Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#2462847 01/11/11 03:45 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
Does anyone think it's somewhat ironic that a BH would ever advocate for the paternity rights of an OM?

I'm all for men's rights but as far as the BS in wanthealing's thread I would draw the line at being concerned about anything that the OM may want or desire. But everything changes if the woman were to be single in which I believe the law should be changed - I will elaborate below.

I also believe that it�s pretty ironic that a law frequently used to enforce a child support judgment upon a non-biological father, simply for being duped successfully by a WW, is also being used to justify denying a biological father access to his biological child.

When a man discovers too late that he is a victim of paternity fraud committed by a STBXWW, he is made to continue child support because he represented himself as the father, but is often denied custody or visitation because he is not the biological father. Of course, all the feminist groups cry out in alarm against paternity fraud being made a chargeable offense and against men being able to escape financial obligation for another man�s child. They say we have to have the best interests of the child at heart, which to them means money, after all who really needs a man, right? But why can�t the law be changed so that a non-biological father in this situation maintain contact with the kid(s) and still have the WW and the OM pay the child support? That way the kid(s) still have the father they�ve always known and the right people get targeted for the actual support? Have the cheating wife help pay for the children that she lied about, what a novel concept! In the cases where the poor sap has been paying child support for years, I think that he should continue to be the father but that the cheating wife and the OM be made to repay the child support equally to the guy.


The principal of paternity estoppel is a legal concept that needs to go away. What if wanthealing never told her husband that the child wasn�t his? That very same concept everyone is quoting would be used to screw him over big time if he would have discovered it later and wanted a divorce. We now have the technology to be able to prove with 100% accuracy who is the putative father. I think that ALL live births should be tested for DNA confirmation of paternity. What conceivable argument could you have against it other than current cost, which will go down once the volume of testing goes up? Feminist groups would be up in arms against this, and of course, a lot of wives would say that it�s a matter of trust and that they wouldn�t do it, which is why it should be mandatory. Two most expensive words in the English language � trust me. It would nip the old paternity fraud right in the bud, especially the daddy shoppers who use faulty court notification procedures to snare unknowing men.


A man�s choice about children and being a father actually ends once he ejaculates inside a female and she gets pregnant. If she wants to keep the child, he gets to pay for the next 18 years with no say and probably doesn�t see the kid all that much, especially if they don�t marry and he later becomes an inconvenience once she moves on to someone else. If she wants to have an abortion, he has no say in the matter. If she wants to have the child but give it up for adoption, most states allow for her to hide the fact that she is pregnant or denies the putative father a chance to claim his own child. The state doesn�t really care about a man�s right to have a fair degree of participation or involvement in his children�s lives, it just cares about someone with the XY arrangement paying the money. And since most states that have a centralized child support enforcement agency that gets federal dollars for making sure payments get collected, and since men are overwhelmingly the ones usually with the most money, don�t you think it�s a huge ethical issue about the state being the one who makes the custody percentage determinations? Don't even get me started about deadbeat dads - the overwhelming majority of men make their CS payments, I would be curious what the deadbeat rate is for the small minority of women CS payers.

Do away with estoppel, make paternity testing mandatory, and repeal no fault divorce laws. Would dramatically change the social landscape of our country.


The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.
americajin #2462848 01/11/11 03:49 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
I would advocate for the BH to be the sole parent if I thought that would be a viable choice. But I really doubt the law would force out both biological infidels.

So given the choice between one infidel and another, what's the difference? Why is the WW any better than the OM? Both are morally equal.

Enlightened_Ex #2462859 01/11/11 04:29 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
There isn't any difference. That's like asking who to be the most angry about, your WS or the OP? Could debate that for a while.

My point about the irony is that our family laws are inconsistent except for one thing - that some guy is going to end up on the short end of the stick. Fault, blame, right or wrong seems immaterial in our current family law system and is incredibly biased against men.

You won't see me crying about the rights of an OM though; you fool around with a married woman and the only rights I think you deserve are spelled rites, if you catch my drift. Too many single women out there to try and destroy some other guy's family. Any guy knows how we get treated in court as far as our kids go, so why would anyone want to reduce another man to half a dad just to get laid?

