It makes my blood boil when I read articles like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html

"Unfortunately, today it's not a crime for someone to lie about which man is the father," Smith said. "The mother doesn't have to return the money and rarely, if ever, is she prosecuted for perjury, for fraud."

I personally think that the woman should have to pay to restore the man to his former financial security, and that child support should be elminated forever, for any reason. It is not about the child, it is about greedy women and systems that don't care about anything but how they can milk the system and men out of thier livelihood and lives.



1) Do laws need to be changed to make the woman owe all monies paid by the man when the DNA proves him not to be the father?

2) Should the women be automaticlly jailed for a minimum sentence, equally AT LEAST the amount the male sat in jail for non payment for fraud in these cases?

3) What can we do to the system to better protect men from dishonest child support angencies and women?

This is simple. You the father? You pay. You aren't the father? You don't pay. Women who do this open themselves up to violent retribution, a retribution which society must simply say 'you deserved it you lying thief'.

1) Do laws need to be changed to make the woman owe all monies paid by the man when the DNA proves him not to be the father?

By lying about the father of a child, the woman defrauds not only the victim but the state and that is a crime. If money was received under false information, then the money should be repaid in full.

2) Should the women be automaticlly jailed for a minimum sentence, equally AT LEAST the amount the male sat in jail for non payment for fraud in these cases?

The problem that I have is that this would not affect the life of the child who has done no wrong doing. Putting the mother in jail may not be the best policy option, especially if the money is repaid. However, if it is not repaid, certain steps need to be taken to prevent this.

3) What can we do to the system to better protect men from dishonest child support angencies and women?

This can all be avoided if a DNA test is taken before the father is ordered to pay child support.

Why not put her in jail- we don't seem to consider the impact of the child when we incarcerate women for other types of fraud?

This is a response that make my posts look sane

1) Do laws need to be changed to make the woman owe all monies paid by the man when the DNA proves him not to be the father?

2) Should the women be automaticlly jailed for a minimum sentence, equally AT LEAST the amount the male sat in jail for non payment for fraud in these cases?

3) What can we do to the system to better protect men from dishonest child support angencies and women?

1) This seems like something that should already be on the "books".
2) While I respect the sentiment here but I am not totally sold on this line of reasoning. I'm almost never for automatic jailing. Heck, I'm not for automatic payments out of my bank account. However, some form of legal retribution should be made. The man should certainly repaid for all offenses to him.
3) It would be best if men and women didn't get themselves in these situations but short of that in this day and age DNA, DNA, DNA... it is so simple to know the paternity of a child Jerry Springer can do it.

1) Do laws need to be changed to make the woman owe all monies paid by the man when the DNA proves him not to be the father?
Yes, laws do need to be changed. The only instance where the woman shouldn't be on the hook is if it was a consensual "open relationship" or they were swingers. In such a case, he knew she was mattress hopping, and knowingly assumed the risk.

2) Should the women be automaticlly jailed for a minimum sentence, equally AT LEAST the amount the male sat in jail for non payment for fraud in these cases?
Automatically? No, due process should be followed. And it should be treated the same as any other fraud, with full criminal penalties applied. I would go for enhanced penalties when the mother just picks the guy's name out of a hat, or when the child is the result of an adulterous relationship.

3) What can we do to the system to better protect men from dishonest child support angencies and women?
Eliminate child support except in cases where the father wilfully abandons the child. Eliminate all "arrears", a fancy name for debt that allows the courts to skirt the prohibition on debtor's prison, in these cases. If the mother doesn't have the werewithal to make the father whole, then the State must pony up the money if they participated in the collection effort. Require DNA testing before the State can assist in the collection process. If the true sperm donor is in the picture, then you've got a criminal conspiracy on your hands, and treat it thus.

Seems like it, but not only does the woman not usually owe him, the 1986 Bradley amendment prevents retroactive elimination of child support. So even if the man is proven by DNA test to not be the father, he is not only not owed reimbursement by law, he can also continue to be sucked for future payments.

