Hiya PK:


It is getting a whole lot easier. States have started cooperating with each other. I know of one situation where another State cooperates with Texas to do exactly that and the father's wages have been garnished. I think he was over 8K in arrears when it finally caught up with him - two and a half years behind.

On the subject at hand, I was as interested in the responses (over a thousand and climbing) as I was in the details of the article itself. I have know for some time that there were issues with paternity about which some in the medical community was well aware and the general public (and 'dads'} had no clue. Blood testing was the old fashioned way that was used to prove that the 'father' wasn't and it worked in some cases.

The comments ranged from:


Which was a good woman exercising her sanity, to:


That was from women. Men were all over the map as well including men who raised the kids and would do it again because they had the bond, to men who felt betrayed beyond reason.

This support forum doesn't touch the general public. Those of us here are a tiny minority of the millions that must face the tragedy of infidelity each and every year. Given the exchange of mind sets, information and opinions, what we think can be somewhat different from the mind set of a woman who finds herself with child and hasn't a clue who the father is; yet more insanity from the world of affairs.

Harley has a separate forum that deals with the children of infidely and I won't go there. After my wife started exiting from her fog, she said that she and the OM had not used protection. I was committed to rebuilding the relationship by then, but I must tell you as I told her at the time, "If you are pregnant, I probably could accept the child. But I hope you aren't pregnant or have an STD. Go get checked right now so we can deal with it. You made your choices and now I have to make mine. Let me make them from what is real and not based on what we don't know, yet"

Affairs; The gift that keeps on giving. This issue with paternity is yet more reason for all of us to keep our flies zipped and panties firmly on, except with our spouses.

Finally, I haven't a clue what percentage of men are tagged with being fathers when they aren't in fact the father. If it turns out to be a percentage that is even 10% or better and it leaks to the general public, I can see where there would be a firestorm.


I just hope the figure doesn't turn out to be 30%.

The fact is that many of our representatives and their bureaucratic minions are well aware of the problem. In most states, the laws are loaded against a male who discovers that he isn't the father. There are one year after birth exceptions to this. Now we get to the failed social experiment of the "Great Society" and AFDC funds that Clinton revised but that still exist in many ways. Forcing the non-bio father to pay relieves the welfare budget somewhat.

Larry

I wonder if most people realize that the basis for a lot of these stories is an offshoot of a particular monkey study in I believe West Africa. A group of monkeys had been studied for years, paticularly because of an appearance of extremely strong mate bonding as reported by early researchers. The story was "monkeys that mate for life". Then came along these pesky geneticists and their DNA tests and it was found that fully 30% of the offspring were being cared for by the non-biologic father.

In my country, it was discovered that 50% of all men who take paternity tests discover that they are not the biological fathers...50%....i cant even say where i come from...

Sickening. The whole thing. I agree with MEDC...the mother should lose custody immediately.

Larry wrote:
===========================================
If it turns out to be a percentage that is even 10% or better and it leaks to the general public, I can see where there would be a firestorm.
===========================================

The firestorm is already building. There are men's rights groups that have formed in every state. The statistics already are beyond disturbing.

I expect the next 5 to 7 years to net new legislation in almost every state. The MSN article is just a precursor to the flood of information soon to be released.

Just as the knowledge and awareness of affairs has increased dramatically in the last 10 years, the next 10 are going to paint a picture of us that isn't going to be pretty at all. Maybe it will ultimately generate a move back toward higher moral standards. Unfortunately, I think that the institution of marriage is going to suffer a crushing blow.

God bless,
Gimble

Hi, Cyman.

I hope you are well, by the way.

I don't know about the monkey studies, but I am aware of at least a dozen different studies underway, and have read many more than that done by different schools and on a wide number of population variants.

What hasn't been completed is a comprehensive study across the general population. A lot of the studies are pre-weighted by the fact that they are done on samples submitted by people that already suspect foul play.

My own non-scientific research puts the figure at close to 30% across the population. That is derived from a number of different studies.

I don't claim to know for sure, since there are no official numbers yet.