Yes, the married woman is just as culpable, actually more so, but there's a big double standard in the US, and until we change the laws rewarding this type of behavior we will continue to get screwed.


The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.
americajin #2462873 01/11/11 05:10 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,704
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,704
I agree.

Are you going to take your rant to try and get the law changed?


Husband (me) 39
Wife 36
Daughter 21
Daughter 19
Son 14
Daughter 10
Son 8 (autistic)

kilted_thrower #2462879 01/11/11 05:23 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
Yes, first I am going to get elected to the House, then run for Senate, at which time if elected I will introduce it as a bill and attach it to whatever budget bill is up for a vote.

Don't think I will get many more replies as this thread has been relegated to durance vile.


The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.
kilted_thrower #2462887 01/11/11 05:34 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
It's been quite some time since I researched this...but in no way do I support unmarried men obtaining any substantial "father's rights".

To do so is anti-marriage and anti-family.

Men...if you want rights to your biological children then get married BEFORE you have sex (or impregnate someone).

It's that simple.

As I recall, some European countries have granted men equal rights to their biological children and it's been a disaster. (Sweden or Norway...don't recall).

Sure some MEN get screwed under the current system. It can be very unfair. But it doesn't compare to the extent of the damage done to MARRIAGE, as the most successful unit for raising children available, when you grant men rights to biological children absent marriage.

Just my opinion..

Mr. W

p.s.- If a man has any reason to doubt his paternity...he is free to undertake his own paternity test without anyone knowing he even did it. It's pretty cheap and by mail these days...I think. Society benefits by having paternity presumed and/or set in stone relatively quickly. If you sit on your rights to escape (or shift) responsibility (usually 2 years)...then you're stuck by your own failure to act. It would be nice to see any fraudulent behavior taken into consideration in custody and support hearings. Judge's discretion.


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
MrWondering #2462891 01/11/11 05:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,803
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by MrWondering
It's been quite some time since I researched this...but in no way do I support unmarried men obtaining any substantial "father's rights".

To do so is anti-marriage and anti-family.

Men...if you want rights to your biological children then get married BEFORE you have sex (or impregnate someone).

It's that simple.

As I recall, some European countries have granted men equal rights to their biological children and it's been a disaster. (Sweden or Norway...don't recall).

Sure some MEN get screwed under the current system. It can be very unfair. But it doesn't compare to the extent of the damage done to MARRIAGE, as the most successful unit for raising children available, when you grant men rights to biological children absent marriage.

Just my opinion..

Mr. W

p.s.- If a man has any reason to doubt his paternity...he is free to undertake his own paternity test without anyone knowing he even did it. It's pretty cheap and by mail these days...I think. Society benefits by having paternity presumed and/or set in stone relatively quickly. If you sit on your rights to escape (or shift) responsibility (usually 2 years)...then you're stuck by your own failure to act. It would be nice to see any fraudulent behavior taken into consideration in custody and support hearings. Judge's discretion.
hurray

I completely agree.

Yes, men get screwed when they choose to have a child out of wedlock. That's a consequence of one's actions. If they don't want to get screwed, then they need to get married before they have children.

Women also get screwed when they choose to have a child without the benefit of marriage. I know, because I've lived it. I made such a choice. I had three children out of wedlock before I married my H. I am owed about $70,000 in back child support that I won't ever see. My life has been a financial nightmare because of the choices I made. Guess what? Too bad! That's what I get for having kids with someone who I wasn't married to. I had to suffer the consequences of my actions, while the bio dad(s) got off scot free. Was it fair? Probably not, but that's the way it is.


Me: BS/FWW: 48
BS/WH: 50
DS: 30, 27, 25
DD: 28
OC: 10
BH and I are raising my OC together.
writer1 #2462903 01/11/11 06:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
It was Germany and Iceland I was referring to. Here's an old post (from the Ky supreme court thread in the pregnancy forum regarding the paternity presumption LINK - HERE ). Unfortunately, the link at the bottom no longer takes you to the article I got the data from but I'm sure the facts (perhaps even more current fact) are still out there on the net somewhere.


