Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

[Toni]

Everything sounds 'doable' until you consider that you are talking about raising human beings or even any living being with any sense of self awareness. What Jolly described would be a cruel and inadequate way of raising a litter of puppies, much less an entire society of people.

What has happened to the guy in the OP of this thread is cruel too. I do not agree with it at all, but this does appears to be an acceptable standard of conduct for women now days and condoned by our legal system. So if you agree with a non biological person raising and paying for a child as in the OP, you really should have no problem with what Jolly has suggested.

The reason that there is law established naming the husband of a woman who gives birth as the legal father of the resulting child is that there have always been children who are the result of sexual contact between the mother and someone not her husband. The ability to genetically determine paternity is a recent development. So is the ability to conceive a child through artificial insemination, iVF, and so on.

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the legal father is quite happy to continue as the child's father. What is cruel is if the adults decided they should disrupt the relationship between child and legal father.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Again, I ask what you keep dodging: Why should who your birth parents are determine where you start out in society?

Since you seem to be so set upon 'experts' raising children, perhaps you should read up a bit on what experts have to say about raising children away from their families, as has been done with many populations.

And again, she dodges.

And you sure seem to think you know a lot about me eh? Funny thing is that to confer with somebody who was raised away from their biological parents I only have to talk to my dad. He was adopted as a baby . He is fine. I know plenty of other folks who were also adopted and who are fine. Indeed your scaremongering examples of boarding schools are easily offset by plenty of great and well adjusted people who were adopted and who never met their biological parents.

The two questions that do haunt people who were adopted are (1) why did their birth parents not want them and (2) do they have a genetic history of X or Y. Point 1 is not a factor if this is the societal norm and their parents didn't make a choice. Number 2 is still a factor but is becoming less of one and will soon not be one as medical and genetic science advances. I've seen that myself, as my dad being adopted means half of my biological family tree is unknown.

 

[Toni]

Why should your birth parents determine anything at all?

Because they do. The nutritional status and health status of your genetic parents and of your gestational parent have a significant effect on your health and well being, beyond simple genetics.

Why do you believe that being raised wealthy makes you a better person than being raised poor? Why do you believe that being raised by 'experts' whose expertise is determined by what, exactly? will produce better outcomes than being raised by ones' own biological parents? What evidence do you have?

Actually, knowing ones genetic background is becoming more useful as medicine advances, not less so.

And yes, I have family members who were adopted, who have adopted and a parent who was raised for a period of time by people not his biological parents. Also friends who were adopted, who have adopted and who are or have been foster parents or who have or are raising children who are the biological offspring of other family members. So sure, I have anecdotal 'evidence' just as you do. So what? None of that is actually data or research or even remotely unusual.

Why should being raised rich or middle class or poor prevent you from receiving adequate health care, education, housing, nutrition, or access to services?

 

[Underseer]

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Now, now. Don't let facts get in the way of the "men are being oppressed" narrative of fragile white males.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Now, now. Don't let facts get in the way of the "men are being oppressed" narrative of fragile white males.

Hey, PD is supposed to be a safe space. If you're going to make a post like that, put it in hide tags and include a trigger warning message so that the delicate belles don't get the vapors.

 

[RVonse]

What has happened to the guy in the OP of this thread is cruel too. I do not agree with it at all, but this does appears to be an acceptable standard of conduct for women now days and condoned by our legal system. So if you agree with a non biological person raising and paying for a child as in the OP, you really should have no problem with what Jolly has suggested.

The reason that there is law established naming the husband of a woman who gives birth as the legal father of the resulting child is that there have always been children who are the result of sexual contact between the mother and someone not her husband.

Which is also the reason Saudi Arabia will stone a woman who is not faithful. But what has any of that got to do with your point?

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the legal father is quite happy to continue as the child's father.

And as I have pointed out numerous occasions there are a lot of other people, mostly men and myself included who are horrified over what has happened. The fact that he enjoyed being a cuckold certainly does not mean the rest of us feel that way. Even in today's world being a cuckold is still considered a fetish and not a standard norm shared by the rest of the male population.

Furthermore, I would believe in later years when this guy approaches the end of his life he may well change his mind. And come to regret not making the investment he should have in his own DNA.

