interdictor ([info]interdictor) wrote,
@ 2008-01-28 20:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Paternity Slavery
Sickening:

Hunterdon County man must pay support for child not his

TRENTON, N.J. - Paternity doesn't count when it comes to a Hunterdon County man's bid to lower child support payments for a child that's not his. An appeals court upheld a lower court which denied the man's request in 2006 after he said he discovered he was not the father of the 10-year-old girl.

The appeals panel found the judge put the best interest of the child first. It's not clear whether the man would appeal to the state Supreme Court. The man is identified in court papers as W.S.Y. Jr. to protect the child's identity. The girl was born in 1997 and the man and his ex-wife divorced in 1999.

The man raised the issue of paternity in 2006 after he claimed his ex in 2003 started making statements that he wasn't the father.

The man claims a DNA test showed he wasn't.


This is slavery, nothing less.

(Post a new comment)


[info]megalanzero
2008-01-29 04:37 am UTC (link)
It's not in the Child's best interest. It's in the court's best interest to get a certain commission on child support payments.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]taumeson
2008-01-29 08:04 pm UTC (link)
i refuse to belief that's the reason for most child support decisions :)

i think it's just scared judges worried about looking like they don't support children...cause that's the reason du jour to make stupid political moves -- "it's for the children"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]plural
2008-01-29 05:34 am UTC (link)
I absolutely support putting the child's best interest first.

However, putting the child's best interest first means requiring the father to at minimum participate financially in the raising of the child, not putting the burden on some poor sap because it is convenient.

If the court is going to pick someone to support the child simply because it is in the best interest of the child, I suspect they could do a lot better than that poor sap, say Gates or Soros, after all, it would definitely be in the best interest of the child.

The wife should be slapped with charges for fraud and falsifying identity documents (as she obviously knew the child wasn't his or at least has reasonable cause to suspect it wasn't) and slapped with a contempt of court citation unless she reveals the name of the child's father.

Then that child's father should be required to repay the child support already paid to the unwitting step-father and take over responsibility for future payments.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaquera
2008-01-29 02:21 pm UTC (link)
The wife should be slapped with charges for fraud and falsifying identity documents (as she obviously knew the child wasn't his or at least has reasonable cause to suspect it wasn't) and slapped with a contempt of court citation unless she reveals the name of the child's father.

And we don't know from this article if this avenue has been explored. However, it's interesting to note that, according to the article, the man is not trying to say he has no financial responsibility for the child. It says he's trying to get the support payments lowered. He would probably have better standing if he made the claim that he has no responsibility at all. He would probably look like a monster from the outside, too, if he took this position. Of course this is all just speculation because we haven't read the pleadings.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
The child's best interests...
[info]polyanarch
2008-01-29 05:03 pm UTC (link)
Is MO-MONEY!

Momma might not even know who the father really IS. The father might not even know he IS a daddy -or even remember the stupid slut he fucked some night as she or he (or both) might have been drunk/stoned out of their minds.

Slapping momma with fraud sounds great -especially if she DID know that the baby wasn't the guy she had been fucking over ever since she stopped fucking for hundreds of dollars a week. But if she WERE to charged with fraud then it is only going to hurt the baby as momma will be in jail or too poor to "contribute" her portion of child support (assuming daddy will take the little brat). I doubt that a woman would pay any child support though as that is almost always the man's purview to cough up the dough.

The real fraud is that fact that men are somehow men are responsible for little polluters that they have no choice of bringing into the world when women have all the choice in the world themselves (still at least). Why is it that just because some female has the machinery to take a bunch of genetic code taken from a man (willfully or even stolen against his will) and producing a little wealth consumer out of it and expecting the person who supplied half the blueprint to pay for it for the next 18-22 years?

Speaking as someone who had a woman steal one of his used condoms and attempt to impregnate herself with the contents therein, for purposes that I don't think I need to explain further, I think that there is a real problem with the way the legal system is set up against men.

I think that fathers shouldn't be expected to pay ANYTHING as long as they don't have any say whether a baby is aborted or taken to term. It's not theirs in ANY way other than as a financial liability.

Once women get this fact through their heads, and our legal system reflects this, I think abortion "rights" will much easier to secure.