Most states have a limit on how long men have to challenge signed paternity documents before being named the father by default. A lot of men out in Iraq are currently being screwed this way. They are away overseas, named the father on the birth certificate, and either can't contest or are simply unaware. When they get back it is too late, even with the DNA test. Hard to believe but true. On the other hand, they often lose custody rights to their own legitimate children as well (this applies to mothers too). It is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

In the Rodriguez case you linked to, the mother lodged a signed affidavit to the effect that he wasn't the father and shouldn't have to pay child support. The Florida authorities are the ones at fault here.

1) Do laws need to be changed to make the woman owe all monies paid by the man when the DNA proves him not to be the father?

No, unless it can be proven that the mother knew that person Y was father, or at least knew Person X was not, and still lied about it to get person X to pay child support.

In other circumstances, the mother or the state should not be liable for compensating the "wrong father".

Instead, the real father should be pursued for the money by the full weight of the law.

2) Should the women be automaticlly jailed for a minimum sentence, equally AT LEAST the amount the male sat in jail for non payment for fraud in these cases?

Outright fraud, yes. Especially blatant cases, such as where the child is figment of the imagination conjured up to create a source of income.

3) What can we do to the system to better protect men from dishonest child support angencies and women?

Well, compulsory paternity testing would have some advantages, although the outcome, I think, would more often be that martial breakdown where men in what they thought were settled, monogamous couples find out that they aren't the father of a baby they assumed was theirs.

I'm not sure that the central goal of child welfare systems (the clue is in the name) should be conferring advantage, or even just being fair to, either parent. The goal of child welfare systems should be.... the welfare of the child. End of argument.

The major problem that I see with this whole situation is that the burden of proof is placed on the man instead of the mother. The man has to prove whether or not he is the father of the child instead of the mother proving that the man is the father. If the burden of proof was switched, there probably wouldn't be as big a problem.

Then the law should be changed, and she should be going to jail- that simple. This is one of those laws that are horribly unjust.

A few notes on this thread:

1) The particular case cited is a Kafka-esque bureaucratic mess. Even the woman says he's not the father. So putting her in jail would be weird at best. I see where CR is going but a better example might be in order.
2) There are a fair amount of men who don't "man up" to their responsibility. The rogue women who commit a crime by naming the wrong men intentionally are probably a very low percentage compared to the men who shirk their commitments.
3) The Bradley Act is a case of good intentions gone wrong. The intent is to protect the child. The outcome is protecting the child at the expense of the first man to get "caught" - sort of like a slow impala getting eaten by a pride of lions.
4) There are cases wherein the mother may truly not know who the father is... Sad, but true. Does she go to jail for making an honest mistake?
5) While we rail against the irresponsible parents and the criminals it is important to note that these useless skin flaps have created life and someone needs to care for them lest they also become useless skin flaps and a further drain on society

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and say that men, in general, need to start thinking and acting with their brains as opposed to other parts of their bodies. I wonder how many of these types of situations would have been avoided if men would have taken care to use responsible birth control methods and above that, been a little more selective in the types of women they fornicate with....

Also, let's not forget about all of the deadbeat dads that exist in this world. Women have carried the brunt of child care with or without the help of their children's fathers.


I would say that is reasonable.



Absolutely not. We do not need to waste jail space that should be used for sex offenders and murderers on women who lack a degree of responsibility and judgment in terms of procreation.



I think men need to step up to the plate and be SMART. Women are emotional creatures and they often make stupid decisions based on emotions. Men should be pragmatic in their quest to spread their seeds.

As the mother of future men, I am going to teach them to be smart and not rely on women, the legal system, or any other outside entity. They have the power to control the situation, if they exercise it accordingly.

The last time we had a significant welfare overhaul Congress decided the burden of payments should be on parents, or in most cases, fathers, not the state. This focus shifted the responsibility of payments from the state to adults. The state must collect on behalf of mothers, but it does not provide them with "welfare" in the form of government checks, nor is the state supposed to pool resources for cases such as this one. That's why these cases keep coming up. The state doesn't care who foots the bill as long as it's not the state. I heard this is called fiscal conservatism.


But men aren't emotional? It seems to me like you want to give women a pass on being stupid because they're women and being a woman means being emotional.