 

[Toni]

The reason that there is law established naming the husband of a woman who gives birth as the legal father of the resulting child is that there have always been children who are the result of sexual contact between the mother and someone not her husband.

Which is also the reason Saudi Arabia will stone a woman who is not faithful. But what has any of that got to do with your point?

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the legal father is quite happy to continue as the child's father.

And as I have pointed out numerous occasions there are a lot of other people, mostly men and myself included who are horrified over what has happened. The fact that he enjoyed being a cuckold certainly does not mean the rest of us feel that way. Even in today's world being a cuckold is still considered a fetish and not a standard norm shared by the rest of the male population.

Furthermore, I would believe in later years when this guy approaches the end of his life he may well change his mind. And come to regret not making the investment he should have in his own DNA.

My reply was in response to your statement about women's behavior nowadays. In fact this is nothing new. Anymore than it is news that women must suffer a loss of resources to care for children resulting from a legally established relationship if the man strays and more so if one or more children result from his straying.

What is fascinating and disheartening is the number of men responding to this and similar threads in horror and disgust that a man might be held financially responsible for any child.

There is a solution for that: vasectomy. Actually at least two: celibacy is also effective.

 

[RVonse]

There is a solution for that: vasectomy. Actually at least two: celibacy is also effective.

But both are directly against biology. That is what makes those choices so hard to come by.

 

[RVonse]

[ Anymore than it is news that women must suffer a loss of resources to care for children resulting from a legally established relationship if the man strays and more so if one or more children result from his straying.

I am not a lawyer. But I am pretty sure this is not true. The law always gives the wife of the 1st marriage the priority of the mans assets. The successive women do not collect until the 1st wife gets her share first.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which is also the reason Saudi Arabia will stone a woman who is not faithful. But what has any of that got to do with your point?

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the legal father is quite happy to continue as the child's father.

And as I have pointed out numerous occasions there are a lot of other people, mostly men and myself included who are horrified over what has happened. The fact that he enjoyed being a cuckold certainly does not mean the rest of us feel that way. Even in today's world being a cuckold is still considered a fetish and not a standard norm shared by the rest of the male population.

Furthermore, I would believe in later years when this guy approaches the end of his life he may well change his mind. And come to regret not making the investment he should have in his own DNA.

My reply was in response to your statement about women's behavior nowadays. In fact this is nothing new. Anymore than it is news that women must suffer a loss of resources to care for children resulting from a legally established relationship if the man strays and more so if one or more children result from his straying.

What is fascinating and disheartening is the number of men responding to this and similar threads in horror and disgust that a man might be held financially responsible for any child.

There is a solution for that: vasectomy. Actually at least two: celibacy is also effective.

We don't think men in particular should be 'held responsibe' for children they never wanted for taking a drug they never wanted to be addicted to, because that isn't ethical.

If you find that disheartening, I suggest you rethink whatever philosophy you hold because it is broken.

Instead, maybe if those arguing for the sake of 'women' actually took their time asking what is ACTUALLY better for them and their children instead of assuming they already have all the answers, then maybe, just maybe, our world could move towards what I suspect is the correct compromise and putting the fiscal burden for the children we as a society need on the entire society instead of those gracious enough to take the burden of raising them.

Or is that too much to ask?

 

[Toni]

Which is also the reason Saudi Arabia will stone a woman who is not faithful. But what has any of that got to do with your point?

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the legal father is quite happy to continue as the child's father.

And as I have pointed out numerous occasions there are a lot of other people, mostly men and myself included who are horrified over what has happened. The fact that he enjoyed being a cuckold certainly does not mean the rest of us feel that way. Even in today's world being a cuckold is still considered a fetish and not a standard norm shared by the rest of the male population.

Furthermore, I would believe in later years when this guy approaches the end of his life he may well change his mind. And come to regret not making the investment he should have in his own DNA.

My reply was in response to your statement about women's behavior nowadays. In fact this is nothing new. Anymore than it is news that women must suffer a loss of resources to care for children resulting from a legally established relationship if the man strays and more so if one or more children result from his straying.

What is fascinating and disheartening is the number of men responding to this and similar threads in horror and disgust that a man might be held financially responsible for any child.

There is a solution for that: vasectomy. Actually at least two: celibacy is also effective.

