Matriarchy at work

[Derec]

A man ordered to pay $30,000 for a child that is not his.
Judge says man must pay $30K in child support for kid who is not his
Instead of charging the mother with fraud they go after the male victim. And, of course, the judge is a female. Gotta support the "sisterhood" I guess.

But feminists still labor under the illusion that the US is somehow a patriarchy.

 

[laughing dog]

Go figure. A judge expects someone to follow the letter of the law, regardless of the specific circumstances. Sounds like a real conspiracy to me.

 

[Blahface]

According to Snopes, one article says that he knowingly allowed his ex to declare him as the father so she could receive welfare benefits. If true, that means that he helped perpetrate fraud. I still think paying $30,000 is too much of a punishment though for something he didn't realize he was getting himself into.

It is hard to know what the truth is though because the proceedings for these cases are not on public record.

 

[barbos]

Tha's stupid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This isn't an example of anti-male bias like you're making it out to be. Rather, it's the fault of our legal system being so focused on procedure. He didn't know how to correctly challenge it and couldn't afford to hire the legal help he needed and thus was stuck with a bad result.


It occurs to me--while suing her wouldn't do any good (it's unlikely she has anything) how about suing the process server?

 

[barbos]

According to Snopes, one article says that he knowingly allowed his ex to declare him as the father so she could receive welfare benefits. If true, that means that he helped perpetrate fraud. I still think paying $30,000 is too much of a punishment though for something he didn't realize he was getting himself into.

It is hard to know what the truth is though because the proceedings for these cases are not on public record.

I don't understand why "benefits" are conditioned on knowing who the father is?

 

[ZiprHead]

According to Snopes, one article says that he knowingly allowed his ex to declare him as the father so she could receive welfare benefits. If true, that means that he helped perpetrate fraud. I still think paying $30,000 is too much of a punishment though for something he didn't realize he was getting himself into.

It is hard to know what the truth is though because the proceedings for these cases are not on public record.

I don't understand why "benefits" are conditioned on knowing who the father is?

It's the state getting money from the father to the child to reduce the welfare benefit to the mother and child. The state is, in essence, saying that the father should be paying for the welfare of the child before the state does.

 

[barbos]

I don't understand why "benefits" are conditioned on knowing who the father is?

It's the state getting money from the father to the child to reduce the welfare benefit to the mother and child. The state is, in essence, saying that the father should be paying for the welfare of the child before the state does.

I suspected that, but then it's not really a welfare benefit. It's more like assistance in getting alimony.

 

[Derec]

According to Snopes, one article says that he knowingly allowed his ex to declare him as the father so she could receive welfare benefits. If true, that means that he helped perpetrate fraud. I still think paying $30,000 is too much of a punishment though for something he didn't realize he was getting himself into.

Even if true, they both perpetrated the fraud with her being the beneficiary. So they should both be punished, with her most severely. Instead only he is punished and she rewarded. I do not see why our system is giving immunity to women perpetrating paternal fraud.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't an example of anti-male bias like you're making it out to be. Rather, it's the fault of our legal system being so focused on procedure. He didn't know how to correctly challenge it and couldn't afford to hire the legal help he needed and thus was stuck with a bad result.?

I disagree. The procedure itself is biased against men. It doesn't prosecute women who lie about who the father is. It allows women to name any man as the father and the state than places the burden of proof onto the man to prove his innocence rather than on the woman to prove the man's guilt. All those things need to be changed.

 

[Angry Floof]

Go matriarchy!

 

[credoconsolans]

Even if true, they both perpetrated the fraud with her being the beneficiary. So they should both be punished, with her most severely. Instead only he is punished and she rewarded. I do not see why our system is giving immunity to women perpetrating paternal fraud.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't an example of anti-male bias like you're making it out to be. Rather, it's the fault of our legal system being so focused on procedure. He didn't know how to correctly challenge it and couldn't afford to hire the legal help he needed and thus was stuck with a bad result.?

I disagree. The procedure itself is biased against men. It doesn't prosecute women who lie about who the father is. It allows women to name any man as the father and the state than places the burden of proof onto the man to prove his innocence rather than on the woman to prove the man's guilt. All those things need to be changed.

So, the woman should then assume the legal burden to subpoena a man - or multiple men - and force him to undergo blood tests to test paternity?

Hmmm, I'm thinking Derec you would then be screaming about men's rights not to be forced to undergo any medical procedure simply based on a woman's word.

 

[Derec]

So, the woman should then assume the legal burden to subpoena a man - or multiple men - and force him to undergo blood tests to test paternity?

Hmmm, I'm thinking Derec you would then be screaming about men's rights not to be forced to undergo any medical procedure simply based on a woman's word.

Obviously there should be some penalty for false accusations. She should at least have to pay the falsely accused men for their time and trouble. There should also be a fine for wasting court's time.
It is certainly preferable to the current system of matriarchal courts presuming any man a woman names is the father even if he never had sex with her with no adverse effects for the woman making these false claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Go matriarchy!

Not surprised at all that you would applaud the sexist practice of courts aiding and abetting female fraudsters.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

matriarchy -- a family, group, or government controlled by a woman or a group of women

This is not matriarchy

This is not even close.

 

[Derec]

matriarchy -- a family, group, or government controlled by a woman or a group of women

This is not matriarchy

This is not even close.

Modern US is much more of a matriarchy than it is a patriarchy. Example being the injustice in this thread. Or how about the false rape allegation at UVA. Even though the allegation was very false the female false accuser (Jackie Coakley) wasn't expelled or otherwise punished. And the university mandated programs to combat campus rape (even though no rape happened) rather than programs to combat false rape allegations (even though a false rape allegation actually happened).

Or take the fact that men, and only men, have to register for "selective service".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to Snopes, one article says that he knowingly allowed his ex to declare him as the father so she could receive welfare benefits. If true, that means that he helped perpetrate fraud. I still think paying $30,000 is too much of a punishment though for something he didn't realize he was getting himself into.

It is hard to know what the truth is though because the proceedings for these cases are not on public record.

I don't understand why "benefits" are conditioned on knowing who the father is?

To keep her from hiding the boyfriend that's the real father--the state wants to go after child support.

 

[Derec]

I don't understand why "benefits" are conditioned on knowing who the father is?

To keep her from hiding the boyfriend that's the real father--the state wants to go after child support.

Except that she can still hide the boyfriend by accusing any Tom, Dick or Harry who isn't the father.

 

[credoconsolans]

Obviously there should be some penalty for false accusations. She should at least have to pay the falsely accused men for their time and trouble. There should also be a fine for wasting court's time.
It is certainly preferable to the current system of matriarchal courts presuming any man a woman names is the father even if he never had sex with her with no adverse effects for the woman making these false claims.

False accusations? What if she doesn't know who the father really is? Why should she be penalized for that?

- - - Updated - - -

matriarchy -- a family, group, or government controlled by a woman or a group of women

This is not matriarchy

This is not even close.

Or take the fact that men, and only men, have to register for "selective service".

A law voted in by our government which consist of men, mostly men.

 

[laughing dog]

Modern US is much more of a matriarchy than it is a patriarchy.

That is rhetorical nonsense. Governorships, legislatures, judges and CEOS are still dominated by men.

 

[fromderinside]

Go matriarchy!

​

Derec​

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are better stories about child support fraud out there. If you want a really good one, you need one without negative ancillary details for defenders of the status quo to pick out as if they are the important details.