Maybe you are playing devil's advocate, but the argument seems flawed.
1) Seems to me that women in the case of a consensual relationship are in just as good of a position to use birth control as men. I think that line of reasoning is irrelevant, though.

2) One can still be selective and end up with a cheating tramp. People do change.


My biggest gripe about this is the difficulty, in some states, of obtaining a paternity test in certain situations. Some states have (irrebutable?) presumptions concerning paternity that were, and are, based on unsound theory imho. The cases, at least the ones i remember reading, were base on keeping the family unit together. But, of course, those theories were applied to situations that, at the least, ended up at the intermediate appelate court level. Go figure.

Oh, providing false information is a crime in many circumstances. Should be here as well. I'd also be in favor of a cause of action in tort dealing with a situation like this, though in many cases it wouldn't do much good.

My perception is that men often get the short end where family courts are concerned (while recognizing that certain men, and a good many women as well, are quite irresponsible).

Not the same way women are....not usually. I'm not giving women a "pass". Have you ever had a child? There's no free pass involved, with or without child support. Those women will pay the price either way. What I'm trying to get at is the root of decision making on the part of men and women. Men and women think differently and that is why men often find themselves "trapped." Some women get emotional and vindictive when they are pregnant and make irresponsible decisions. We should address how to avoid such situations in the first place. It is avoidable, believe it or not.



That's the price of doing business with women. We're not all Mary Poppins. And for the record, we're talking about a small percentage of women who would knowingly cheat men out of child support for children who are not theirs.




I agree with you on this, however, the large number of deadbeat dads who go through life skirting their parental duties supersedes the number of those who are trying to do the right thing, but getting the short end of the stick. Look at all the fathers out there who are the biological fathers, yet they complain, "I didn't want to have a kid. She got pregnant." That is the purpose of sex, after all. So don't be surprised if the girl wants to instinctually keep the child.

No I haven't, probably never will, in fact, but I agree that women bear the burden during pregnancy and childrearing. Children aren't viewed as biologically "fixed" to men.


Can you elaborate? If pregnancy is a mistake there isn't another mistake a woman can make. If pregnant women get vindictive they should be penalized by the state, regardless of physiological state.


Pregnancy? Of course it is. Well, on average 95% - 99% of the time. Men shouldn't take women at their word that they're on BC, even if it's a monogamous relationship. But women should also do their part.

How can find a better example of the injustice of the law? Its not a bureaucratic mess, it is the law that is at fault.

I'd suggest that you refrain from making a bet based on that contention. Paternity fraud is estimated to run anywhere from 10% to 30%. Wikipedia - Paternity Fraud

It's now widely accepted among those who work in genetics that roughly 10 per cent of us are not fathered by the man we believe to be dad.
Geneticists have stumbled upon this phenomenon in the course of conducting large population studies and hunting for genes that cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis. They find full siblings to be half-siblings, fathers who are genetic strangers to more than one of their children and uncles who are much closer to their nieces and nephews than anyone might guess. Lumped under the heading of "pedigree errors," these so-called mis-paternities, false paternities and non-paternities are all science jargon for the unwitting number of us who are chips off someone else's block. Mommy's Little Secret - Globe & Mail

Of course there are cases where the mother may not truly know the father's identity. Since she is asserting that John Doe is the father, even though she is not certain, then she is committing fraud. Few and far between will be the instances where she actually doesn't know that someone else may be the father. A woman participating in a wild orgy may not know for sure that her husband is the father, but she does know for sure that somebody else might be the relevant sperm donor. A woman drugged, with no memory at all of the intercourse, is pretty much the only case I can imagine.

"useless skin flaps"?


"lack a degree of responsibility"? This isn't about women who sleep around, its about women who lie about who they've slept with, and as a result, an innocent man is bound over to involuntary servitude. Subjecting an innocent to costs running in the tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, potential loss of liberty, potential loss of professional licenses, public humiliation and villification. I notice that you've attacked "deadbeat dads", but what if the deadbeat isn't even the dad? Are you going to apologize to those you've unfairly slandered? What about the child whose medical history is now incomplete?