As long as there is such an unfair dichotomy between responsibility for decisions, and the authority to make them, there will always be conflict in this arena.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The child's best interests...
[info]eva_bellatrix
2008-01-29 06:54 pm UTC (link)
This is why there should be male birth control pills. It shouldn't be all on the woman financially to pay for the pill and men can avoid that responsibility. If they're that paranoid about not impregnating a woman accidentally, then they should hurry up and get on the pill (or at least invent one).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The child's best interests...
[info]polyanarch
2008-01-29 07:14 pm UTC (link)
The thing is, why is the man's "responsibility" in the first place? Because it is his blueprint that makes up half of the child's genes? The woman carried it and chose not to abort it. If she can't afford it then she should give it away or not have it -not expect someone else to support it FOR her. These are both options she has but the man has NONE of.

What if someone were to take a man's hair, and with some advanced gene-decoder produce an exact copy of the guys DNA genome and then using another machine produce a cloned sperm and impregnate a woman? Would the man still be responsible for that baby? -it's HIS...

What if someone were to just steal someone's sperm sample (like a woman tried doing to me once) and impregnate herself or someone else? Is the man still responsible?

What if a woman got a man drunk, sucked him off, and then impregnated herself with the sperm? Is he STILL responsible?

Or is it just a "punishment for enjoying sex" thing? What is it in human nature that wants to make a man financially responsible for a baby he has no control or decision-making power over past the moment of climax? Western prurient sexually-repressed civilization is just sick.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The child's best interests...
[info]eva_bellatrix
2008-01-29 08:08 pm UTC (link)
Listen, I don't think it's any good either. I think both sexes should have equal/equivalent rights, such as:

-both sexes being liable for child support

-availability of a birth control pill for both

-abortion rights for both (if the woman doesn't want it but the man does, instead of abort it he could perhaps hire a surrogate to bring it to term--after all, the biological mother wanted it removed anyway, now it's just a question of alive or dead)

-a responsibility rights waiver (in the case of a woman being within the abortive time-frame, making the decision to have the child when the man does not want it, having some sort of legal recourse for the unmarried male where the man can sign something effectively 'ending' his paternity before it's brought into the world, with no repercussions, aside from emotional). If you're married, well, you already made some sort of commitment there...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Responsibility waiver and the (mine at least) anarchist viewpoint
[info]polyanarch
2008-01-29 08:20 pm UTC (link)
that sounds like a more fair way of doing it but wouldn't it just be easier for the person making all the decisions to bear the burden of taking the responsibility for those decisions?

If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. I'm totally for the right of a woman to have or NOT have a baby when they get pregnant. It's HER body 100% and should have COMPLETE control of what goes on within it. But that means that she should have COMPLETE responsibility for those decisions. It's her baby-factory. If she doesn't want the product then she shouldn't go into production. But if she does want the product but doesn't have the means to produce it then it isn't fair to go after the person who drew the plans (or at least half of the blueprint) to have to pay for HER baby -especially when the guy has zero input on whether it is brought into the world or not.

I'm not for letting guys get to decide if the mother of their unborn sperm have to forced into bearing it. That is just as maddening as making the father pay for the mother's child. I'm 100% behind matrilinear child responsibility and authority with men having NOTHING whatsoever to say about the kids unless the mother deigns to cede partial or whole "ownership/responsibility" of the child. At that point then they can deal with it like any other responsibility people take on. I just don't think it is a good idea to separate responsibility and authority even in the slightest bit and giving a man any authority over what goes on in a woman's body is abhorrent to me (or any person male or female or what goes on in another's body) so my own personal philosophy leads me to conclude that this is the best method of assigning responsibility. Children are the responsibility/purview of the mother 100% and the men should be left out of it unless the woman cedes some or all to a partner or party of her choosing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: The child's best interests...
[info]taumeson
2008-01-29 08:10 pm UTC (link)
your advanced-tech ideas are scary, to say the least.

but it's the man's responsibility to provide for his own offspring -- just because it is, according to how our society actually works. there have got to be a few fundamental things for a society to fall back on, and one of ours happens to fall back on "a man and a woman get together to have children. this is generally a good thing as it provides for the future of our society"

in other words, you have to have a few "givens" in order to work out advanced issues. in math, if you're doing a proof, you have axioms like the "reflexive property" or the "additive property". in human relations we have to make some shit up, basically. we have the "reproductive facts of yesteryear" and that's about it. therefore, a man must provide for his own children.

the bigger issue, of course, is that THIS IS NOT HIS CHILD HE'S BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR.

let's be forthright, here...this isn't child support he's fighting over, it's mom-support. it's fraud-support. i buy girl scout cookies from a neighbor's daughter -- i shouldn't have to pay for her, and neither should this guy have to pay for his wife's dalliances.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: The child's best interests...
[info]polyanarch
2008-01-29 08:27 pm UTC (link)
but it's the man's responsibility to provide for his own offspring

I don't agree with that. It's inequitable and saying that "that's just the way it is doesn't change that.

the bigger issue, of course, is that THIS IS NOT HIS CHILD HE'S BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR.