Originally Posted by MrWondering 6/6/08
Earlier in the thread, Pops questioned exactly how the paternity presumption supports marriage.

I thought such purpose may need additional explanation.

The basic premise is that mothers are vested with parental rights and fathers obtain such rights...primarily through marriage.

Changes in family law granting unmarried fathers custodial rights of children diminish the value of marriage, at the outset, resulting in expotentially MORE out-of-wedlock fertility.

Wedlock fetility is the preferred method of procreation which should be supported and encouraged by the institutions of government. At the very least, government should not encourage out of wedlock fertility.

Husbands grant access to their economic resources and inheritance and, in return, get easier access to sex AND para-contractual rights to all of their wife's children, no matter how conceived.

Countries that have changed such basic marriage economics have done so at a huge cost. Take the examples of Germany and Iceland for instance:

Quote
The extent to which unmarried fathers can achieve a legal status similar
to that enjoyed by married fathers differs between countries. However, any
rights are conditional on paternity establishment. Moreover, unlike marriage,
custodial rights do not follow from paternity establishment.5 Germany and
Iceland represent extremes. Germany, until December 1997, did not allow
unmarried fathers custodial rights, a fact that may have contributed to the
relatively low rate of out-of-wedlock fertility. Iceland is the only country,
to date, where unmarried but co-residing parents share custodial rights by
default. Arguably, the ability to mimic marriage would reduce the incentives
to marry and, incidentally, the German out-of-wedlock fertility rate jumped
4.3 percentage points (from 17.9 to 22.2 percent) in the two years following
the reform. Moreover, at almost 60 % of births, Iceland has the highest outof-
wedlock fertility rate in the OECD.


Anyway, thought this article may provide some history of marriage as an exchange and further insight into the societal cost of changing family law in this country to accomodate interlopers.

http://www.olin.wustl.edu/fs/acadseminars/downloadPDF.cfm?recNum=41027.

Mr. Wondering


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
MrWondering #2462926 01/11/11 07:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 24
T
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 24
I find this topic very interesting. It does appear that we have a mishmash of law currently - and that dad/men definitely dont get the benefit of the doubt. Here are my initial thoughts (meaning my initial reactions and I am hoping I can refine my thoughts via this discussion).

Its complicated....but...only in the case where WW gets pregnant by non married OM.....

BH should have superior rights in all cases. If BH declares that he willingly will accept and support OC, then his rights should prevail over any asserted by OM. However, with the caveat that BH could enforce child support from OM to partially compensate him for costs of raising OC. I would assume 50/50 OM/WW support would be fair and that BH would have to pony up for WW share if he chose to stay married. In this type of setup BH could determine if receiving compenstation via child support from OM would constitute enough contact or triggering as to be worth it.

In such a world (fantasy for now - but I sure would like to see laws changed to go this way) there would be a very strong financial disincentive for adultry as financial implications could arise from any pregnancy. (I know - abortions likely increase but I don't want to distract from this topic and get into that debate).

In this "what if" world, the penalties -- no parental rights/financial obligation for cost of raising child -- would be strong adultry disincentives. It would leave choice in injured parties hands, which is where it should be. I would say such decisions would need to be made at some early point in OC life as OC is an innocent and should not bear any ill effects of the adult conflict.

After some thought I would say I need help in situation where married H and married W committed adultry. I don't know who would have superior rights inthat instance. What a mess it is/would be. So, I don't have all the answers, thus I'm anxious to here other input on this.

It is very difficult to find the balance that should work most of the time, but clearly adultry is responsible for much pain, suffering, and legal wrangling and as a society, burying our heads in the sand is not the way to go. We need to start thinking of injured parties more.



Me: BH 50
W: 43
DD 12
DD 10
EA Exposed / D Day: 4-30-2010
W strongly disputes / denies EA - thats the problem
MrWondering #2462934 01/11/11 07:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
OK...did a little research and in 2006 those European numbers were even higher.