God bless,
Gimble

I think I heard this phenonenom as "extra pairing". Nature's way of making the sure the species survives with as much genetic diversity as possible. I often have wondered if that is one of the top reasons for infidelity. There is a switch that goes off in a WW (hormones or the love chemical) during a MLC that drives a need to procreate with another male before fertility ends.

I have also wondered (as I have two sons) - why would any male in the USA want to enter into a marriage contract these days - other than "love". Don't get me wrong - I support the idea of marriage but it does not make financial sense for any man to get marry. It can be a one-sided contratual committment. The current market or scene allows a man to have the milk and not buy the cow so why get the state issued contract that binds him and all his future earnings? If a single man gets a woman pregnant - he will still have to support the child but would not have to share the community property.

Just some random thoughts.

Another random thought added - couple the figures that Gimble has mentioned with the number of blended families with step children being shuffled between bio-parents and step-parents all over this country - good lord - what a mess this all becomes.

This issue has been raised before on MB, and it always seems to polarise opinion between men and women (BS or WS).

I wouldn't argue that it's OK for men to be 'tricked' into raising another man's child, but I would argue that the interests of the child are more important than the interests of the adult male.

Going by most accounts I've heard, both here on MB and on TV (the Jeremy Kyle show is the UK equivalent), the reason this situation arises is that the mother has had unprotected sex with boy her husband/boyfriend, and another man. That is, there is more than one man who might plausibly be the father. It seems to me that, in the bulk of cases, the mother herself is not clear who has fathered her foetus. She can't know until the baby is born, any more than the father(s) can.

Calculate the odds here. There's a 50/50 chance that her H is the father, anyway. If she tells him of her extramarital activities, there's a good possibility he will divorce her even if he does turn out to be the father. That is not good news for her existing children, if she has any. For many, it's the least-bad scenario to keep the guilty secret and preserve the family.

I'm not saying this is morally right. But I think the woman's decision is morally grey, rather than blackest black.


Really? Is it more important to punish the mother than to act in the best interests of the child? Which parent do you think would represent the best option for the child - the biological mother who did something fairly reprehensible in order to safeguard his future...or the man who has just found that he is genetically unrelated to the child, and who is angry at being duped...or the biological father who quite possibly doesn't even know the child exists? Which of these adults do you think represents the least bad option for the child?


It also seems illogical to express anger at the economic burden the duped 'father' bears, but then suggest that the solution is to foist the child on such a father - which is a big burden of responsibility even if the mother provides financial help.

Considering how many blended families there are these days, raising children fathered by another man seems to be something many men are prepared to accept. The difference here seems to be the genetic lie - that the man is told his genes are being perpetuated in the child. Is that what makes it such a hot issue for men?


TA (whose children were 100% fathered by my H)

Hi, TA.

Imagine that the hospital switched your child at birth, discovered the mistake days later, but never set it right. You find out 15 years later.

How would you feel?

It's not a man vs. woman issue, it is a right vs. wrong issue.

Gimble.

TA wrote:
========================================
I wouldn't argue that it's OK for men to be 'tricked' into raising another man's child, but I would argue that the interests of the child are more important than the interests of the adult male.
========================================

Why is it that?

Gimble

Extremely attached to the child I'd raised as my own for 15 years, I suspect. (For all I know, it might have happened; both children were taken away to a nursery for medical reasons not long after birth.) I think (I can only speculate) that my concern would be that my biological child had been raised with love and was happy.

It seems significant to me that the vast majority of child-carers are female; women seem to be genetically programmed to nurture all children, not just those who are genetically their own. Men, in general, seem to have a strong natural investment only in their own biological heirs.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, simply that it's a difference in the way men and women feel about children.


My suspicion is that it's a BIG wrong for men, but for women a much less clear-cut thing. Can men understand that?


TA

What I also find sad about the article, is that some of these women have included the bio-father in the child's life, causing confusion and instability for the child, and creating more [eventual] heartbreak for all parties. Not to mention even more disrespect to their H, (as if they're not already at the height of disrespect)!

