Who Knew I Was Not the Father?

[XemaSab]

It was in July 2007 when Mike L. asked the Pennsylvania courts to declare that he was no longer the father of his daughter. For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, “his.” The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl’s biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man’s child suddenly became unbearable.

Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”

Yet despite his indignation — and despite his court filings seeking to end his obligations as a father — Mike loves his daughter. Every other weekend, the 11-year-old girl, L., lives in Mike’s house in a quiet suburban neighborhood in Western Pennsylvania. Her bedroom there is decorated to reflect her current passion: there’s a soccer bedspread, soccer curtains and a soccer-ball night light. On her bed is an Everybody Loves Me pillow covered with transparent sleeves filled with photos of her and Mike, the man she calls “Daddy,” canoeing, fishing and sledding together.

As the two of them prepared breakfast together one Saturday in June, just after L. finished fifth grade, Mike sang a little ditty about how she was his favorite daughter. A few minutes later, when he noticed L. sneaking a piece of raw biscuit dough, he poked her. She looked at him impishly until they both giggled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html

[varelse]

1. "Unrecommended" without a reply? lame

This is a good article worthy of discussion. Hopefully the discussion will not burst instantly into flames :/

[bobburgster]

16. I wonder how many of the unrecs are just a mistake

I can't imagine anyone would simply dislike this story.

[donheld]

104. I've accidently hit the wrong button, but

I always fess up about it.

[Occulus]

108. WHICH IS WHY WE NEED A 'CONFIRMATION' DIALOG BOX!!!!!

Mods, admins- WHY hasn't that been implemented?

[anigbrowl]

147. No we don't. It's not that important.

[debbierlus]

2. It is wrong.

I don't understand how this is legal.

[roguevalley]

111. there is something called emotional parenthood. I think that is what

it is called and it counts almost as much as biology. It has to do with supporting the child in messes like this. That woman should step up and allow him to help with her stuff but not make the donation every month. Let him take care of her like a grandparent.

[Maru Kitteh]

162. Yeah - there's something wrong with HIM.

He revealed that he knew for four years that his daughter didn't carry his genotype and apparently it wasn't important enough to him to take action. Now all of the sudden, it is. Why?

He cares more about punishing his ex-wife than he does about the girl who believes he thinks of her as his child.

He does not.

He thinks of her as leverage. He thinks of her as a conduit to a kind of control - and revenge.



If his ex-wife had married the King of Siam, or his boss, or his twin brother... .. would his reaction have been equal?

If his feelings of fatherhood were genuine, it wouldn't make a rat's ass bit of difference who the ex-wife married.


This is a guy who needs to shit or get off the pot. Is this girl your daughter? If she is, her genomic material really shouldn't matter. If you don't really think she's your daughter, quit fucking with her emotions to get back at your ex-wife.

[SanddancerUSA]

3. It's been going on for decades.

The most famous (similarish) case I can think of was that of Charlie Chaplin.

[whathehell]

41. Tell us about Chaplin..

[bonnieS]

116. Chaplin

Unlike this Dad, had no relationship with the girl he was accused of fathering, which happened because, mainly, he was rich. Tests showed he was not the father but they were not acceptable back then and he paid support to someone he did not know till she reached majority. There was a scandalous court case and only decades later was he vindicated.

Chaplin was an interesting guy. People also thought he was Jewish and he refused to deny it because he thought that would imply there was something wrong with being Jewish. So he went through life as a victim of anti-Semitism.

[whathehell]

128. He was indeed interesting....Did you see the film with Robert Downey?

I believe his mother was Jewish...but I don't know anything else about his early background except that he was raised in severe poverty.

[PSzymeczek]

156. His half-brother's father was Jewish

He wanted to stand by his half-brother, Sydney.

[whathehell]

159. That was the right thing to do.

He was a good-looking man in his youth, I thought..and his daughter, Geraldine, looked just like him.

[The Straight Story]

4. This should be moved to the men's forum

oh wait, we don't have one :evilgrin:

[LostInAnomie]

7. Yep, this is another one of those non-existent men's issues...

... that we don't need a men's forum for.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. you might have gotten one had you written a proper mission statement and not the crap

that was posted

[varelse]

21. It's an excellent 9-page article

and if you read the whole thing, you will quickly see that this thread belongs in General Discussion. It's not about "men's issues" but about how society balances the rights of children, the stability of families, legal precedent, and new technology. All of us should be concerned, and all of us should be discussing it - together.

[The Straight Story]

43. Um....

It was a joke referring to the uproar of someone here suggesting that we have a men's forum.

[varelse]

58. Sorry I missed that

I don't see the problem with having a men's issues section of the forum and I guess I completely missed the controversy. This, however, is a very complex human rights and family issue. Even if there were such a subforum, I'd rather see this kind of discussion held in the General section than buried in a subforum.

[The Straight Story]

71. I agree with you - been there myself on this issue (nt)

[JonQ]

37. Men don't need a forum

they are the oppressors, law and society are designed to benefit them every time. So nothing is ever stacked against them.

[Confusious]

44. I'm thinking that's sarcasm

But around here, and on some issues, you never know.

[JonQ]

49. Just a hint

of sarcasm ;-)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

56. I thought that once too,

but it turned out the poster really did consider me a member of the "racist hetero patriarchy" and believed I should be hanged in public along side the alleged Duke rapists in some bizarre Oresteia inspired feminist revenge fantasy.

I was really disappointed to see that sub-thread deleted,

[JonQ]

73. It's sad when satire

and the actual views of some are indecipherable.

[treestar]

66. That doesn't mean individuals can't meet with unfairness

But fighting the legal fight, he has a man's salary, etc., and a man's freedom. For every story like this there are like two of men who did father a child and just left.