The out-of-wedlock fertility percentage is at 30% in Germany by 2006 and at 65.6% in Iceland.

Germany's rates are actually LOW for much of Europe.

Sweden 55.5%
Netherlands 37.1%
Ireland 33.2%
UK 43.7%

Greece, on the other hand...is the lowest in Europe at 5.3%.

Japan is less than 2% (and they have one of the lowest fertility rates in the world which prompted the publishing of a mathematical model wherein the date the last Japanese citizen was calculated)


The US is around 40% with significant increases in the number of older women having out of wedlock children (CDC Stats )


What is interesting is that a LOW rate of out of wedlock fertility is actually considered a problem by many authors/researchers because countries aren't having enough children to support the aging populations. Countries, seemingly, are urged or, perhaps just patted on the back (by using language like they are "modern and more developed") to support out of wedlock childbirth as a means of increasing their fertility rates.

Mr. W

p.s.- I found a link to the article titled:

The Role of Paternity Presumption and Custodial Rights for Understanding Marriage Patterns�
Lena Edlund, Columbia University, February 11, 2005
LINK TO ARTICLE


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
MrWondering #2462935 01/11/11 07:34 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
I would buy this if there was no such thing as No Fault Divorce. As long as affairs are not punished and folks can just end a marriage at whim without consequences, I really doubt father's rights is a big threat to marriage.

I think it's microscopic compared to the current threats sanctioned by current law.

Originally Posted by MrWondering
It's been quite some time since I researched this...but in no way do I support unmarried men obtaining any substantial "father's rights".

To do so is anti-marriage and anti-family.

Men...if you want rights to your biological children then get married BEFORE you have sex (or impregnate someone).

It's that simple.

As I recall, some European countries have granted men equal rights to their biological children and it's been a disaster. (Sweden or Norway...don't recall).

Sure some MEN get screwed under the current system. It can be very unfair. But it doesn't compare to the extent of the damage done to MARRIAGE, as the most successful unit for raising children available, when you grant men rights to biological children absent marriage.

Just my opinion..

Mr. W

p.s.- If a man has any reason to doubt his paternity...he is free to undertake his own paternity test without anyone knowing he even did it. It's pretty cheap and by mail these days...I think. Society benefits by having paternity presumed and/or set in stone relatively quickly. If you sit on your rights to escape (or shift) responsibility (usually 2 years)...then you're stuck by your own failure to act. It would be nice to see any fraudulent behavior taken into consideration in custody and support hearings. Judge's discretion.

americajin #2463162 01/12/11 12:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Originally Posted by americajin
Do away with estoppel, make paternity testing mandatory, and repeal no fault divorce laws. Would dramatically change the social landscape of our country.

I had to look up estoppel.

Quote
estoppel |eˈst�pəl|
noun Law
the principle that precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.

Quote
This term appears to come from the Old French estoupail (or a variation), which meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb "estop" which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning "stop up, impede."

This is pretty complicated stuff.

Quote
Simply put, promissory estoppel has four necessary elements which the plaintiff must prove:

there was a promise
that was reasonably relied upon
resulting legal detriment to the promisee
justice requires enforcement of the promise

I am still trying to wrap my brain around it.

Thanks for making me think, you rat! stickout

Pepperband #2463176 01/12/11 12:28 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
Pepperband, the term has different applications in law, try googling paternity and estoppel. It's the premise that a child born to a married woman is by law her husband's child.


The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.
MrWondering #2463179 01/12/11 12:31 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
But you see that�s my point. If a man shouldn�t have any rights to his biological children because he isn�t married to the woman, does that mean that a woman doesn�t have any right to expect child support because she isn�t married to the guy? After all, if she didn�t want to have a baby, she shouldn�t have had sex before marriage, right? I would think that a woman should think about the cost and expense of having a child before having sex, correct? Why is the onus solely on the man?

