Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

[RVonse]

Other than this case represents an example of others that are similar, I could care less whether or not this man is attempting to repudiate his daughter. When all is said and done, he will pay a very large sum of money for kid that is not even his.

Since there is no indication that this bothers him one bit, why does it bother you?

Because he is getting screwed over even if he is too stupid to know it.

If we have laws to tell us not to break into ATM's why do we have laws to encourage women to have other men's kids in a marriage?

What evidence do you have that the law ENCOURAGED this woman to have another man's child while in marriage to this fellow?

Most laws seem to be designed to discourage bad behavior and not to encourage any type of behavior. Take for example laws that demand a fine for speeding in traffic. That is a negative reinforcement to prevent a negative behavior. What you won't ever see is the police going around and giving everyone a bonus check if they stay within the speed limit.

So to answer your question I see no evidence the law encouraged this woman to engage in bad behavior. What is important though is that the law did nothing to discourage bad behavior to take place. And if people are allowed to do things that are bad for society without consequence, they will do it.

 

[laughing dog]

Since there is no indication that this bothers him one bit, why does it bother you?

Because he is getting screwed over even if he is too stupid to know it.

If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?

Most laws seem to be designed to discourage bad behavior and not to encourage any type of behavior. Take for example laws that demand a fine for speeding in traffic. That is a negative reinforcement to prevent a negative behavior. What you won't ever see is the police going around and giving everyone a bonus check if they stay within the speed limit.

So to answer your question I see no evidence the law encouraged this woman to engage in bad behavior. What is important though is that the law did nothing to discourage bad behavior to take place. And if people are allowed to do things that are bad for society without consequence, they will do it.

What exactly did this woman do that is bad for society that some law would have discouraged?

 

[RVonse]

Because he is getting screwed over even if he is too stupid to know it.

If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?

Blood is thicker than water. Im sorry but it just is. After thousands of years of evolution, there is programming that is present in biology. In the animal kingdom, there are examples of species that fight to the death for the right to reproduce with their female. It may not be thought about in a cognitive sense by you are any of your male friends, but I can assure you this is an instinct carried over to humankind as well. It is why marriage was invented in the first place by humans and we certainly have not evolved that much in 500 years to make this obsolete.

Most laws seem to be designed to discourage bad behavior and not to encourage any type of behavior. Take for example laws that demand a fine for speeding in traffic. That is a negative reinforcement to prevent a negative behavior. What you won't ever see is the police going around and giving everyone a bonus check if they stay within the speed limit.

So to answer your question I see no evidence the law encouraged this woman to engage in bad behavior. What is important though is that the law did nothing to discourage bad behavior to take place. And if people are allowed to do things that are bad for society without consequence, they will do it.

What exactly did this woman do that is bad for society that some law would have discouraged?

Infidelity with another man while being married. Its pretty hard to have some others guys kid if you are only having sex with your husband.

 

[RVonse]

I might also add to this. Sex by itself outside of marriage IMO is a soft core infidelity as long as she used birth control and was careful. But by actually knowingly bringing to term another mans baby while still married....in my view that is a hard core infidelity. It is an infidelity of whole different color.

 

[Bronzeage]

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

Everyone seems to be talking about the legal minutia of the example case I provided and the welfare of the kids.. but that is not what I intended my OP to be about. The example I provided is not the only time this has occurred anyway.

A marriage is supposed to be a contract between a man and woman or at least it used to be thought of that way. When a man and woman gets married, they are probably not considering the welfare of the children they might have that might not yet be born yet. They are probably considering what they want from the marriage..the woman wants financial security and the husband wants blood related children and a legacy. Or something like that. And they are supposed to both be exclusive to each other sexually or something like that.

Because if they aren't...and nobody cares....why even get married? I get that the kids are more important than anything else in the universe, but for the purpose of society functioning is it not also important for the adults to be motivated to do the right thing?

Paying child support on someone else's kid makes about as much sense as paying property taxes on someone else's house? Would you pay the property taxes for your neighbors house? And if not, why would you want to pay for someone else's kid?

The problem you seem to have, is with the concept of "your kid". The child you feed and clothe is your kid. Whether somewhere in the deep past, one of the billions of sperm cells you have produced, actually was part of creating this kid, is irrelevant.

I know this idea is totally contrary to all the rules of playground justice, but that's why playground precedence is not allowed to decide things when adults are involved. The child may not be your biological child. The mother may have deceived you in the most wicked way. People may be laughing at you. None of that matters. It's your kid because you once thought it was your kid, and you can't take that back.

Unfair? Please refer to the ruling on playground justice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And having the custodial parent fined or jailed for contempt of court doesn't do that?

Either the court orders matter or they don't. If there's no consequences enforced for not paying support or not allowing visitation, those things are going to be ignored ... well ... about as much as they are now.

These situations show that the judicial system is rigged in the sociopath's favor.... kind of like life in general.

 

[braces_for_impact]

As someone who's been completely fucked by this system, and is even still taking it up the ass without lube, I'm going to tell you how it really is.