[JonQ]

76. Yeah, men have it pretty sweet

just look up at the judge and mouth "Yo, I'm a dude, boys club remember?" and you will get off scot-free. And then you can jump in to your jag or mustang (all men are rich and have fast cars) and go back to freely oppressing women and siring offspring you have no intention of paying for.

Not a bad life, never having to work, never being held accountable, living exclusively off the fruits of the patriarchy.

[treestar]

78. I said not all individuals have that ability

but all men start with the advantage of not being the ones who have the babies.

Some women like the one in this story are unethical. But so are some men. There are men who never pay child support and never pay attention to their kids, and probably greater in number than the ones that are in the predicament of the guy in the story.

The guy in this story is the victim of the unfairness. But that doesn't mean one won't find stories where women are.

[bertman]

121. My wife certainly does NOT feel that being one who has the babies is a DISadvantage.

She wanted six but had to settle for two.

[JonQ]

134. Women have the option of not having a baby as well

in fact it's pretty much entirely up to them, and if they choose to not have one that is their decision, if they choose to then that is likewise entirely their decision (with the father being legally obligated to pay for the child for 18 years in that case).

As women hold all the power when it comes to reproduction I don't think they get much room to complain.

[NoSheep]

107. It happens. And it isn't funny.

[JonQ]

135. Not really

men don't have it as well as some women around here seem to think.

If that were the case then why is it, with most judges being male, men make up the vast majority of inmates and do longer terms than women for comparable crimes?

Why are divorce and child custody laws so biased against men?

[Yupster]

5. Same thing happened not far from me

It was big news at the time. Even got on one of those fake 60 Minute like programs.

Basic idea...

Wife has affair throughout her marriage.

Husband finds out, files for divorce. Husband pays child support.

Wife tells him the three kids were from the guy he was having the affair with, not his.

DNA shows one of the three kids was his, other two from guy ex-wife had affairs with and was now living with.

Guy files to have child-support removed.

Court rules ex-husband should continue to pay to the real mother and father for the best interests of the kids.

Guy refuses to pay, has wages garnished. Quits his job

Goes to jail as a deadbeat dad.

Some states are starting to correct these incredible laws that made some sense before DNA testing, but certainly make no sense after DNA tests show who the real dad is.

[liquid diamond]

118. Reading this made me physically ill.

This bullshit needs to be fixed now. Why should a man pay child support for a kid that isn't his? Especially when the bitch cheated on him?

[tabatha]

6. Interesting read.

Thanks.

[Hekate]

8. "The Law is an Ass," said Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist...

And it seems to apply here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
>snip< The phrase "The law is an ass" originates in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, when the character Mr. Bumble is informed that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction". Mr. Bumble replies "If the law supposes that… the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience." >snip<

Hekate

[gleaner]

9. If he is not the child's ....

biological father, the child support payments should stop. Emotionally though he feels like her father and he should be allowed to continue that relationship with her. I think it is very commendable that he loves her and wants to be in her life. All children should be loved that way.

I'm not a guy, so I can't say how a guy would feel, but I don't think it is right that he should have to pay money for the child's support with her real father available and very much in the picture. I so think she needs his love and company though. In every other sense he is her real father.

[Hepburn]

45. He is the "psychological parent" and some states, like California, give visitation rights.

In fact, when I was practicing law, I represented a "dad" who was not the bio dad, but raised the child as his son from the time the child was very, very young. I will have to hand it to the mother involved, the child who was about 16 years at the time the divorce came down, said he wanted to live with his Dad...and the mother agreed to give the non-bio parent the custody of her son and to pay support. This was NOT to get rid of the child, but because she understood that it had nothing to do with how much her son loved her, but that at that time in his life he needed his father.

The court allowed it on the bais of giving legal custody to the pyschological parent ~~ and the mother voluntarily paid support to the Dad. The child turned out great ~~ it's been many years now ~~ and has a great relationship with both parents.

:hi: :hug: Wonderful true story....

[gleaner]

84. That is a happy ending ...

because both parents put the child first and thought of what he needed instead of thinking of themselves. I don't make the difference between psychological and biological. A parent is who mothers or fathers the child and whom the child loves regardless of relationship. Isn't that the basis for adoption?

[NNN0LHI]

11. Did he legally adopt the child?

If he did its tough bananas.

Don

[XemaSab]

13. His wife cheated on him

So he thought the kid was his.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. if he doesnt pay child support he will also have to give up visitations/custody rights

which in this story sounds like he doesnt want to do.

what a strange story. i dont think he should have to pay. i also think, if he stops paying he should not get visitation rights. a child either is or is not yours.

[bobburgster]

15. Good point.

At her age though, the girl may insist upon seeing him, and be emotionally tarnished if she is not allowed to do that. Hopefully the parents see it that way too.

[Mixopterus]

17. Yeah, that may be true

But it's a sticky situation, the biologically intact family is essentially profiting from the ex-wife's dishonesty. So does he pay for the child he apparently cares about and continues an injustice, or does he stop paying and lose the right to see her with the implication being that the child will feel that he doesn't love her anymore.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. honestly, the child could also be benefitting if the funds are actually going towards the child

nowhere in this story does it say the funds are NOT being used for the benefit of the kid

[Mixopterus]

24. Indeed

But that was not my point of contention, she is profiting from a basically unethical action and a breach of their relationship. It doesn't matter who the funds are going towards, she is still receiving money based on her actions.

If justice is the equalization of wrongs, I think justice would state that the man should still be able to see the girl and not have to subsidize the wife's bad behavior. That would be a more than fair arrangement, especially if the man is -directly- funding the girl via necessities and gifts as well as possible future (direct) monetary support at his discretion.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. the state really is invested in the childs welfare and doesnt care which adult is taking

advantage of the situation. the adults in this story also need to grow up

[treestar]

68. I would just think keep paying and keep the rights

And the law should consider the biological father not to be her father legally and he have no legal rights.

for example if this biological family wanted to move away, the "real" father would have the right to challenge that (as noncustodial parents generally do).