Canadian Children's Rights Council - Paternity Fraud and Children's Human Identity Rights

I agree that a woman should be penalized for lying about who the father of her child is. But whatever the penalty that the legal system may deem appropriate, the guy who got involved with her is guilty of having unprotected sex. If he would have taken precautions he wouldn't be the one she's pinning fatherhood on. So he is also guilty of negligence.



I happen to see this as a wake-up call to men to become the masters of their own destiny by taking the appropriate precautions. First and foremost, birth control. It's very noble of you to take up the cause of men duped by shoddy tramps. They could have thought about it beforehand.



I think "involuntary servitude" is a bit of a stretch in most cases. I know a lot of individuals who were raised by their moms (dad was out of the picture for most of their upbringing and child support was slim to none). For the men who have court-ordered payments where wages are garnished, they sometimes quit their jobs and take other measures just to avoid paying for children who ARE biologically theirs.

For every poor SOB you're crying about, there are a hundred men who intentionally do not pay for the welfare and upbringing of their own children. Many probably jusitfy it by saying, "I didn't want her to have the kid and she did it anyway!" That's a very irresponsible position to take, AFTER the fact.



I would tell the poor guy to be a little more selective in women. Most of us aren't lying whores looking to pin fatherhood on some unsuspecting "victim."

As I already mentioned right now the legal system isn't focused so much on fairness and in a way even on the welfare of children as it is focused on getting someone, any man, to pay for child support. That's the problem. Women can't be penalized to the point where they're better off not naming anyone, but ignoring DNA results is ridiculous.


Oh no. Don't take me for Kathleen Parker. I'm not taking up their "cause". I'm just tired of watching what appears to be, or will turn out to be, another game of shifting the same sex burden. It's 50-50. I'm not interested in passing judgment in this case and others until/unless these shoddy tramps are convicted in court to spare other manwhores bent on spreading their seeds an emotional rollercoaster ride. You can keep deciding who's worthy of condemnation all by yourself.

I've no clue who Kathleen Parker is and I'm too lazy to Google her. But anyway, I just think its ridiculous for men to run to the sides of other men who find themselves in such a position. You reap what you sow, or in some cases, maybe you also reap what you don't sow.

Men and women are equally responsible for their actions. But with men, the actions of which their livelihoods hinder on the most are the ones taken before the fact. I'm not going to lose any sleep over Joe Blow being charged with fatherhood when he was but one of the many possible contenders.......

And, of course, the woman who does such a thing as to falsely claim a man is the father when he is not, and then to receive financial compensation....well, she should pay the price, for sure...

But really, we need to focus on prevention of such horrible scenarios.

So if a man is "one of many," you would still have him be on the hook for a child that is not his? Even if he did, in fact, use protection? (if a paternity test can't be used on policy grounds, it is going to be hard for a father to demonstrate that contraception was used. To me, it is the evidenctiary bias that is the real problem here, as it is sexist and based on bad policy. I am NOT defending deadbeat dads)
That's just about the most inequitible argument i've encountered in a while.

This sad case teaches me a couple of things.

1. Paternity laws are a huge mess in this country. Some kind of an objective group of experts in law and science needs to take a look at the problem and come up with workable soultions.

2. On a more personal level, everybody -- everybody -- who is potentially fertile and heterosexually active needs to be much, much more careful about pregnancy. I don't insist that every child be born within marriage -- that's a good thing, but just not realistic these days -- but I do think that people need to be make a real effort to ensure that as few unwanted pregancies result as possible.

Of course, I am expecting people to be rational in a situation where emotions run wild.

1) Do laws need to be changed to make the woman owe all monies paid by the man when the DNA proves him not to be the father?

Only if it can be proved that this was a result of intentional fraud on the part of the mother. This is going to be very hard to prove. I suspect that most cases of this kind are going to be honest mistakes, or bureaucratic nightmares of the kind we see here.

I would say, however, that placing an absolute limitation on being able to challenge paternity, as seen here, is a very bad idea. I can certainly see lots of situations where a man assumes that a child is his own for years, and then finds out differently. He will probably have an emotional bond with that child by then and do the decent thing, but perhaps he will not, and need not be forced to provide child support unless he wants to.

The problem, of course, is that children suffer because of parental foolishness and carelessness. This will never change. In such cases, it really does "take a village" (some kind of outside support system) to raise a child decently.

