<BR>There was a segment covering mispaternity on the NBC "Today" show this morning. They discussed a case where some woman had an affair and misled her husband about the actual paternity of the child. The couple later divorced. The husband had been paying child support for years, and eventually decided the child just didn't look anything like him...so he conducted a DNA test and learned he was not the father. The husband sued for fraud, but a family court judge ruled in favor of the mother, once again citing the infamous assumed paternity laws.<P>Holding aside my personal views about the infamous assumed paternity laws, an objective analysis indicates that airing this segment is good news for us reformists. You couldn't help watching the segment without thinking, "Hey, this isn't right. That guy shouldn't have to pay child support for a child that isn't his." The mother was interviewed and said only, "What did I do to deserve this?" Well, duh, you cheated on your husband and lied to him about him being the father!<P>Anyhow, the sooner we start cranking up the heat on family court injustices, the better, IMO. For once, the network agitprop might actually be going in the right direction.<P>Bystander

Bystander:<P>David told me about this segment on the Today show. He watched it this morning and when I got back, we got on the computer to log onto NBC Today show to get some information to print up to send you. (But you caught it anyway, thank goodness!)<P>We searched all the topics and links and couldn't find word one about any of it. I spent a lot of time trying to locate it but it was conspicuously absent from their pages.<P>I didn't see anything about it, but was gratified that there is some national attention, albeit, small and slight, but, it is a beginning, and most beginnings are small and can grow to be immense in a very short time with enough 'outrage' fueling the fire. <BR>After all, that what a lot of wacky groups have successfully been doing for years shaping our thinking that our traditional values are old fashioned and passe.<P>Where and when do we start?<P>Catnip =^^=

I understand how law on paternity & child support got started, but it is now being abused. Protecting women & children from basic abandonment was a good intent. But women who have NEVER been part a legitimate relationship should not be rewarded & treated the same (or better) than married spouses & their children. I am sure the only reason it has gotten to this point is to keep OC off the state welfare roles. Well I am sorry, but when women decide to get pregnant they should first think about their ability to support a child & the relationship they are in. Anything else is irresponsible & we reward them for that irrresponsibility. <P>I am also a little peeved that I cannot sue her for the damage she has done & the financial drain she will be placing on my family. She intentionally slept with a married man & knew he had children. If she had hit my car in a parking lot I could sue for damage, but not over the current crime she is committing. Perhaps if these women could be held liable in a court of law for their "reckless endangerment" of someone else's child they may think twice about their agressive behavior. <P>I think legal reform will soon become a passion of mine. I personnally think that a certain percentage of income should be protected for legal W & her children, especially if she stays married to H. Would a small amount of incentive towards MORAL behavior be too much to ask? We are legistating to reward immoral behavior. Makes you almost pray for a little integration of church & state. (Just leaning a little humorously to the right with that comment... need some comic relief on occasion).<P>Carolyn<P>

taking care:<P>I totally agree with you on the topics you stated about abuse of this system. In my case, after XOW gets her CS, she gets to take home more money for her family of two than my H for our family of four. Where is the fairness in this system? The credit they gave for our existing children barely made any difference and was a joke.<P>Because of this dilemma, I will now have to take into consideration more carefully the states I choose to live in and where I decide to 'retire'. I'll be damned if I live in a state where my income is calculated to determine the CS. The OC will not see a red cent of my personal income - this is my H's problem, he'll have to deal with it.<P>I agree that legal reform and family law have definitely become topics of importance to me since this dilemma. I insist on being informed and refuse to be 'caught off guard'.<P>You're right, immorality is being rewarded in these instances.

I didn't see the program but hope it will alert the general population to the inequities of this system.<P>Takingcare--you hit the nail right on the head! If I went to OW's child and stole the clothes of its back or food out of its mouth I would be locked up, rightfully so. But isn't that what she is figuritively (sp)doing to my kids? If I caused her emotional distress equal to my own in any other form, I would be charged with harassement. But here she stands with impunity, having caused severe emotional distress and loss of income to my family, because we have no legal recourse in this matter. Poaching is against the law, why isn't this?<P>I agree that there should be some type of grandfather rights to family income.