The mother should have to deal with the consequences in that way.

[grace0418]

19. I don't think he necessarily should get legal visitation rights, per se. But the least his ex

could do after all she's put him through is allow her daughter to maintain a relationship with the man she thought was her father all those years. She should've never accepted a dime of child support. It's the mother who's a real piece of work.

[seabeyond]

35. with any character on the womans part, dont take the money and allow

relationship of kid to continue and not bad mouth the X

[TicketyBoo]

112. That's the way I feel about it, too.

If he wants to continue to be "Dad" to her, then he should act like one, including paying at least partial support. Maybe it could be cut in half, though? Something fairer?

[mopinko]

14. shame the other guy doesn't do the right thing and "adopt" the kid.

guess the guys involved in these affairs aren't responsible for anything.
why don't you all talk about that in the men's forum?

[Mixopterus]

20. Heh

The biological father and the ex-wife are equally guilty and spectacularly unethical people, you expect some sort of standard of decency?

[cabluedem]

109. This is one reason so many of my generation never got married. nt

[winyanstaz]

132. not getting married has nothing to do with if you have to pay child support or not....

[Selatius]

148. These stories probably would scare a lot of people into putting off marriage or not marrying.

But life is complex. It's difficult at best to blame low marriage rates on just one factor.

[cabluedem]

164. No marriage, no rug rats, no PMS, no hissy-fits, no alimony. Whats not to like about that? nt

[cabluedem]

163. No, getting a vasectomy took care of that. No wife, no alimony, no child support. Life is good! nt

[TCJ70]

22. He shouldn't be paying child support...

...and he should still have visitation. There's really not much more to say here. He would still be supporting her in other ways and monetarily when she came to visit him.

[Chemisse]

59. I agree except I don't think there is any legal way to say

That he must have visitation rights. Just as he should not have to pay child support, since he is not her father.

Hopefully the mother will show she has some shred of decency and allow their relationship to continue.

[TCJ70]

65. I would view the visitation as a fulfillment...

...of his child support responsibilities. I would advocate for an expansion of the definition of support to include things that aren't monetary. Besides, while she's visiting him he's paying for meals and gifts and other support he'll probably offer in the future.

[Chemisse]

72. And really, a child can always benefit from another person

Who loves her unconditionally.

[BlooInBloo]

82. True, but it's one of those easy-to-say-hard-to-do kind of things...

The laws we have came about as a direct result of women and children being commonly screwed over by shitty non-fathers.

The task would be to alter those laws in a way that does not endanger the above purpose. Easier said than done.

[TCJ70]

89. That's true...

I think the easiest way to handle this would be to expand our definition of what child support is beyond money.

[varelse]

23. I know I hit the right button (rec'd this one)

the article is LONG at 9 pages but it is an extremely worthwhile read. I can't thank you enough for bringing this up for discussion.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. When men sign the birth certificate, they are promising to support a baby until 18

or later if the child is disabled. If they do not want to support the baby, they should not let their names be put on the birth certificate. If they only want to support a biological child, they need to ask for a paternity test.

Too many men agree to let themselves be named as the father in the heat of the moment---the excitement surrounding a delivery. It is their job to act like reasonable adults and make rational decisions. The state has no obligation to hold their hands and tell them what to do.

I feel no pity for guys who only want to support a biological child who do not check first to see if the baby is theirs. For all we know, if they refused to be named father for someone else's child, then maybe the real dad would step forward and accept his responsibilities. Or, the mothers might give the child up for adoption to couples who want a baby, if she does not have someone to help support it. In either case, the child would end up with two loving parents, which is better than having a father who bitches and moans about having to pay child support for a "bastard".

[Mixopterus]

26. Lol

I wonder how the mother would feel if they knew their significant other wouldn't sign until a paternity test.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. It might tell them a thing or two about their spouses that they would be better off learning now

rather than later. I would be pissed off by a man who acted that way.

[Mixopterus]

30. So we have reached a dilemma of sorts

The man is obligated to support a child that is not his by signing on the form, but he can be sure that the child is his by getting a paternity test. However, getting a paternity test from the get-go would damage the relationship with the mother.

As stated in your first post that the man should simply get a paternity test to resolve this issue, but now you say that he is actually prohibited through such via de facto means as opposed to de jure. So, what is the man to do? Women have the unique position of knowing that the child is indeed theirs, men have no such guarantee. Clearly, the law must be changed to provide an equilibrium to the relationship between both parents and the child.

[TCJ70]

28. This may be a good place to discuss the difference between a...

...biological father and what might be called an emotional father. This guy is the emotional father of the girl. The biological father has skipped out on 11 years of support payments that the court would have ordered him to pay and is now marrying the girls mother and would still be collecting support from the emotional father. There are other ways the E Father would support the girl through visitation (monetarily through meals/gifts/whatever and emotionally through proximity and time).

It's a mistake to think money is the only support this guy has to offer.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Once your name is on the birth certificate you are the legal father.

State welfare agencies know this. Their reps hang around hospitals and try to get the partners of unwed mothers to sign on the dotted line asap...before the guys have a chance to think about what it will mean ten years from now to have a child that the state forces him to support.

[TCJ70]

39. That seems to be a flaw in our legal definitions then...

...and trying to use one-size-fits-all solutions for this particular case doesn't work in the best interest E Fathers or the girls relationship. The mother is going to marry the girls biological father, who should have been supporting the girl all along. I wouldn't find it outrageous to relieve this guys financial responsibility but retain his visitation rights as that's still a form of child support, albeit a broader definition.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. So you think a contract entered into under duress or with fraudulent information

has full validity under law?