It is not an issue of the courts being biased against men. It's also not about the courts being biased against women. It's about a fucked up legal system to begin with, going in both directions. If you cannot afford a lawyer, and try to do this pro se, you're screwed. Do not do this. That's rule number 1, and one I learned the hard way. If you're like me and cannot afford a lawyer because, well, they're taking half your paycheck, sorry about ya.

 

[thebeave]

This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

 

[RVonse]

This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

Not a bad idea.

But then what happens when the kid is found with the wrong DNA? He can divorce her yes and that will work out great if there aren't already other kids in the mix.

At least this idea brings the issue to attention faster though.

 

[RVonse]

Everyone seems to be talking about the legal minutia of the example case I provided and the welfare of the kids.. but that is not what I intended my OP to be about. The example I provided is not the only time this has occurred anyway.

A marriage is supposed to be a contract between a man and woman or at least it used to be thought of that way. When a man and woman gets married, they are probably not considering the welfare of the children they might have that might not yet be born yet. They are probably considering what they want from the marriage..the woman wants financial security and the husband wants blood related children and a legacy. Or something like that. And they are supposed to both be exclusive to each other sexually or something like that.

Because if they aren't...and nobody cares....why even get married? I get that the kids are more important than anything else in the universe, but for the purpose of society functioning is it not also important for the adults to be motivated to do the right thing?

Paying child support on someone else's kid makes about as much sense as paying property taxes on someone else's house? Would you pay the property taxes for your neighbors house? And if not, why would you want to pay for someone else's kid?

The problem you seem to have, is with the concept of "your kid". The child you feed and clothe is your kid. Whether somewhere in the deep past, one of the billions of sperm cells you have produced, actually was part of creating this kid, is irrelevant.

Not according to science, evolution, and biology. Pretty much all the reasons we exist in the first place, it does not get any more fundamental then that.

I know this idea is totally contrary to all the rules of playground justice, but that's why playground precedence is not allowed to decide things when adults are involved. The child may not be your biological child. The mother may have deceived you in the most wicked way. People may be laughing at you. None of that matters. It's your kid because you once thought it was your kid, and you can't take that back.

Unfair? Please refer to the ruling on playground justice.

The young boys molested by the Catholic priests can not take that back either. Does that mean the law should allow this practice to be encouraged too?

There is only 1 way to prevent a bastard child from being born in a marriage and that is to sanction the adult when it happens. She is the only one who has the full knowledge of what is going on, her own actions, and what has happened. It should be done for the good of society or society will break down.

 

[Bronzeage]

This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

There may come a day when registering a person's unique DNA profile at birth is part of the birth certificate, but I would not want to be part of a society where an infant is presumed a bastard until proven legitimate.

It's only the latest scientific progress which has put us in this situation. Truly reliable paternity tests are a fairly new thing for the human race. Perhaps science could offer a solution for the men who discover they have been deceived by a person whom they trusted with their sperm, only to discover she used sperm from another source.

Along with proving or disproving fatherhood at birth, we could require all males to receive a reversible vasectomy(a mechanical device know as the "ball valve") at the age of 14. Once the boy reaches the age of majority, he will have to pass a series of psychological exams, which will determine if he is mature enough to deal with the burdens and occasional disappointments which are an inevitable part of parenthood.

Once his certificate of manhood is obtained, he has the option of having his ball valves(2 are required) turned on.

This will prevent the creation of children who discover too late in life that fortune and circumstance has put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are thus no longer loved by the man who they called Daddy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

What shocks me isn't the call for support to exist for the child, but the call to extract it from one individual who is not responsible for that child any more than any other. Why not let the support come from the state so we all pay into it? How is singling a non-father out to pay any different than singling out any other random individual? And why would lending a hand or giving a gift to help support the child create a requirement to support that child on a long term basis? That seems to discourage men from being good people and helping out. Why punish kindness?

 

[RVonse]

This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

There may come a day when registering a person's unique DNA profile at birth is part of the birth certificate, but I would not want to be part of a society where an infant is presumed a bastard until proven legitimate.

Then change the law so that bastard children won't be born in the first place.

It's only the latest scientific progress which has put us in this situation. Truly reliable paternity tests are a fairly new thing for the human race. Perhaps science could offer a solution for the men who discover they have been deceived by a person whom they trusted with their sperm, only to discover she used sperm from another source.

Along with proving or disproving fatherhood at birth, we could require all males to receive a reversible vasectomy(a mechanical device know as the "ball valve") at the age of 14. Once the boy reaches the age of majority, he will have to pass a series of psychological exams, which will determine if he is mature enough to deal with the burdens and occasional disappointments which are an inevitable part of parenthood.

Once his certificate of manhood is obtained, he has the option of having his ball valves(2 are required) turned on.

This will prevent the creation of children who discover too late in life that fortune and circumstance has put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are thus no longer loved by the man who they called Daddy.

Not sure what all this means. But it does not seem to address a big reason why men choose to get married in the first place. To pass on their line.

 

[RVonse]

This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

There may come a day when registering a person's unique DNA profile at birth is part of the birth certificate, but I would not want to be part of a society where an infant is presumed a bastard until proven legitimate.