And that is totally true. But I say that even if it was his sperm that helped create that child it STILL IS NOT HIS CHILD -it's the person who decided to bring it into this world and built it in her own baby-factory. It's not the man's child because he had no choices in deciding to bring into this world so it can't be his in any way except for strange legal maneuvering that separate The authority to make decisions from the responsibility to pay for those self-same decisions. The man's ability to chose the course of that child's development end the moment those little robot sperms leave the end of his cock regardless of where that cock was located (in a pussy or a test tube). It is madness to expect him to assume that the baby is "his" if he has almost zero control over the choices to have/keep/abort/give-away that baby. It's not "his" in any way other than having court-demanded legal financial responsibility over it. And that's wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)
Holy resurect an old post Batman
[info]polyanarch
2008-10-09 02:34 pm UTC (link)
This forum is not the place to debate abortion

Who the FUCK are you to tell Buff what is OK and not OK to discuss in HIS lj????

The fucking NERVE of some people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]plural
2008-10-09 05:18 pm UTC (link)
Maybe you shouldn't own a dog if you are that much of a worthless piece of shit (your words not mine).

Of course, the vast amount of drugs you must be taking in order to respond to my comment in the way that you have will probably prevent you from seeing the logic in that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]iangalaher
2008-01-29 05:41 am UTC (link)
Indentured servitude, which is less.

(Reply to this)

Try this on:
[info]evilegg
2008-01-29 06:01 am UTC (link)
I know a dude, a lawyer even, and he married a woman and adopted her kid. Then she cheated on him, and they divorced, but he still has to pay child support for the next 11 years.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Try this on:
[info]sewfishee
2008-01-29 12:13 pm UTC (link)
at least in this case, the guy legally adopted the child. adoption means "even if we aren't biologically related, you are my child." imho, it implies a permanent bond. he knew going into the deal that the child was not biologically his. however, in the case of the article, there was deception on the mother's part.

i'm not sure how one can raise a child for 10 yrs and suddenly let a dna test change one's feelings. i totally get being angry at the mom for lying, but it is not the child's fault. i think the guy has a moral responsibility to the child....but legal? that is a slippery slope.

i feel terrible for the child. mom is a liar. mom had an affair. child is "illegitimate." the guy she knew as "dad" all of her life no longer wants her. yep...that'll give her abandonment and trust issues.

yes, lots of deadbeat dads out there. but what about women who lie about paternity? it seems they have no liability.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jost
2008-01-29 06:31 am UTC (link)
If "the best interest of the child" requires that a man who is not the father, either biologically or legally, of the child to pay child support might I suggest that the judge himself take on this task. Surely the judge is in better financial shape than the defendant if for no other reason that the judge has no legal bills to pay with regard to fighting for his financial freedom. How can "the best interest of the child" warrant any less than targeting the most financially secure male with a tangential connection to the child to be the financial supporter of that child?

(Reply to this)


[info]jaenanda
2008-01-29 06:41 am UTC (link)
I don't know all the details of this from the article, but it says only that the man "claims" that a DNA test confirmed that he was not the father... not that a DNA test had confirmed he was not the father.

Believe you me, the number of men out there who will try to claim that a kid isn't theirs to get out of paying child support is ridiculous. As far as I see it, if he was married to the woman at the time the child was born, if he raised the child, even unknowingly, as his own, for ANY period of time, if he at ANY point claimed he was the father, then as far as I'm concerned, he is, and trying to get out of it is shirking a commitment he made to that child.

I know that there are a lot of women who abuse child support laws. But there are also a lot of men out there who will do anything to get out of paying, and that's not right, either.

So I'm not making any judgments on this case, and only stating my personal opinion on child support matters in general.

(Reply to this)


[info]crisper
2008-01-29 08:39 am UTC (link)
These sorts of stories almost always leave out a lot of pertinent detail, such as whether the man in question wants to have anything more to do with the girl who he has raised as his own daughter for the last ten years. If he suddenly stops giving a shit about her, just like that, because of a genetic fact... well, I'd argue that he shouldn't have to pay for support, but I'd also say he has a shitty reptilian heart and he should never be allowed to see the girl again. If, on the other hand, he still wants to have any sort of relationship with the girl he has considered his daughter for years and years... well, then he should have a financial interest in her as well.