Not so fast there pal.

[varelse]

31. The state has an obligation to put the child's rights and welfare first

One suggestion put forth in the article was that the medical system should put just as much effort toward ensuring paternal identity as is currently put toward ensuring that an infant is kept with his or her own mother and not inadvertently handed to an unrelated woman.

DNA testing at or soon after birth would go a long way to preventing the problems outlined in the article. It is, however, a far more invasive and intrusive procedure than establishing maternal identity could ever be, and as such would be controversial (and expensive).

My own view is that paternity testing should be a right that the putative father has the option to exercise, and which is not only clearly spelled out to him at the time of birth, but extended for a period of at least several months after the birth of the child. A right can be waived, if the father is so inclined - but a man does have the right to know if the child he's being asked to parent really is his child. It's just that simple to me.

[Mixopterus]

32. Indeed

I would go so far as to mandate that the father must undergo a paternity test to establish whether or not he is the father so as to provide the same guarantee that the woman has that the child is biologically "hers".

[Chemisse]

61. I don't see why he can't have that right at any time

If he suddenly has reason to question his paternity.

It would be highly insulting to most couples to suggest or require paternity testing at birth. It might be a better time to suggest it in divorces, since that is when it will really become an issue.

[varelse]

94. Well he does have the right to request testing

however, where his rights begin to endanger the wellbeing and the rights of the innocent child, it is likely that courts will continue to place the child's welfare over his right to refuse payments.

[Chemisse]

67. Another comment on your post

It would be in the child's best interest to get checks from a variety of 'fathers', the more the better. That doesn't mean it is right or should be legal to require non-fathers to pay.

[varelse]

142. It isn't right, although it currently is legal

And apparently has a great deal of legal precedent behind it. The laws need to change to reflect current technology and a changing society. One aspect of the Pennsylvania decision caught my eye - it's not legally possible in Pennsylvania for a child to have two fathers. Essentially this means that in a family headed by two men, only one of them could have parental rights. Not good.

[seabeyond]

36. when the woman says i do, she guarentees she wont have another mans baby

this is one we have on the men. we have a responsiblity in this advantage that we have. as we expect men do in their "male priviliges".

[JonQ]

51. And when women fail in their responsibility?

Is it just that men are financially punished to make up for the wifes mistakes?

[seabeyond]

53. wtf is you problem jonq

see my position on a post above, or a post below.

[JonQ]

74. I've found your views to be fairly sexist in the past

So I wanted you to clarify.

[seabeyond]

80. no. you havent. what you have done is continually make up your argument to words

i dont say.

and always, you are wrong.

[JonQ]

136. No, I respond to what you do say

and you don't like it when I quote you.

[seabeyond]

144. you live in a fantasy world. you make things up, tell yourself stories and appear to believe

it isnt often i chat with people like you. very hard to converse with.

[JonQ]

153. Well this is pointless

you refuse to acknowledge your own statements, here and on other posts. So there really is no point to discussing anything with you. Although I will continue to call you out when you make ridiculous and/or sexist claims.

[seabeyond]

86. as a matter of fact, i remember one thread you thought you had me "cornered" with a

real sexist issue. women playing dumb being male fault.

when i tell you how much that bothers me, and gave you two real life examples and comments i made to these girls.... you called me a liar

so ya, i bet you do find me with sexist views when you ignore what i say, and make up your own scenerios.

[JonQ]

137. Actually I did "have you cornered"

in that I caught you in a lie, pointed it out, and you refused to respond.

[Ikonoklast]

57. In many states, any children born to that woman while she is married,

must be supported by the husband, no matter who the father actually is.

Whether or not he signs a birth certificate has no bearing.

Matters not to the state who the biological father is...your wife screws the postman, has a kid, you're on the hook.

[Chemisse]

62. I know that is always how it used to be

I wonder how many states have changed this now that DNA testing is available.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

93. Its presumptive, but can be challenged

[liquid diamond]

119. That's bullshit.

I would rather go to jail than to be forced to pay for a kid that my wife had with another man. Talk about being fucked over twice.

[dugaresa]

152. I know of a case where the man on the birth certificate had no interest in the child while the

mother was around.

she dies and he steps in and takes the child from the grandparents who had helped raise the child for the first 5 years of life.

wanna know why? the social security check.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. In what state? I never was asked to sign any of my offsprings; birth certificates

The putative father is named is all.

[Shell Beau]

97. That just isn't realistic. Why would a man demand paternity

if he has no other reason to believe otherwise. This would be a slap in the face to most. I can assure you if my husband demanded paternity before he signed our baby's birth certificate, all hell would break loose. That is preposterous and extremely unrealistic. If evidence comes about where the paternity is questionable, then you should do a DNA test. Not the other way around because then it becomes a trust issue which could cause an otherwise stable marriage to fail.

[TicketyBoo]

113. That's an unreasonable thing to ask.

Most women would be very hurt and insulted if their husband insisted on a paternity test. I know I would be.

Here, I'm not sure a married man even has a say in the matter. If you're married, the child is considered yours, and nobody but the mother signs the application for a birth certificate. The application is sent to the state capital and the Bureau of Vital Statistics issues the formal birth certificate.

One thing that could be done that would not be as disruptive to family life and insulting to the wife is if the law were changed to make a mandatory paternity test done on every child so that it was not a father's reflection of suspicion against his wife. But that opens another can of worms, introducing another intrusion upon privacy, and what if the test proved that the child was not the husband's? Maybe the husband would be better off not knowing? Maybe the mother and baby would be better off not knowing, too?