We don't think men in particular should be 'held responsibe' for children they never wanted for taking a drug they never wanted to be addicted to, because that isn't ethical.

If you find that disheartening, I suggest you rethink whatever philosophy you hold because it is broken.

Instead, maybe if those arguing for the sake of 'women' actually took their time asking what is ACTUALLY better for them and their children instead of assuming they already have all the answers, then maybe, just maybe, our world could move towards what I suspect is the correct compromise and putting the fiscal burden for the children we as a society need on the entire society instead of those gracious enough to take the burden of raising them.

Or is that too much to ask?

It's asking far too little. The state makes a terrible parent.

I've said nothing--absolutely NOT ONE THING--about the sake of the woman, although I am a woman and a mother.

The only thing I've argued for in this thread is that the man who has been the child's father in every single way except genetically should be allowed to continue to be the child's father.

I've argued that children are best raised in families, without specifying that the adults be limited to a male and a female parent or limited to two parental figures or that there be biological ties between parental figures and offspring.

I've argued that there is ample evidence that group home situations are generally less ideal than an actual family. There is ample evidence of this documented when studying various orphanages, group homes, forced schooling away from family as was practiced on Native Americans and until rather recently, Australian aboriginals,for example. Even evidence from more benign boarding school schemes such as common in Great Britain and in the US upper classes point out issues in socialization.

Unlike most of those responding in this thread suggesting some aseptic artificial environment for childrearing, based on absolutely no evidence but the vague imaginings of their little minds, I've raised children, cared for children who are not my own genetic offspring and have worked extensively with children of various ages from infancy through adolescence. I've made it a point to be informed and educated about childhood development and social and intellectual as well as physical development of children.

Unless someone can point out actual evidence that children are better raised by the state than by parents, I don't think any of you have even a little toe to lean on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ No Toni. What you have argued is that a crackhead biological mother neglecting 5 children by different baby daddies is better than educated parental figures assigned by the state in caring adoptive homes.

Re-read what you have written in response to what I wrote. Actually read what I wrote this time, as you failed to before, and this is the only conclusion I can reach for you.

 

[laughing dog]

^ No Toni. What you have argued is that a crackhead biological mother neglecting 5 children by different baby daddies is better than educated parental figures assigned by the state in caring adoptive homes.

Re-read what you have written in response to what I wrote. Actually read what I wrote this time, as you failed to before, and this is the only conclusion I can reach for you.

Toni no more made your straw man claim than you argued that bored, disinterested alcoholic civil servants will do a better job raising children that loving, highly motivated, dedicated and intelligent parents.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There aren't enough caring adoptive homes which is why states will use a for-profit system of residential facilities for these kids. And that's even better than what Jolly says because there are more trained professionals on-hand with diverse certifications such as nutrition specialists, RNs, psychologists, etc. Utopian capitalism at its best!

 

[Toni]

^ No Toni. What you have argued is that a crackhead biological mother neglecting 5 children by different baby daddies is better than educated parental figures assigned by the state in caring adoptive homes.

Re-read what you have written in response to what I wrote. Actually read what I wrote this time, as you failed to before, and this is the only conclusion I can reach for you.

How about you actually read what I wrote. How about you leave off misrepresenting what I wrote-or back up your claim. Which you cannot do.

How about you actually back up your theory with something like evidence--you know: data, research, stuff like that. Instead of your misogynistic fantasy. How about you at least invoke those drive by fathers who are too irresponsible to wear a condominium, much less stick around to take some responsibility for their offspring instead of laying it all on some right wing fantasy of irresponsible woman popping out babies for welfare checks, a disproven republican distortion.

How about you hold yourself to some kind of standard beyond half cocked dystopian 'theory' of child rearing.

I'll be satisfied of you spend a little bit of the energy you spend on misrepresenting me on developing actual ideas that use something akin to a basic understanding of child welfare and development. I realize that will be a stretch for you.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How about you actually read what I wrote.

You first darling. You did after all jump onto a post I wrote without reading it or my subsequent posts. Your last one was quite a doozy with no response whatsoever to what I was writing. I'll continue to await an actual response.

 

[RVonse]

^ No Toni. What you have argued is that a crackhead biological mother neglecting 5 children by different baby daddies is better than educated parental figures assigned by the state in caring adoptive homes.

