothers (single mothers alone account for almost 40% of all bankruptcies (next thing you know, someone's going to claim that divorce doesn't cause bankruptcy)).
AS K said, the solution to this problem is fairly simple. Require genetic testing at birth to determine paternity. Don't allow married couples to "opt out". If it can be a state law that every baby gets Silver Nitrate in its eyes because it is presumed that the woman has a venereal disease (Silver Nitrate prevents blindness in infants born of syphlitic mothers), then it can be a state law that every baby get genetically matched to its parents to prevent hospital mix-ups at going home time.
At the end of the day, we get what we fertilize. The rising numbers of children in single parent households would indicate that our compensation program is fertilizing this activity. I don't want to see children going hungry. But I am pretty pissed that fornicators, male and female, are out there having their fun and I'm stuck supporting the product of their activity, with no consequence to them.
Only an unfit parent would use their child as a shield to coerce payments from others. That would be welfare moms and illegal immigrants. The true poverty in America is the moral one that tolerates, nay encourages, this sort of behavior.
In Victorian England, there was no social safety net, and the husband had to provide for his family. He didn't want and couldn't afford to raise children who weren't his. The aristocracy had the primogenitor business going on, and the men only cared that the first male be theirs. A common event at weekend parties in the manor houses would be a servant going through the visitors wing at 5 a.m. with a bell. The everybody could make their own way back to their own room, and pretend to start the day there.
I think this conversation is behind the times. A lot of women have given birth to children who are not genetically theirs - I know b/c I am one of them. I do consider myself the biomom b/c I gave birth to them but they are the product of another woman's gamates. My kid's dad - now my ex - and I share custody of the kids. My ex wanted kids and this was the way we had them - and a lot of other families are having kids this way today. My kids are my kids - I would never dream of abandoning them or refusing to support them or in any way being abusive to them. What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if I was the genetic parent and my ex was the non-genetic parent - what if we used a sperm donor instead of an egg donor - would my ex have the option of just abandoning the kids? Would he be able to tell the court - 'they don't have my DNA so I'm off the hook?' Even if I just wanted to walk away from these kids all the work and expense (I don't) - my ex could prove that I willingly participated in their conception (I did) - would the court tell me 'OK - they don't have your DNA so your off the hook - go have a nice life' ? Anyway - the genie is out of the bottle and in the end the courts are mandated to act in the best interest of the children. My $.02
Post a Comment
<< Home