[anigbrowl]

149. So basically you support fraud, as long as it is carried off successfully?

If I can trick someone into agreeing to something they're not actually obliged to do, then I can use the criminal courts to enforce their compliance after the fact? Awesome.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[seabeyond]

34. that is so sad. and the women is the worse. if either dna father or woman had character

(which neither obviously has) they would not take this mans money, they would continue to allow the relationship and what trash those two people are.

[Gwendolyn]

38. These stories are awful. Meanwhile, the message to the kid is no one wants to support her.

The person upthread who said the two biological parents are spectacularly unethical is right. The daughter will know very well within a few years that her biological dad is a deadbeat essentially, perfectly happy to let another man support his own flesh and blood. And she already knows that her other dad would prefer not to have to pay for her any longer.

If I were the mom I would have serious qualms about my money-grubbing unethical behavior. This is the kind of back story that has inspired more than a few rage murders.

[icee2]

40. My own experience

Never heard from my biological father - a relatively wealthy man

Biological mother pretended to be my aunt on the rare occasions when I saw her

Grew up with people who I learned as an adult, were my aunt and uncle ... there may well be worse people on Earth, but I've

yet to meet or know of them

[Gwendolyn]

42. It's sad to hear that Icee2.

As much as it may still hurt, I hope you've managed to get away from that situation and find true friends and loved ones to take the place of biological family. :hug:

[jesus_of_suburbia]

70. *hugs*

[Shell Beau]

99. I tend to agree. I can see why the "father" would feel he shouldn't

have to pay anymore, but if he loves her like she is his own daughter, then go ahead with taking care of her like she is his own. It sucks most for the child. But I do see where this guy is coming from. I think he is probably more emotionally jilted than financially. Doesn't make it right for the innocent child involved.

[Chulanowa]

127. How much of that money do you think is going to the kid?

It's entrusted to the mother... who is already a known liar, backstabber, and deadbeat, who is marrying another man who helped her be a liar and a deadbeat , who offered zero support to his own daughter for eleven years and is now happy to let another guy pay for that responsibility.

I don't know this family's finances. But given the character traits I do know, love the daughter or not, I'm not going to throw money at the two thieves she's living with.

[LWolf]

47. legal obligations or rights aside,

DNA alone does not make a father.

He loves her, she's his daughter. He's her father.

He should retain the rights of a divorced father. It would be wrong, and cause long-term harm, to his daughter to cut her off from his fathering.

That said, should rights and responsibilities be divorced? I don't think so. I DO think that custody and support laws should be just as flexible as the family dynamics involved.

[mrbarber]

48. Mother sounds like a real piece of work.

Well, what is likely to happen is when the daughter grows up, she will hate the mother, and rightfully so.

Of course, by that time, she probably won't be married to the guy she cheated on Mike with. She seems the type.

[Odin2005]

50. That mother sounds like a real scumbag!

:(

[NYC_SKP]

52. Recommended. Great Example of a Mens' Issues Group topic. n/t

[Robb]

55. Not to beat a dead horse

...but is the horse even dead? Did I miss an announcement that there wouldn't be one, or would?

[NYC_SKP]

98. There has been no announcement either way, to my knowledge.

It's my understanding that a Mens' Group is still under consideration.

[Chemisse]

64. So if this is a 'men's issue' topic

Does that mean that only men can be outraged by such a thing?

I think that is divisive. It is a people's issue.

[JonQ]

77. Can only women be upset about issues on the womens rights forum?

I'm annoyed by a lot of things that end up there as well, I take offense to the way women are often treated.

[Chemisse]

83. It's the same thing, imo, we should not be divided as though

Our concerns and issues are contradictory.

[TicketyBoo]

114. At least one proposal

I saw for a men's forum suggested that would exclude women from posting there.

Maybe that was a facetious suggestion, but it sounded serious. I think that is a terrible idea.

[JonQ]

117. Are any other forums on here segregated in similiar manner?

Based on gender, race, religion, whatever?

Then why would a mens forum be different?

[TicketyBoo]

126. I haven't been around here

long enough to know the answer to that specifically. It's my understanding that there is no segregation. (Anyone can post anywhere as long as you're a paid member with privileges to post to Groups, right?)

I've never posted in the women's forums, for example. I don't feel the need. I'm a human being first, a woman second.

(Actually, I see no need for a women's forum, either, by the way. It is likely that whatever affects women affects men, too, and vice versa.)

[JonQ]

133. The answer was no, they aren't, you don't even have to pay

more women tend to hang out in the womans forum, but it's not limited to one gender.

And not having either would be fine with me, I just see it as hypocritical that we have a womans forum but the very notion of a mens forum drives some of the ladies here insane with rage.

[TicketyBoo]

155. Well, I found out the hard way

that you have to pay to post in Groups.

Someone who was proposing a Men's Forum actually did propose that women should not be allowed to post there. I wouldn't agree with the idea of any forum that was exclusionary.

Maybe the women's forums came about because they didn't want to impose on men threads about childbirth, menstruation, menopause and hot flashes?

As I said, I don't know because I haven't been there.

[NYC_SKP]

100. Not at all, no.

Several threads over past weeks have suggested that, as there is a DU Womens' group, it may not be a bad idea for there to be a Mens Group as well.

Within these threads many asked "what issues are unique to men?"

Well, I'm with you in that issues concern us all, but I also feel for those who want a Mens' Group, they should have one.

Or, put differently, if DU is going to have a Womens' group, why shouldn't they also have a Mens' group?

:shrug:

[vanboggie]

54. That's just not right

So, why isn't the scumbag biological father being sued for back child support? That makes more sense than this scenario. I feel for the non-biological dad and commend him for not letting it affect his relationship with the girl he thought was his real daughter all these years. He has paid enough with emotional pain. It's time for the roaming mommy and real sperm dude to make some sacrifices.