Re-read what you have written in response to what I wrote. Actually read what I wrote this time, as you failed to before, and this is the only conclusion I can reach for you.

How about you actually read what I wrote. How about you leave off misrepresenting what I wrote-or back up your claim. Which you cannot do.

How about you actually back up your theory with something like evidence--you know: data, research, stuff like that. Instead of your misogynistic fantasy. How about you at least invoke those drive by fathers who are too irresponsible to wear a condominium, much less stick around to take some responsibility for their offspring instead of laying it all on some right wing fantasy of irresponsible woman popping out babies for welfare checks, a disproven republican distortion.

How about you hold yourself to some kind of standard beyond half cocked dystopian 'theory' of child rearing.

I'll be satisfied of you spend a little bit of the energy you spend on misrepresenting me on developing actual ideas that use something akin to a basic understanding of child welfare and development. I realize that will be a stretch for you.

I don't know so much about Jolly. But what I have been trying to communicate can be backed up right here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...elor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married

I honestly like the institution of marraige for raising children, but my concern is that it does not make any sense for at least the male half of the population. Not because the concept of marriage is wrong, but because the law has become so 1 sided it will soon be a thing of the past.

It seems obvious that the basics like being faithful in a marrage have to be met or a contract of marrage means nothing. Yet whenever I make any sort of suggestion like equality of being faithful it is seen as something totally undoable for the modern woman.

Help me understand, because this makes no sense to me at all. Why does a marraige contract have to be unequal in today's world?

 

[laughing dog]

It seems obvious that the basics like being faithful in a marrage have to be met or a contract of marrage means nothing. Yet whenever I make any sort of suggestion like equality of being faithful it is seen as something totally undoable for the modern woman.

There are plenty of faithful modern women in marriages.

Help me understand, because this makes no sense to me at all. Why does a marraige contract have to be unequal in today's world?

It is not unequal.

 

[RVonse]

^ No Toni. What you have argued is that a crackhead biological mother neglecting 5 children by different baby daddies is better than educated parental figures assigned by the state in caring adoptive homes.

Re-read what you have written in response to what I wrote. Actually read what I wrote this time, as you failed to before, and this is the only conclusion I can reach for you.

How about you actually read what I wrote. How about you leave off misrepresenting what I wrote-or back up your claim. Which you cannot do.

How about you actually back up your theory with something like evidence--you know: data, research, stuff like that. Instead of your misogynistic fantasy. How about you at least invoke those drive by fathers who are too irresponsible to wear a condominium, much less stick around to take some responsibility for their offspring instead of laying it all on some right wing fantasy of irresponsible woman popping out babies for welfare checks, a disproven republican distortion.

How about you hold yourself to some kind of standard beyond half cocked dystopian 'theory' of child rearing.

I'll be satisfied of you spend a little bit of the energy you spend on misrepresenting me on developing actual ideas that use something akin to a basic understanding of child welfare and development. I realize that will be a stretch for you.

There are plenty of faithful modern women in marriages.

Help me understand, because this makes no sense to me at all. Why does a marraige contract have to be unequal in today's world?

It is not unequal.

At least 4 percent are not.

And until you can site a similar example I did in the OP of a woman paying child support for a non biological child.....thats not equal either.

 

[laughing dog]

At least 4 percent are not.

The propensity of unfaithfulness in marriage is not restricted to one gender. Men have been cuckolded for millenia. Do you have a scintilla of independent evidence that suggests unfaithfulness is rising or that being tricked into caring for a non-biological child is rising? If not, it appears you are raving about a non-problem.

And until you can site a similar example I did in the OP of a woman paying child support for a non biological child.....thats not equal either.

Of course it is not equal because men cannot physically get pregnant. Nonetheless, here is are interesting case https://mic.com/articles/129190/a-court-ordered-sherri-shepherd-to-pay-child-support-for-a-baby-not-biologically-her-own#.TcUJuCqQ6 and http://sandrarose.com/2016/04/brittney-griner-ordered-to-pay-child-support-to-glory-johnson/

The laws on child support in most states are based on outmoded technology (the out of date inability to identify paternity). The simple remedy is to work to update those laws in a humane fashion not to hysterically rave about the end of civilization using obviously bogus observations about reality.