Child support laws run amok

[TV and credit cards]

The state is taking the easy way out with this law. If they don't want to burden the courts with these cases by making a blanket law stating any children conceived while legally married are the responsibility of the married couple unless proven otherwise then, if the accused can not afford DNA testing, DNA testing should be provided by the state.
The state can say this is to provide for the child and the child comes first, which is all well and good but the state is benefiting financially with this law. Commonsense would dictate (and the court should be obligated to hear), if you're estranged for umpteen years, there's a good chance the kid isn't yours.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I've been divorced twice. I have little sympathy for a man who waited 17 years and never filed.

Word to the wise.
He left it lying there on the chopping block and unbeknownst to him the little woman was maintaining a sharp cleaver.
Wack!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The system is reverse sexist against men because she had to acquiesce to his not wanting to be divorced for 15 years and then he had to acquiesce for a whole year (while receiving benefits for not really being married). How dare the state now assume it's his kid just because he was getting benefits for being married up until yesterday! Clearly political correctness and Obama are to blame for this travesty of injustice against men. All real men need to donate money to him and don't worry, it won't be used for meth.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

According to some, the paternity test shouldn't even be used.

Who’s the daddy? Paternity can now be verified by a simple test – but that doesn’t mean it should be

It’s a wise child, they say, that knows its own father. Nowadays, however, wisdom is hardly required; DNA tests can do the job with scientific certainty. For the entire course of human history, men have nursed profound, troubling doubts about the fundamental question of whether or not they were fathers to their own children; women, by contrast, usually enjoyed a reasonable level of certainty about the matter.

Now, a cotton-wool swab with a bit of saliva, plus a small fee, less than £200, can settle the matter. At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves.

The subject has resurfaced lately, courtesy of a story in the Daily Mail, about a married television presenter who for years had been paying for the support of a child conceived, as he thought, as a result of his relationship with a writer. It seems that after meeting the child for the first time, he asked for a DNA test; it duly turned out that he was not, after all, the father. Poor child.

Are Paternity Tests Anti-Feminist?

Paternity Tests rob women of their hold over men

Next time someone insists that any objection to political correctness must only be about bigots wanting to be bigots, I'll be sure to reference this post.

 

[Derec]

DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves.

Kind of puts to the lie the oft repeated claim that feminist is all about gender equality. No, it's about seeking to advantage females in every way possible.

 

[RavenSky]

DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves.

Kind of puts to the lie the oft repeated claim that feminist is all about gender equality. No, it's about seeking to advantage females in every way possible.

 

[Derec]

The system is reverse sexist against men because she had to acquiesce to his not wanting to be divorced for 15 years and then he had to acquiesce for a whole year (while receiving benefits for not really being married).

According to one random commenter below the article. But even if true, it does not justify a deeply sexist law.

How dare the state now assume it's his kid just because he was getting benefits for being married up until yesterday! Clearly political correctness and Obama are to blame for this travesty of injustice against men. All real men need to donate money to him and don't worry, it won't be used for meth.

How about changing the law so it's not so sexist? Can't have that of course. Feminism is all about benefits and privileges for women, not about equality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hey watch it Derric, I was quoting someone else when I wrote that.

 

[Derec]

Kind of puts to the lie the oft repeated claim that feminist is all about gender equality. No, it's about seeking to advantage females in every way possible.

Did you read the articles? Or even the excerpt?

 

[laughing dog]

How about changing the law so it's not so sexist?

Good idea.

Can't have that of course. Feminism is all about benefits and privileges for women, not about equality.

Now you damage your own claims when you spout this ignorance.

 

[Derec]

I'm not blaming the woman--I don't think she's the one behind it. I think she filed for welfare and the state is coming after him. I posted this as an example of bad laws, not as woman-bashing.

We don't know that - the article is not clear on that. What we do know is that she had a child with somebody else.

The law made sense when it was passed. The problem is that it's been overtaken by technology. We have a far better means of determining paternity, this dinosaur of a law should go.

And back than the laws dealing with adulteresses were harsh to compensate for this. These days women are free to cheat all they want (and they can still take the man to the cleaners in a divorce suit thanks to "no fault divorce" and biased divorce courts) but men are still required to pay for the "fruits" of their adulteries.

 

[RavenSky]

Did you read the articles? Or even the excerpt?

Yes, dear. I've read the article and about a dozen others on this particular case. There is nothing "sexist" or gender inequality about the law as it stands. It is about CHILD SUPPORT!!! It is about A CHILD!!! It is not about women, it is about A CHILD WHO NEEDS SUPPORT!!!

If you would get the fuck off your constant women-hating rants - and read my posts - you might figure out that I am actually in agreement with you that this particular man almost certainly should not have to pay child support, with a DNA test showing he is not the father making that a 100% certainty - regardless of his marital status.

But that does not make the law, in general, all "about seeking to advantage females in every way possible." That statement is just plain stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't know that - the article is not clear on that. What we do know is that she had a child with somebody else.

The law made sense when it was passed. The problem is that it's been overtaken by technology. We have a far better means of determining paternity, this dinosaur of a law should go.