[Are_grits_groceries]

60. What a mess.

And it's the kids who always end up paying the most emotionally.

I read this section at the end, and it stopped me cold:

As Mike’s case wended its way through the courts, Mike asked L. to take another DNA test, this one with witnesses. He knew the appellate court was unlikely even to consider DNA evidence, but if it did, he wanted to make sure the veracity of his test results would not be questioned. L. wavered. Why help him prove he wasn’t her dad? “I didn’t really want to be reminded of that,” L. said.

Eventually, she yielded, and the test confirmed she was not Mike’s biological daughter. She was disappointed. She had been secretly nursing a fantasy that provided her own “Parent Trap” ending. “I got a picture in my head,” L. said, “that the test people would call and say they had been wrong, that he really was my biological dad and that everything I had thought before never really happened.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=9

Can you imagine being asked to do something like that? Even if she was an adult in the most stable position possible, this would be an unthinkable choice, and one with many emotional repercussions. I hope she has somebody that is not involved that she can talk to. I think she needed a guardian ad litem to help her sort through this.

[varelse]

63. Yes, this is exactly why many courts reject such lawsuits

their reasoning is that the impact on the child is not acceptable - that the adult (the non-biological father) is better equipped than the blameless child.

The article is really very well written - I'm glad at least one other person besides the OP and myself has read the thing from start to finish.

[Are_grits_groceries]

69. I had to finish it.

I wanted to know what had happened up to that point. Talk about kids being in a horrible position! If that child went off and toked every day, I'm not sure I would blame her.

I am serious about a guardian ad litem. I know that there aren't enough of them as it is. However, kids in these situations really do need somebody to help them and be willing to represent them. It has to be impossible for kids to try to navigate through all the people and issues and have their wishes heard.

I realize that the payments, the DNA, and other issues are important. They aren't as important as trying to keep a kid from going over the edge.

[Mixopterus]

75. Ok

But that doesn't negate the basic element of injustice involved in the case. Modern justice is best represented by the concept of justice as fairness, in which the personal considerations are irrelevant to the balance of human relationships. Justice is not being served by this man being forced to subsidize the bad conduct of two deeply unethical people. If justice is not being served by the system, then the law must be changed. Either mandatory DNA testing at birth or allowances to shift guardianship based on blood relations (assuming the parents are fit) would be acceptable. As cold as it sounds, the emotional state of the child should not factor in at all.

[Are_grits_groceries]

85. Well it bloody well should!

I understand the arguments and emotions swirling around for the adults. It isn't easy on them either.

However, the kid is getting stomped from every possible angle. Laws do need to be worked on. However, if any cases cry out for mediation, these do. AND the child needs representation.

Kids aren't chattel to be moved about willy nilly. They aren't talking about an effing car.

I know I don't have a perfect solution, but I wouldn't leave the kid as an afterthought. Aren't they the point?

[Mixopterus]

88. That is unfortunate

But children are minors and, essentially, have a limited set of rights. The child is going to be hurt regardless of the decision, sadly, so the only just thing is to allow the father to severe his ties with the child, forcing him to subsidize his ex-wife's infidelity, which was the decision, will mostly certainly not correct the injustice and will not guarantee that the child will be hurt in the end.

[Yupster]

103. I think Mixopterus has this right

If a poor woman really needs a new coat so murders a rich person for the coat, the woman will go to jail.

There is the woman's child who's best interests would be for the mother to not go to jail, but justice calls for the woman to be punished regardless of the effect it will have on the innocent child.

In the same way, the man has been defrauded and stolen from by his cheating wife. Justice demands he should be made whole and the woman should suffer damages for her fraud. The crying child in the corner does not change what justice should be done.

The fact that it currently overrides the rights of the defrauded party shows that the laws must be changed.

[varelse]

95. On the contrary

the child's welfare is the primary concern. Early establishment of parenthood for both the mother and the father of the child would definitely be a step toward protecting the child from future harm. That is the only reason I would advocate the right to request paternity test results before signing a birth certificate.

[TCJ70]

87. I had to finish it too...

What makes this case different to me is that it's really just about this guys money. He still wants to have time with his daughter and frankly I think that's going to keep her from going over the edge more than his money. What we need to do is expand our definition of what support is. He'll still be paying for meals and gifts and other things she may need in the future. This guy seems to have a lot more to offer his daughter than his money.

[Are_grits_groceries]

90. I hope so.

However, she seems to be spinning her head about the whole lot of them.

[Blue_Tires]

79. i remember when the story was first posted here...

the ruling is disappointing, but hardly surprising..

[ismnotwasm]

81. Sad

The man in question seems to be handling it as best he can. He wants to end obligatory financial obligations, but still retain a emotional attachment/obligation to the child? That is a tough one, a very painful situation for all involved.

As far as the larger topic of genetic responsibility, I like this question from the article;


WHY IS IT THAT we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic? How many among us have trolled through genealogy records in search of unknown relatives or have welcomed strangers into our homes and hearts in instant intimacy simply because a genetic connection is suddenly revealed? Grandpa Harry’s older brother’s grandchild just found us on the Internet! A lovely man! Let’s have him over for dinner! The emotional connection between newly discovered kin is trenchant because we believe the genetic link to be significant, allowing us to embrace a stranger who — if that tie were lacking — we would never otherwise blindly accept. But what happens when we believe a tie exists, as Mike did, and then discover it doesn’t? If betrayal and money are taken out of the equation, would everything look different?"