All of these laws come from a time when men were the sole providers for their families, women in the work force were pretty much restricted to low paying jobs like cook/waitressing, housekeeping, or sewing in textile mills. Women in a �man�s� job were anomalies. Women weren�t allowed to have much of a say in their lives, weren�t allowed to vote, and basically belonged to their husbands. It was difficult to obtain a divorce and the penalty for a man could be financially severe, divorce was frowned upon socially. People were expected to choose a mate well and were expected to live up to the �til death do us part� credo. The state wanted to ensure that illegitimate children or children of divorced women did not become a financial burden. Women, in the eyes of the law, laws made by men BTW, were not responsible, men were.

Today, it is not difficult to get a divorce with no fault laws, and it�s no accident that women file much more frequently than men. Women are now ahead of men statistically as far as college degrees earned, and are now climbing the organizational chart in most companies. Everywhere you look on the internet and mass media there are stories cropping up about how women don�t need men anymore, except of course when women want them to pay for something. The women�s movement, coupled with no fault divorce laws, and the state guaranteeing some man will pay for a woman�s child, is what has fueled the explosion in the divorce rate and concurrently the destruction of the nuclear family, not premarital sex.

The women's movement wants women to have the exact same rights as men with little self responsibility.


The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.
americajin #2463201 01/12/11 12:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Well then...I'm glad I've got a daughter and no sons. grin

Many states are turning the corner(s) on these issues. Changing laws and policies takes time....necessarily. Despite "no fault" divorce laws, back in 2005 if my wife had actually divorced and left me for OM, I'd have likely one custody and a pretty favorable settlement. Michigan will consider adultery and monies spent in pursuit of adultery when factoring monetary settlements. Many states are also developing more appropriate support formula's and inferring wages where (often the wife) refuses to work or doesn't work at a job commiserate with her abilities (and degrees).

Parental Alienation is much more hot topic in custody disputes. 10 years ago I hadn't even heard the word "parental alienation". I have a friend that was in court just yesterday that, at the last minute, had to defend herself against accusations of parental alienation. It's such a tricky dispute because it's so hard for someone outside the situation to really know whether someone (often the wife/mother) is really "alienating" the stbxh or whether she's actually just protecting her children from an emotionally and/or physically abusive man. These court personnel and judges are placed into incredibly difficult situations and have to make determinations based upon a deficient amount of "proof". The thing people don't understand is that just about everybody lies/embellishes in court (most particularly the "bad spouse/parent") so you've got two people claiming how wonderful they are and how bad the other person is. Hopefully their experience and intuition along with some evidence will point them in the correct direction and, I believe, they generally get it right about 99% of the time. That's AWESOME, but it totally sucks for the 1% that get screwed (which more often than not in today's world is the man).

Caveat...most cases settle because men BELIEVE (and are told by their attorneys) they will get shafted in court. However, the statistically, men win in court when they actually take the case to the judge, more often than women.

Mr. W


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
americajin #2463231 01/12/11 02:30 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
Originally Posted by americajin
But you see that�s my point. If a man shouldn�t have any rights to his biological children because he isn�t married to the woman, does that mean that a woman doesn�t have any right to expect child support because she isn�t married to the guy? After all, if she didn�t want to have a baby, she shouldn�t have had sex before marriage, right? I would think that a woman should think about the cost and expense of having a child before having sex, correct? Why is the onus solely on the man?

Actually, both men and women should think about the cost, expense AND consequences of conceiving a child before they have an affair. However, in answer to the above, the onus is NOT solely on the man. It is the woman, after all, who carries the unborn child around for 9 months before birth. That child is not some kind of cash cow. Whether she receives child support or not, that child is costing her money AND she's investing the time it takes to raise that child along with all the inconveniences. One can argue that a man's contribution to producing that child took about 5-15 minutes and he's done. And not too long ago (within my generation), that's the way it was. Dead-beat dad laws are fairly recent, and enforcement of them even more recent.

But we aren't talking about 2 single people who "accidentally" conceived. The specific situation is that a man impregnated a woman married to someone else and, despite the circumstances, the WW and BH have decided to stay married and keep the child. It's a completely different scenario if the marriage breaks up, whether WW becomes single, shacks up with OM or a completely different OM so I'm going to stick with the original situation.