There is rarely a Bad Guy or a Bad Girl in these cases, I suspect. There are simply victims.

2) Should the women be automaticlly jailed for a minimum sentence, equally AT LEAST the amount the male sat in jail for non payment for fraud in these cases?

If this is a case of true fraud, then there must be consequences. I'm not convinced that jail time is always the best way to do this for either "deadbeat dads" or "mendacious moms." It may be appropriate in the worst cases of both.

3) What can we do to the system to better protect men from dishonest child support agencies and women?

Well, if you can prove that an agency engaged in fraud, shut them down, and sue them for as much as you can. There can be no excuse at all for an organization designed to aid children to engage in this sort of crime. For individuals, it's hard to say. Was the mother a cold-hearted schemer, someone who lied out of fear for her child, or someone who made an honest mistake? Each case must be considered on its own.

The real bottom line, of course, is one that is easy to say but hard to enforce. People who are heterosexually active should be very careful.

(And not having to deal with such things is one very important advantage to being gay.)

The problem here is women are absolved of all responsibility, at every turn, and given every choice. The woman should be made 100% responsible, and not unless the man agrees to be in the childs life should he have to pay one dime,it should be completely voluntary, and she should have to undergo DNA testing, or go to jail.

Sonds harsh- but why not?

She has the choice to have sex.

She has the choice to lie about birh control- no sanction, should go to jail for fraud when she lies about it

She has the choice to an abortion- man has no say in it.

It is time we started forcing responsibility on women too.

End child support forever- completely end it, you pay, you play. After all, it is "your body"

End all welfare and food stamp programs. Don't like it, don't have sex. Don't have kids. After all, unless in case of rape- it was you that decided to spread your legs.

Kathleen Parker is to men what Ward Connerly is to white people.


I can't figure out why you think this is something to laugh at. Men cannot reap what they literally didn't sow. I don't understand why you think men deserve getting burdened with supporting children that aren't their own because they should have thought twice about having unprotected sex. It's just a reverse form of punishing women for "slutting" it. Neither sex should be punished for having sex. That's too conservative a social solution for my liking.


Speaking of shifting the safe sex burden, ugh. It's time to bow out of the thread.

Well there is a new television show coming out based on the "so easy a cave-man could do it" commercials. For the love of Pete CR you can be pretty entertaining some times.

Let's free men from all of those responsibilities when they father a child. That'll toughen up our society and get us closer to utopia.

And look at all of those women walking away from their responsibilities in the world. Everywhere we turn there our women abandoning children and dropping them off at monestaries and orphanages so they can be free of their responsibilities.

This post sure is a boost to your creditbility.

If like is so tough on the American male, why isn't the single child-supporting male the one that alays figures at the top of the poverty rates? Maybe these deveptive women with their government teet sucking urchins from Dickens-land are really pulling one over on society by pretending to be the most at risk for poverty.

You didn't read the part where I said, "And, of course, the woman who does such a thing as to falsely claim a man is the father when he is not, and then to receive financial compensation....well, she should pay the price, for sure". I find the effort on this subject absurd, quite frankly. America has much bigger problems to deal with.....



What about the men who like the idea of fatherhood, at first...then reality bites and they decide to leave. What would you say about those cases? The truth of the matter is, women have been getting the raw deal for centuries. Lest you forget, it is the males in this world who are almost always the gender guilty of sexual crimes, including fathering children and then claiming they never wanted a kid so they shouldn't have to be held accountable.



I agree that women need to start being much more responsible. But, CruisingRam, you are sadly mistaken if you think women aren't the ones who have been taking responsibility for parenthood, with or without the help of men.



Boy. How many more deadbeat dads would that make. Maybe we should advocate a broad and free program that would supply vasectomies for all the wonderful guys out there that are getting royally taken advantage of when all they wanted was a little fun. I might support my tax dollars going to fund such a program. It would strengthen the gene pool.



Even in a case of rape, she probably led the guy on in some way.

Actualy- posted it to pretty much copy the DP line that "men should be more careful" line.

Funny thing is though- there is no outrage when men are expected to take responsibility for thier behavior.