On a personal note, my husband raised his two girls alone until I came along. I raised my two kids alone until he come along. When we met, we formed what I lovingly called 'The Brady Bunch from Hell' Not one of our kids was unscathed by adult irresponsibility. In the case of my step daughters, there was considerable emotional damage, and my kids were just hard. We formed our family and did the best we could, and we got through it. I've seen every side of this issue. (best thing we ever did was to NOT have another one, I shudder to this day thinking about it)

My husband is one of those men who loves very well. Our grandson will never be his biologically, but in every other way the attachment is deep as the ocean. The grandchild we're expecting will be the same. In the end, I believe that children need to be around healthy, loving adults, the kind that set no conditions on love. Unfortunately, that's not always easy to find even in biological families.

[hunter]

91. If you don't like it, don't get married.

It's in the fine print of the contract you signed when you got married. As the guy any kid you have is yours. Even if she cheats on you.

The law protects the kids, not the people who never had their shit together and probably shouldn't have been married in the first place.

Next question...

[XemaSab]

105. It's not always that simple

:(

[madmom]

96. Wouldn't he be able to sue the "parents" for taking money under false pretenses? Extortion?

[Cowpunk]

101. I don't have much sympathy for "Mike"

I say that as a man in a somewhat similar situation. Mike seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He needs to grow up a bit, I think.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

102. i tend to agree. not because i think he should have to pay

but i dont buy " i think of her as a daughter but dont want to contribute to her expenses" either

[XemaSab]

106. My "dad" never paid a dime for me

I think having a non-biological dad who is nurturing beats a dad who pays child support but is absent any day of the week.

[JerseygirlCT]

129. That's the part that troubles me.

You'd hope at least one of these parents would be putting the child's interests first and foremost. In this case, I think regardless of biology, he is her daddy, and the best thing he could do is to continue to be her daddy, in every aspect possible.

Are his ex and her new spouse jerks? Yes. The best thing THEY could do is not to take that money, but to encourage him to continue his relationship with her. If there's some reason they have to continue to accept those funds, they ought to be put aside for her when she's grown.

[varelse]

143. Yours is a very sensible proposition

sadly, two of the three parents in this situation (and yes, there are three parents now) are definitely acting against the child's best interests in this case.

[JerseygirlCT]

157. Yeah, they sure are.

Sad, isn't it?

[Hosnon]

110. "The report concluded that 2 percent of men with 'high paternity confidence' - married men who

had every reason to believe they were their children’s father - were, in fact, not biological parents."

2%?! That is surprisingly high.

[XemaSab]

120. That's 1 in 50

:(

[Hosnon]

166. Yes, that is a staggering statistic. If I had a 1 in 50 chance of

getting hit by a car today, I sure as hell wouldn't leave the house.

It seems men are stuck though: ask for a paternity test and you're an asshole; don't ask for one and you lose your right to protest.

[JonQ]

138. And that's of those who were "confident"

I wonder how many total married couples are in this situation?

Mandatory paternity tests at birth would solve a lot of these problems.

[TicketyBoo]

115. My favorite part of that article…

…the phone rang, and a woman named D’Arcy Griggs said she was calling from Seattle to say she was his daughter. Her birth mother had died of cancer, but Griggs had met the mother’s family, who in turn had led her to Ogden, and no, she wasn’t after his money. Shaken, Ogden called his lawyer. He also ran a background check on Griggs and her husband, a prominent surgeon, to make sure Griggs’s tale held together. It did. Ogden told the whole story to his shocked wife, and over the next several months, Ogden and Griggs exchanged hundreds of e-mail messages, phone calls and photos, quizzing each other on intimate medical histories and marveling at how similar their coloring was, their love of adventure (she’s a skydiver; he’s a private pilot) and their distaste for green peppers and Spanish class. He took to calling Griggs “honey” and slid her photo under his desk blotter at work, alongside those of his other children.

Two months after their first talk, Ogden flew to Seattle to meet her. He and Griggs spent four days, morning to night, catching up on 34 lost years, staring in the mirror side by side, comparing noses and ears and hair. “For the first time in my life, I felt like I totally fit, as if we shared the same personality,” Griggs says.

Ogden was so reluctant to leave that he even stayed an extra day. As they prepared to part, one or the other of them (their memories are fuzzy on this detail) pointed out that they couldn’t be sure they were related unless they had a DNA test, so they found a lab through the Yellow Pages and were tested. Both felt certain it would confirm what they already felt to be true.

When the news came back that Ogden wasn’t the father, he was crushed. “It broke my heart,” he said. “We talked to each other and cried, and I even called the testing lab to say, ‘Are you really sure?’ ” As confused as Ogden had been about how to become a father to a 34-year-old stranger, he was even more confused about how to stop being a father to a 34-year-old daughter he had quickly come to love.

Griggs was devastated, too. Her biological mother was dead, and she had lost the man she thought was her father. She sobbed for days. Even seven years later, she cried as she recalled it: “I had finally found a connection, a family I belonged to, and then I thought it was gone. But he didn’t go away. I think of him as my ‘almost dad.’ I call him before I call anyone else in my family whenever I’m upset. When I was going through my divorce, we talked three, four, five times a day for weeks.

“If we had met on the ski slopes or at an airport, we might have hit it off as friends, but the fact that we believed we truly belonged to each other is why we loved each other right away like we did,” she told me. Griggs is no longer interested in finding her true biological father. For her, Ogden is enough. On each Father’s Day, she sends him a card and scrawls across the top, “I wish.”

More to parenthood than genetics, for sure.

[katkat]

131. fav part

Yeah, the D'Arcy/Ogden part was great.

[Ysabela]

122. The woman is essentially a prostitute. n/t

[evilkumquat]

124. I'm Adopted, I Adopted My Daughter, and I Once Had to Prove Paternity in a Divorce...

...and I fully support allowing non-biological fathers off the hook for support or any other familial obligations upon DNA testing proving the wife's infidelity.