In this case, the child is considered a child of marriage and the BH is the legal father whose name will appear on the birth certificate. Though OM may be a biological father, he is not the legal father and is, therefore, not legally obligated to support the child. I can't see how a child can have more than one legally recognized father.

Now, as far as a statute of limitations goes, though it would be a horrible thing for a BH to find out about his WW's long-time-ago affair and that one or more of his children is not his, I can't help but think of the children in these cases. Imagine if you were 16 years old and your dad ran out and cut you off because he found out your mom cheated and you were the post-man's kid? At some point, much younger than 16 and long before you understand how babies are made, you develop a relationship with your parents, regardless of biology. I don't know if there is a "right" amount of time for statute of limitations, but there has to be something to protect the child.

Once again, all of this can be avoided simply by not having an affair.

Tabby1 #2463298 01/12/11 03:53 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 650
Actually, I started this thread to explore other permutations of paternity and not only the situation from wanthealing's thread; I also wanted to divert from the threadjack that was occurring.

The concept of paternity estoppel, the automatic designation of the husband as the father of any children born to a marriage is an outdated concept because we can now determine with 100% accuracy who the parents are of any child. In this case the law can be used by the BH to claim the child as his own, right or wrong that's the way it is until they change the law. It could be debated logically either way that the OM would have the right to establish that he is the biological father of the child. However unsavory the prospect is, it is in fact the truth.

As far as the BH name on the birth certificate, that is not automatic, it could in fact be left blank. Just because you put some guy's name on a birth certificate doesn't mean he's the legal father. In this case the BH could refuse to acknowledge he's the father and request a paternity test; if he is determined NOT to be the putative father than should the principle of estoppel be used to make him be the father? The answer is no - there have been several cases in which this has happened and the courts terminated the parental rights and responsibilities of the complainant. Now there are states that have laws that give a time period in which to contest paternity. Unfortunately, in states like California that relied upon the woman to give the alleged putative father's demographic info to the state, there have been men that have lost cases in default because their court notices were sent to the wrong address, given deliberately by the mother of the child. How would anyone like to find out that they're in default of child support payments for a child that's not theirs in a case they never knew existed?

The other scenario you talked about, finding out that you are not the biological father of your child after years of thinking otherwise is quite a predicament for a man. Sure, there are men who would perhaps renounce a child in that situation but I think that there are many more who couldn't stop loving a child. But what happens if the guy decides he can't stay with a woman who perpetuated this type of fraud for years? What if he decides to divorce? Should he have to pay child support? Should the lying wife be able to terminate his relationship because he is not the biological father and yet have the courts require him to financially support both her and the child (yes, this does happen)? Shouldn't the woman have to pay some sort of penalty, either financial through a civil judgment and/or legal by serving a prison term? If there was mandatory DNA testing at birth, it would eliminate this possibility. You would know immediately if the child was yours or not, and have the CHOICE of whether you wanted to establish a parent/child relationship or not.

What if a woman is pregnant and decides she doesn't want to marry the guy if he proposes - should she have the right to offer the child up for adoption and have the state deny him the right to parent the child? If the guy wants to be a parent to the child, why not?

It's all about choice for men - we have very little choice or rights when it comes to our children. As far as custody determinations, I think that there should be an expectation of joint physical and legal custody unless one of the parents can be proven to be unfit. I think it should take a lot more than a woman saying she's intimidated to remove a guy from his home and deny access to his kids.


The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.
americajin #2463389 01/12/11 07:16 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
Originally Posted by americajin
Actually, I started this thread to explore other permutations of paternity and not only the situation from wanthealing's thread; I also wanted to divert from the threadjack that was occurring.
Though this could be interesting discussion, you do realize the number of possible permutations that could exist, don't you?