And back than the laws dealing with adulteresses were harsh to compensate for this. These days women are free to cheat all they want (and they can still take the man to the cleaners in a divorce suit thanks to "no fault divorce" and biased divorce courts) but men are still required to pay for the "fruits" of their adulteries.

oh bullshit Derec. Seriously, that is just pure bullshit

 

[Derec]

There's a man somewhere who is the real father of this child, and because he never married the mother, will not be held responsible for the child's support.
Now that is male privilege.

How is that male privilege? It allows a woman to condemn her ex (whom she hates) to pay her child support rather than her boyfriend (whom she likes).

 

[Derec]

Yes, dear. I've read the article and about a dozen others on this particular case. There is nothing "sexist" or gender inequality about the law as it stands.

It's all sexist!

It is about CHILD SUPPORT!!!

So-called child support is really woman support because it is paid to her and she can do with it as she pleases.

It is about A CHILD!!!

It is not about women, it is about A CHILD WHO NEEDS SUPPORT!!!

Therefore, a man who is not the father of the child should be condemned to support said child for 18 years? How is that just? How is that not sexist, since we do not condemn women to pay for children who are not theirs.

If you would get the fuck off your constant women-hating rants - and read my posts - you might figure out that I am actually in agreement with you that this particular man almost certainly should not have to pay child support, with a DNA test showing he is not the father making that a 100% certainty - regardless of his marital status.

Yet you do not think the law is sexist even though it only applies to men but not to women?

But that does not make the law, in general, all "about seeking to advantage females in every way possible." That statement is just plain stupid.

That sentence referred not to the case from OP but to the article where a feminist was arguing that parternity tests should not be used because it robs women of a powerful weapon they have to lord it over men. Again, did you read the article Jason Harvestdancer linked to and to which I was responding here?

oh bullshit Derec. Seriously, that is just pure bullshit

US divorce laws are very sexist. Women can cheat, file for divorce and get the house, half the man's assets and monthly alimony. Only 4% of alimony awards go to the man, even though women outearn men in 33% of marriages. So, if there was no sexism in divorce court, you'd expect close to 1/3 of all alimony awards to go to men.

 

[Derec]

It isn't a deeply sexist system. The law makes perfect sense. The lawmakers in Des Moines didn't anticipate that there would be situations where a guy would be estranged from his wife for 16 fucking years!

The law doesn't make any sense and it is sexist because it saddles men with a cuckoo's child, but never a woman. Even without long estrangement, many women cheat. Those adulteries often produce offspring. The husband should not be paying for those either.

 

[RavenSky]

Therefore, a man who is not the father of the child should be condemned to support said child for 18 years?

And this just proves my point. When you can show - with a link - where I have ever said that would be acceptable, THEN you can ask me that stupid question again. Until then, I'm done talking to you tonight because I've had far too much of your women-hating bullshit today.

 

[Derec]

And this just proves my point. When you can show - with a link - where I have ever said that would be acceptable, THEN you can ask me that stupid question again. Until then, I'm done talking to you tonight because I've had far too much of your women-hating bullshit today.

You defended the law by saying it benefits the CHILD (in all caps). How am I to take such a statement?

 

[JonA]

And this just proves my point. When you can show - with a link - where I have ever said that would be acceptable, THEN you can ask me that stupid question again. Until then, I'm done talking to you tonight because I've had far too much of your women-hating bullshit today.

You defended the law by saying it benefits the CHILD (in all caps).

Isn't that the idea?

I think your "child support is really woman support because it is paid to her and she can do with it as she pleases" misses. There's a reason children of wealthy parents have better lives: the more money available to the parent(s), the better supported the child.

So while you're technically correct - 'child support is woman support' - the logic comes back around because parent support is child support.

 

[laughing dog]

There's a man somewhere who is the real father of this child, and because he never married the mother, will not be held responsible for the child's support.
Now that is male privilege.

How is that male privilege? It allows a woman to condemn her ex (whom she hates) to pay her child support rather than her boyfriend (whom she likes).

If you are referring to the OP case, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think she filed for welfare and the state is coming after him. I posted this as an example of bad laws, not as woman-bashing.

I agree with your first sentence. I disagree, however, that this is "bad law". Unless this country chooses to pay child support to every child born (as Jaryn suggests and I don't disagree with), the parents must be held financially responsible whether they want to be or not. And when two people are married, in the absence of a paternity test showing otherwise, it is reasonable from the state's and society's perspective to assume the husband is also the father.

But he almost certainly isn't the father--yet you would prefer he be on the hook (not that he's going to be able to pay anyway) than the state look for the right one.

I think this is a waste of resources as the vast majority of men are not denying their paternity. Why should the state have to pay for paternity tests when the man is not even claiming he isn't the father?

Just how far will you go to screw the innocent??

He doesn't have the money to deny paternity in the court-accepted way, that doesn't mean he's not denying paternity.

The law made sense when it was passed. The problem is that it's been overtaken by technology. We have a far better means of determining paternity, this dinosaur of a law should go.

Then you should volunteer to pay for all of the paternity tests for every man in every child support case, even when said man is not denying that he is the father.

Whoever brings the case should have the burden of proving it. Or doesn't the truth matter when the victim is a man? Aren't men people also?