My second wife cheated on me and got knocked up. In Indiana, I was automatically assumed to be the "father" of the child. I sued for paternity testing and the child was shown not to be mine.

We divorced and, luckily, the judge ruled in my favor absolving me of all responsibility. It wasn't until later my attorney informed me just how lucky I had been as judges are not required by law to accept paternity testing and I could easily have ordered to pay support for eighteen years.

The injustice of this floored me. I STILL floors me.

While on one hand I understand the importance of protecting the child's best interest, on the other, why should the child's interests be held more important than a biological stranger?

ESPECIALLY in situations where the biological father is known...?

Again, these are the views I hold as one who is both adopted and who has adopted.

I feel this gives my opinion a bit more merit than those who haven't gone through the process of non-biological parenting.

[Yupster]

139. If the state is sointerested in the child getting a check, then

the state should send the check rather than forcing a victim who has already been defrauded by a cheating, lying wife to be victimized again.

The best6 interests of the child is that he/she be financially supported. The best interest doesn't care necessarily where that money comes from.

[evilkumquat]

158. Ironically Enough...

...my daughter's biological (my wife's worthless ex-husband) is on Social Security income (and completely undeserving of it; he is the kind of leech the Republicans use an example to torch the whole system).

Even though he signed off his rights and even though I adopted the child with whom he impregnated my wife, the state refuses to cut off the "support" checks he was ordered by the court to pay us (a whole $100 per month).

My wife went to the local SSI bureau and presented the paperwork and was told "Sorry, but you still gets the check."

So, we have taxpayer dollars getting diverted from this welfare cheat to pay support for our daughter that we tried to stop, but the state finds it better to make innocent husbands pay support on children they didn't produce with faithless wives?

[amborin]

125. some sick, sociopathic people in that article, like woman who told son 'dad' rejected him

[katkat]

130. It seems to me

that if you've been a child's father emotionally and financially, you don't walk. The child is your child forever.

However, the deadbeat biological Dad has no rights, he's abandoned the child. The emotional/financial Dad has at least 50% custody rights, assuming he's a fit parent. Indeed, if I were a judge, I would incline towards more than 50% rights, depending on what's best for the child emotionally.

[Nikia]

140. In the not so distant past this was not an issue

Because there wasn't DNA testing. Blood tests could be used to disprove paternity, but obviously they couldn't prove paternity. The law has favored the past tradition of making the woman's husband the legal father, even when he might biologically not be. Some men in these cases want to be a father and it doesn't affect their relationship with the child. Sadly, some men are happy to be the father until they are no longer with the mother. This case seems to be a variation on this. He was happy to be the father until his ex married the sperm donor. Of the people involved, I feel most sorry for the girl.

[varelse]

141. He's still acting in the capacity of a parent.

He never wanted to abandon the child - only to be treated fairly. As things stand, the biological father lives with his child and her mother in the role of husband, but is not held responsible for her financial support.

[iris27]

145. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to pay child support if

he continues to get legal visitation rights. If he doesn't want to financially support "someone else's child", he doesn't need to be involved in her life as a parent, either.

[Selatius]

150. But where is the accountability for the biological father? Shouldn't he be paying that support?

Given the facts of this situation, it should not be too difficult to convince a judge to force the biological father to pay the child support instead while maintaining visitation rights for the non-biological father.

[Yupster]

160. This is where the whole "best interest of the child"

scam breaks down.

If the unfair rulings are necessary for the best interests of the child, then why should the guy's visitation have anything to do with money.

If it's in the best snterest of the child to keep a relationship with the emotional dad then it's in the kid's best interests whether the dad pays, doesn't pay, can pay or cannot pay.

I think the best interest of the child is just an argument the state makes to extract money from the man.

[TCJ70]

161. The problem with that view...

...is that it really narrows down the definition of what this guy (the emotional father) has to offer to money. The real support he still needs to offer this girl is not his money, but time and understanding. With visitation comes responsibility for meals and I would assume, birthday and Christmas presents. Both of which are financial responsibilities. It sounds like he still wants to offer support, just a different kind of support than is recognized by the majority of people in the legal system, and apparently here on this board.

[dysfunctional press]

146. now that dna testing is so widely available, paternity laws need to be addressed...

NOBODY should be forced to directly support a child that isn't theirs. (i say 'directly', because there are obviously some morans who would otherwise construe it to mean that things like wic and schip should be abolished)

[dugaresa]

151. I think I understand to a degree why he is being held responsible for the child

on the surface, I agree with the guy, he shouldn't be paying for a child that is not his. Poor guy had his spouse cheat on him and he was raising and is now supporting her lover/now husband's kid. It sad and it is unfair. The worst part is the guy has bonded with this child and that is understandable but it makes the situation so complicated.

However there are greater issues here, including couples who adopt children.

In the case of an adopted child you clearly have a kid who has no biological link to the parents. What happens if they let Mike off the hook? Well another guy or gal (in an adoptive family) can perhaps use that case to cite their own reasons for not thinking they have any obligation to support a child that is not theirs biologically.

What happens if Mr. and Mrs X adopt twins from Russia, but a few years later they divorce? What happens if Mrs. X is the main supporter but she now claims she was coerced into adopting kids and that they really aren't hers anyways and why should she be supporting Mr. X if he was the one who really wanted them in the first place?

What happens if we set a precedent in the courts that not having a direct biological link to a child means you are no longer financially responsible for that child no matter the situation.

[Le Taz Hot]

154. Men's rights in terms of child support and custody are issues

that DESPERATELY need to be addressed. I started a thread several years ago asking why so often men were denied custody rights and too often women are automatically awarded custody, no matter how bad a parent she is. Holy goddess the shitstorm that post started! You'd think I'd advocated for female slavery.

[lightningandsnow]

165. The kid is the victim in all this.

Not the father, you guys.