This "oh, women have to care for the child" *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, because that is what it is. Women have to carry the child for nine months IF THEY CHOOSE TO CARRY IT TO TERM- a choice a man has no say over. After that, they have no more burden than the man. If they choose a man that won't help them- so what? THAT WAS THIER DECISION TO SLEEP WITH AN IRRESPONSIBLE MAN- where does THIER personal responsibility begin?

I took care of both my babies since the day they were born, my ex was and is as lazy as they come. She didn't wake up with crying babies- I did.

And you know what- the burden of proof had to lay with me in court. There was NO equal consideration in the courts. She said one thing- and the judge buys it, and forces me to provide evidence to the contrary. At no point was she asked to prove her statements. I had to disprove them. Luckily, I had records. and Proof, and eye witnesses, if not, my kids would have grown up in a totally dysfunctional home.

Why shouldn't the woman be more careful? Women have pretty much choice after choice, and with the bradley act as someone pointed out, no financial burden.

At the very least, there should be NO back child support owed by a man that had no idea that the child was his, and the woman should only recieve a loan of assistance from the guv't- she should have to pay back all the welfare and food stamps they recieved.

It just really torques me off. I had to work 100+ hours OT a week to pay a lawyer, go to trial, save my house, pay for food.

Sitting next to me at work is a woman with 3 kids by 3 different daddies, complaining about how her "men don't help me out at all" with their "meager" child support checks, for these three different daddies, of over 1200 a month. Which is 1200 a month more than I get.

Oh, and she gets a free cell phone. With unlimited minutes. I don't get that.

She gets food stamps- I have to pay for my child's food.

She gets free child care. I have to work for my child care.

Personally, all the single mom's in America can rot in hell for all I care. If they want kids, they can work harder, just like I had to do.

I used to be all liberal and sympathetic- now I couldn't give a rat's fanny. I will have respect for them when they have to "man up" and take care of everything.

Just like I have to deal with every day.

That was my way of inspiring men to take the reigns and be in control over their futures. What is wrong with that? Don't count on women to do the right thing. I think it is a very responsible stance to take for a man. As opposed to, "women are making us all fathers and we don't want to be...WAH WAH WAH"



I'm outraged by women who get pregnant and are uneducated and irresponsible. It infuriates me that I take every step to not get pregnant again while women all around me (in SO CAL) are having children on the tax payers dime. You bet it bothers me. If I was a man, I'd be preaching the same thing to my brothers, "BE SMART and don't count on a woman to do right by you."



Why did you get with her then? Did someone force you to procreate with your ex? Or was that a choice you made and later regretted?



That's a load of hogwash. You're a dad and you know what it takes to raise a child. Money is but one factor.


Then what would stop men from "claiming" they didn't know? A guy could just run off and plead ignorance and then you and I would get to pay for it through our tax dollars. BAD IDEA.



I understand your fury. All the more reason to advocate smarter choices before it comes down to the above scenario.



I've never been liberal and sympathetic. I want a workable solution to such a problem. Men can avoid this and it is my mission to enlighten all of you to do so.

Then why don't you advocate for women to take equal care and responsibility?

Never regretted my procreation- just regretted who I procreated with. Difference is- she had choices that were not and are not available to me.

And, oh yeah, she get's assistance when we had joint custody- I didn't.

And, of course- they don't go after females for fraud when she lied (REPEATEDLY) about her income.

I think men will have better luck if they work on prevention. Once a baby is brought into the world all sorts of unfairnesses occur, as in your case.

I'm on the side of all the men out there who DO NOT want to be fathers. I don't want them to be fathers, either. The women they get with may not share those feelings. That's the point I'm making. Complaining about the unfairness between genders is counter-productive. There's plenty of inequities on both sides.

But let me ask you this. What will you tell your son when he comes to that age where he is sexually active. Will you tell him to be smart and don't get himself caught in a situation? Or should he rely on the fallible legal system to right any potential wrongs that may occur in his love life.

Prevention is cool- however- I think women shoujld have to enter a written contract with a man before he is given any monetary responsibility for the child.

Both my daughter and my son will be learning about being careful and prevention- and something called ethics and personal responsibility.