It's only the latest scientific progress which has put us in this situation. Truly reliable paternity tests are a fairly new thing for the human race. Perhaps science could offer a solution for the men who discover they have been deceived by a person whom they trusted with their sperm, only to discover she used sperm from another source.

Along with proving or disproving fatherhood at birth, we could require all males to receive a reversible vasectomy(a mechanical device know as the "ball valve") at the age of 14. Once the boy reaches the age of majority, he will have to pass a series of psychological exams, which will determine if he is mature enough to deal with the burdens and occasional disappointments which are an inevitable part of parenthood.

Once his certificate of manhood is obtained, he has the option of having his ball valves(2 are required) turned on.

This will prevent the creation of children who discover too late in life that fortune and circumstance has put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are thus no longer loved by the man who they called Daddy.

Despite all the advancement of science, having children is the closest any of us can or will ever get to immortality. How is installing a vasectomy going to help fulfill what nature and instinct has brought to all of us?

 

[laughing dog]

If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?

Blood is thicker than water. Im sorry but it just is. After thousands of years of evolution, there is programming that is present in biology. In the animal kingdom, there are examples of species that fight to the death for the right to reproduce with their female. It may not be thought about in a cognitive sense by you are any of your male friends, but I can assure you this is an instinct carried over to humankind as well. It is why marriage was invented in the first place by humans and we certainly have not evolved that much in 500 years to make this obsolete.

I fail to see how that answers my question - If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?

Infidelity with another man while being married. Its pretty hard to have some others guys kid if you are only having sex with your husband.

Infidelity has been around for millenia and society seems to function fine. So, I fail to see how your response addresses my question.

 

[RVonse]

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

How is singling a non-father out to pay any different than singling out any other random individual? And why would lending a hand or giving a gift to help support the child create a requirement to support that child on a long term basis? That seems to discourage men from being good people and helping out. Why punish kindness?

People like Bronzeage will tell you that singling out a non-father is the right way because those people enjoy being cuckolds. And even if they didn't, they should be trained to.

 

[RVonse]

Blood is thicker than water. Im sorry but it just is. After thousands of years of evolution, there is programming that is present in biology. In the animal kingdom, there are examples of species that fight to the death for the right to reproduce with their female. It may not be thought about in a cognitive sense by you are any of your male friends, but I can assure you this is an instinct carried over to humankind as well. It is why marriage was invented in the first place by humans and we certainly have not evolved that much in 500 years to make this obsolete.

I fail to see how that answers my question - If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?

If a prostitute is not bothered by the fact that she is getting money for her service, how he she getting screwed over? If a victim of a kidnapping gets his offspring back for a lot of money and is not bothered by that fact, how are they not being screwed over?

Infidelity with another man while being married. Its pretty hard to have some others guys kid if you are only having sex with your husband.

Infidelity has been around for millenia and society seems to function fine. So, I fail to see how your response addresses my question.

Some will argue that society has functioned better when marriage and the family unit is strengthened.

But yes, man was still able to evolve without having laws in the past.

 

[laughing dog]

If a prostitute is not bothered by the fact that she is getting money for her service, how he she getting screwed over? If a victim of a kidnapping gets his offspring back for a lot of money and is not bothered by that fact, how are they not being screwed over?

Answering a question with a question is non-responsive. This man has not indicate he is bothered by the child support. He is bothered by the denial of access to his legal daughter. Apparently, the fact she does not share his DNA does not bother him at all. Apparently, the fact his former wife deceived him does not bother him at all. From the reports so far, he does not feel screwed over by the child support. Apparently he values his relationship with his legal daughter enough that this other stuff does not bother him. If that is the case, what makes you a better judge of his situation than him?

Some will argue that society has functioned better when marriage and the family unit is strengthened.

Are you making that argument? If so, make it. Otherwise, stop wasting time and effort with these irrelevant responses.

 

[RVonse]

Answering a question with a question is non-responsive. This man has not indicate he is bothered by the child support.

Those examples I provide are exactly the same thing. I am responding that harm has been done even if in this specific case an individual happens not to be bothered by it. If someone were to eat shit out of a toilet and claim it was a good meal, I would still not argue everyone else would enjoy it too.

Some will argue that society has functioned better when marriage and the family unit is strengthened.

Are you making that argument? If so, make it. Otherwise, stop wasting time and effort with these irrelevant responses.

????Is that not what the OP says? That domestic law if uncorrected will eventually cause a breakdown of families?

 

[laughing dog]

Those examples I provide are exactly the same thing. I am responding that harm has been done even if in this specific case an individual happens not to be bothered by it. If someone were to eat shit out of a toilet and claim it was a good meal, I would still not argue everyone else would enjoy it too.

Unfortunately for your position, you have not identified any harm to this man. Nor is anyone claiming that this man's reaction is appropriate for everyone else.

????Is that not what the OP says? That domestic law if uncorrected will eventually cause a breakdown of families?

If that is the OP argument, it is truly reactionary. Families do not require marriage.