Quote
The concept of paternity estoppel, the automatic designation of the husband as the father of any children born to a marriage is an outdated concept because we can now determine with 100% accuracy who the parents are of any child. In this case the law can be used by the BH to claim the child as his own, right or wrong that's the way it is until they change the law. It could be debated logically either way that the OM would have the right to establish that he is the biological father of the child. However unsavory the prospect is, it is in fact the truth.
I believe a lot of what Mr. W. is writing about is the argument against the OM having the right to establish that he is the biological father. Currently, the law doesn't allow this in most places. Do you want to debate this specifically or do you want to talk about the other permutations? I'm willing to do both.
Quote
As far as the BH name on the birth certificate, that is not automatic, it could in fact be left blank. Just because you put some guy's name on a birth certificate doesn't mean he's the legal father. In this case the BH could refuse to acknowledge he's the father and request a paternity test; if he is determined NOT to be the putative father than should the principle of estoppel be used to make him be the father? The answer is no - there have been several cases in which this has happened and the courts terminated the parental rights and responsibilities of the complainant. Now there are states that have laws that give a time period in which to contest paternity.
In Wanthealing's case, the BH does in fact want to be the parent. In many (possibly most) cases, the BH does not. Usually when the BH does not want to be the parent, it is because they no longer want to be the spouse. So the WW becomes more like an unattached single pregnant woman who can go after the father of her child for support. Paternity may require proof, just as it would for the unattached single woman, if the OM does not want parental rights (or to pay CS).

Quote
Unfortunately, in states like California that relied upon the woman to give the alleged putative father's demographic info to the state, there have been men that have lost cases in default because their court notices were sent to the wrong address, given deliberately by the mother of the child. How would anyone like to find out that they're in default of child support payments for a child that's not theirs in a case they never knew existed?
I agree, this is completely unfair and allows for possible fraud.
Quote
The other scenario you talked about, finding out that you are not the biological father of your child after years of thinking otherwise is quite a predicament for a man. Sure, there are men who would perhaps renounce a child in that situation but I think that there are many more who couldn't stop loving a child. But what happens if the guy decides he can't stay with a woman who perpetuated this type of fraud for years? What if he decides to divorce? Should he have to pay child support? Should the lying wife be able to terminate his relationship because he is not the biological father and yet have the courts require him to financially support both her and the child (yes, this does happen)? Shouldn't the woman have to pay some sort of penalty, either financial through a civil judgment and/or legal by serving a prison term?
At some point, the man owes the child, regardless of what the mother is like. So I think that he does have to pay CS - IF he doesn't have primary residency (I use that instead of custody since we're talking about an older child but it could be an 8 year old or younger). I agree that the woman should have some penalty but right now there's no penalty for adultery with no children involved so good luck with that. I think this would be a horrible situation for a child and I would hope the courts would consider it if they had to determine custody.

For the record, step dads can be and are held accountable for child support. By step dad, I mean a man that married the mother after the child was born, knowing full well from the get-go that the child wasn't his.

Quote
If there was mandatory DNA testing at birth, it would eliminate this possibility. You would know immediately if the child was yours or not, and have the CHOICE of whether you wanted to establish a parent/child relationship or not.
Absolutely. However, how many children are actually the result of a yet undiscovered affair? I hope there's not too many but maybe I'm naive.

Quote
What if a woman is pregnant and decides she doesn't want to marry the guy if he proposes - should she have the right to offer the child up for adoption and have the state deny him the right to parent the child? If the guy wants to be a parent to the child, why not?
She should have the right to offer the child up for adoption. He should have the right to parent the child and should be the state's first choice.

Quote
It's all about choice for men - we have very little choice or rights when it comes to our children. As far as custody determinations, I think that there should be an expectation of joint physical and legal custody unless one of the parents can be proven to be unfit.
I completely agree. Joint custody AND joint responsibility.

Quote
I think it should take a lot more than a woman saying she's intimidated to remove a guy from his home and deny access to his kids.
I have to disagree here. Being a former battered woman myself, you really do need an easy exit from these situations. That doesn't justify denying access to the kids, but a battered woman does need a way out. (and I despise women that use this just to get back at a man because it makes it that much harder on the women who truly need it)

Whew - covered a lot of territory in that! But to go back to the original situation, the BH who wants to stay married to his WW and raise his OC, trumps the OM.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 33 guests, and 37 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Overcomer4513, caraduke, Convict20, GTNY, Avianna
71,737 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,550
Posts2,322,804
Members71,737
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5