(Reply to this)


[info]irishinmn
2008-01-29 01:06 pm UTC (link)
This is unfortunately common in many states.

The legal "principle" that judges appear to go by is that once you write that first support check - you have accepted financial responsibility for that child until they turn 18.

If you go sit in family court for a few hours (pick your favorite state) - you will quickly become aware how utterly fubar'd our system of "family law" is.

(Reply to this)

injustice, not slavery
[info]katharinakatt
2008-01-29 01:16 pm UTC (link)
I think you need to look up what slavery actually is.

And I would say the guy should keep appealing because this isn't right.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: injustice, not slavery
[info]vaquera
2008-01-29 02:16 pm UTC (link)
One can't just "keep appealing." It doesn't really work like that. There is the principle of res judicata, which applies even to unlawful judgments and even an appeals court has very limited jurisdiction.

And yes I agree with the above observation that a lot of injustice takes place in family law court. That said, a lot of injustice takes place before the players ever get to court and often the judges are just trying to clean up a broken messy mess in which the best that can be done for the child is to find the least bad course of action.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: injustice, not slavery
[info]katharinakatt
2008-01-29 06:27 pm UTC (link)
It looks like it might and should go to the state supreme court. That's what I meant by appeals.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: injustice, not slavery
[info]vaquera
2008-01-29 06:37 pm UTC (link)
Do you have a different article? It's not clear that it might from the article; it seems that the reporter had no information to indicate that the man would in fact appeal to the State Supreme Court. It's important to note that, from the information in this article, the man is not apparently saying he has no obligation to support the child, but rather that the ordered amount is too high. And in the event that this is really his argument rather than shoddy reporting, the Supreme Court is not likely to reach any different conclusion other than "the lower court did not err in this decision."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: injustice, not slavery
[info]katharinakatt
2008-01-29 06:55 pm UTC (link)
Frankly I'm not sure why you picked my comment out of all the others to pick on.

My main point of my first comment was about the term 'slavery'.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: injustice, not slavery
[info]vaquera
2008-01-29 07:24 pm UTC (link)
Your comment isn't the only one I responded to. Sorry if you think I'm picking on you exclusively; I'm not. I'm an equal opportunity offender.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]fan_of_happosai
2008-01-29 01:51 pm UTC (link)
"Won't somebody think about the child'r'n?!"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]m_lexx
2008-01-29 04:00 pm UTC (link)
Apparently somebody did. Or tried to. Or, well, intended to. And we know what happens when someone intends to try to do something.

I have a friend who'd married a heavily pregnant lady, feeding him some bullcrap on being gang-raped. Imagine his surprise when the entire "gang", aka a certain Former Mister Right, showed up at the kid's second birthday party. Long story short: my friend is paying child and spousal support, mortgage for the house he'd been kicked out of and credit card bills for his soon-to-be-ex who is all of a sudden into buying boxer briefs and cigars in bulk. Yeah, the kid is so much better off with mommy's long lost love.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]smjayman
2008-01-29 04:01 pm UTC (link)
As I understand it, the legal precedent is that if you start paying child support, you will continue to do so until said child is 18, no matter what happens in the interim.

(Reply to this)


[info]kb4wyr
2008-01-29 06:04 pm UTC (link)
In Kansas, if a child is born during a marriage, the husband of the woman bearing the child is the legal father no matter what the DNA shows. Perhaps that is also the case in New Jersey.

(Reply to this)


[info]michiel
2008-01-29 10:14 pm UTC (link)
To quote Joe Rogan, "Jack off first, then think about it."

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]bespechnoepero
2008-03-31 06:43 pm UTC (link)
It's not a slavery. It's a genocide. Meaning that the genes of losers are being cleaned out of the genetic pool of humanity. Eventually all people would be bastards, and the justice will be served.

(Reply to this)

WTF?!!!
[info]sugarspundreams.blogspot.com
2009-01-16 07:32 am UTC (link)
My boyfriend's dad knows NOTHING about his kids, but can quote down to the PENNY how much child support he's paid- It's disgusting!
If he isn't the biological father and he doesn't feel connected to her to treat her like she was, she's probably better off without him or his money-you can't put a price on dignity.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…