The statistics are alarming, and these are just the ones who don't tell their H's the truth! I wonder what the numbers are of men raising an om's child when you add in those that have known from the beginning, like my H. Plus, add in those nobody knows about at all and aren't included in any statistics, (I can't imagine this is a topic you'd ever get the real numbers on), so it's really unbelievable to think how HIGH the actual numbers surely must be.

I'm amazed about the physician angle too. I had no idea that was going on! It makes me wonder if any of my ds's docs, or even my ob/gyn knows or suspects but doesn't say anything?

It's all very sad, and it makes me realize all the more- the best thing I ever did in my life was to tell my H the truth.

TA wrote:
==============================================
Can men understand that?
==============================================

Yep, as long as they are not expected to care or pay. Just being honest here.

God bless,
Gimble

I think we need to accept that biology drives us a lot more than we realize. Those same studies with monkeys showed that the females would attach themselves with a male that was a good provider while getting genes for her offspring from another male.

I know we have the ability to reason and think, but if you think about it, this is likely what is going on in these waywards minds.

Why give up a good man with good job and a good income if he has no knowledge of being a father to her kids? Paternity is irrelevant to her. She loves the child regardless and wants the best environment to raise it in.

Children often have a very strong resemblance to the biological father, which is the only evolutionary defense mechanism males have to confirm paternity before DNA stepped in.

I think men and women will think very differently about this subject.

My ex fiance got pregnant after a breakup and she was in a relationship with someone else when she and I got together again. She got pregnant and paternity was a big question for me. I got the, "paternity shouldn't matter if you really loved her" argument, but I wasn't going for it. I wanted paternity to be confirmed before I made a committment. What did she have to chose from? The other guy was not very smart and didn't look to be going anywhere while I was a professional with a promising career. A no brainer choice for her as to who would be better for her kid.

While it is a romantic notion, it is unrealistic and probably biologically based that males do not care as much for kids that aren't gentically theirs or who have fatherhood forced on them with kids that aren't theirs. It is very different to choose to raise someone else's kids, it's another thing to be deceived into it.

This behavior exists in the animal kingdom and is a general aversion most males in the species have. Lions, for example, will kill any cubs that aren't his if he mates with a female that already has offspring.

I think this is a biologically engrained aversion that we're never going to shake no matter how many hollywood romantic movies are made to try to convince us otherwise.

Personally, I would have a hard time with the deception and I would sue to be freed of any parental obligations.

Finally, the judicial system will never deliberately take a legal parent away from a child, regardless of biological paternity. If the non bio father's name goes on the birth certificate, that's who becomes leagally obligated to care for the child.

Yup, don't doubt you. Which is why women 'have' to lie. Being honest. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Just another reason why infidelity is such a baaaad idea.

TA

Putting the boot on the other foot, I'd be interested to know if men feel as strongly about the prospect of a father paying CS for an OC of his own, as they do about bringing up a 'cuckoo' child.

Economically, it seems just as damaging to a family to have to support an 'extra' woman and child, and as emotionally insulting to the wife as the scenario we've been discussing.

TA

Agree - infidelity is an equal opportunity destroyer of families.


the current laws & courts are a mess. Read this article on the issue.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060418.html

frankly, the bio dad or the named dad would be a better parent than the woman who has shown herself to be an opportunistic, fraudulant ho.

Just being honest!

Think the bio-dad has to count as an 'opportunistic, fraudulent ho' also...as he (usually) knew that he was having unprotected sex with another man's wife?

In the long term interests of the child's moral development, I think the named dad might in many cases be the best choice (and perhaps that's exactly why the opportunistic, fraudulent ho has kept quiet about the true parentage?).

But if you were two months old, and barely able to lift up your wobbly little neck, who would you want walking up to your crib at 3am? Your lying, adulterous loving mother; the unrelated man who is livid at your very existence; or the shifty, lying father who is also horrified that you ever got born?

Not always clear-cut, but I wonder what the kid's short-term prospects would be with each option?

TA

I would agree if that's the case with the bio dad... except he is not committing the fraud on the H... she is. He is a HO for sure if he knew she was married...seems like you are looking for EXCUSES as to why the HO might be committing fraud on her child and the H.