Hidden side of paternity fraud

[Patooka]

And what is the documented rate of virgins paying child support?

Quite low. Does that make it ok?

Makes it a pretty low priority. Right up there with incestuous cannibalism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And what is the documented rate of virgins paying child support?

Quite low. Does that make it ok?

Makes it a pretty low priority. Right up there with incestuous cannibalism.

Pretty sure incestuous cannibalism isn't explicitly assisted by the state. Maybe in your country, nor would people here shrug it off as no big deal.

It would actually be shocking and get on the news. Paternity fraud against a virgin, not so much. Paternity fraud generally (much more common), the victim is more often vilified than empathized for.

 

[Patooka]

Makes it a pretty low priority. Right up there with incestuous cannibalism.

Pretty sure incestuous cannibalism isn't explicitly assisted by the state. Maybe in your country, nor would people here shrug it off as no big deal.

I find both issues to be pretty absurd and infinitesimal to make any fuss about. And it's pretty obvious that the original post was intended to manufacture outrage over facts. I definately think the "1 in 8 births" assertion to be complete bullshit, and I'm almost convinced the cost of this "epidemic" we are discussing to be almost negligible. This entire discussion is similar to what 4 incels in an 8chan thread would be salivating over and just as inconsequential.

 

[Rhea]

Sounds like a Diamonds and Silk kind of thing, tbh.

What is that? Rhea got annoyed that the OP just posted a video and made a comment. You didn't even give any reference whatsoever what this is. I wonder if Rhea will be further annoyed.

Curious. Is there any way that anyone could present the points in the OP to you without drawing a hostile or dismissive reaction from you?

Yo.
Rhea’s not annoyed.
She can’t run videos and wanted to know what the discussion involved, so she asked for a synopsis. And made an amusing note about how opaque the references were.

Still not annoyed, tho.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Makes it a pretty low priority. Right up there with incestuous cannibalism.

Pretty sure incestuous cannibalism isn't explicitly assisted by the state. Maybe in your country, nor would people here shrug it off as no big deal.

I find both issues to be pretty absurd and infinitesimal to make any fuss about. And it's pretty obvious that the original post was intended to manufacture outrage over facts. I definately think the "1 in 8 births" assertion to be complete bullshit, and I'm almost convinced the cost of this "epidemic" we are discussing to be almost negligible. This entire discussion is similar to what 4 incels in an 8chan thread would be salivating over and just as inconsequential.

I disagree that something being less than super common makes it inconsequential. Paternity fraud is probably more common than priests raping little boys, but the latter matters when it happens right?

 

[Patooka]

I disagree that something being less than super common makes it inconsequential. Paternity fraud is probably more common than priests raping little boys, but the latter matters when it happens right?

You're comparing decades of well documented systemic suppression of abuse to an "issue" that no one has posted any plausible facts and figures about. If you think that they are even remotely comparable supplying some evidence is required. To paraphrase Keith; how many virgins have been victims of paternity fraud?

 

[Bronzeage]

Can someone give a concise definition of "paternity fraud", in the same way bank fraud or wire fraud is defined in the law?

A woman lying about who the father of her baby is in order to get support, whether in the family or child support later.

However, skip the video. It's just an emotional thing about the victims.

In my state, if a man's legal wife has a baby, it's his. The only way out of it is to deny paternity at birth and not extend any support or comfort to the infant.

Of course, some men discover too late that the child was actually fathered by some other man. Doesn't matter. It's still his child, as far as support goes. This is one of those legal conditions known as "Sucks to be you."

 

[Keith&Co.]

And what is the documented rate of virgins paying child support?

Quite low. Does that make it ok?

Not okay. But is this a state sanctioned parent-providing habit, or were each of the cases special circumstances?

 

[Toni]

Can someone give a concise definition of "paternity fraud", in the same way bank fraud or wire fraud is defined in the law?

A woman lying about who the father of her baby is in order to get support, whether in the family or child support later.

However, skip the video. It's just an emotional thing about the victims.

In my state, if a man's legal wife has a baby, it's his. The only way out of it is to deny paternity at birth and not extend any support or comfort to the infant.

Of course, some men discover too late that the child was actually fathered by some other man. Doesn't matter. It's still his child, as far as support goes. This is one of those legal conditions known as "Sucks to be you."

Or it's great to be you. The man gets to be a father of a child. A lot of men consider fatherhood to be an enormous blessing.

The presumption that the legal husband of the woman who gives birth is the father, legally, of her child is a holdover from days before paternity tests were available.

It can produce a terrible situation for a man who unwillingly pays support for a kid not his.

It can also produce a wonderful situation for a child whose genetic father is a bad or at least irresponsible person and whose purported/legal father wants to be a father to the child.

Amazingly enough, there are a lot of men who really enjoy fatherhood, who enjoy raising children, who don't see fatherhood as a trap or a burden. There are quite a few who marry women who already have a child or children and who embrace fatherhood.

 

[laughing dog]

I find both issues to be pretty absurd and infinitesimal to make any fuss about. And it's pretty obvious that the original post was intended to manufacture outrage over facts. I definately think the "1 in 8 births" assertion to be complete bullshit, and I'm almost convinced the cost of this "epidemic" we are discussing to be almost negligible. This entire discussion is similar to what 4 incels in an 8chan thread would be salivating over and just as inconsequential.

I disagree that something being less than super common makes it inconsequential. Paternity fraud is probably more common than priests raping little boys, but the latter matters when it happens right?

First, one would think it is obvious that lifelong physical, emotional and psychological harm along with the betrayal of the priestly vows and trust greatly outweigh the emotional and fiscal harm of real paternity fraud.

Second, there is no evidence that real paternity fraud (i.e. the mother lying about the father as opposed to making a mistake) is more or less common than priest raping boys (or girls).

 

[Rhea]

What makes a child "yours," anyway? And why are the men in this thread working so hard to deny love to children?
I find that very very interesting, and more than a little foreign.

The child is a person unto themsleves. They are not a possession of others, not chattel, not an extension of self. They are little human beings who "owe" you nothing if you are a bad parent and who "deserve" care as much as any other human being.

So as I watch people say, "I should be able to walk away from a relationship because of a genetic condition of which I only just became aware," sounds so heartless and cold, as if the only reason you loved them or even tolerated them was because they came from your particular orgasm which you thought forced you to care - and now you're free of the burden.

You just shouldn't marry in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

What makes a child "yours," anyway? And why are the men in this thread working so hard to deny love to children?
I find that very very interesting, and more than a little foreign.

The child is a person unto themsleves. They are not a possession of others, not chattel, not an extension of self. They are little human beings who "owe" you nothing if you are a bad parent and who "deserve" care as much as any other human being.

So as I watch people say, "I should be able to walk away from a relationship because of a genetic condition of which I only just became aware," sounds so heartless and cold, as if the only reason you loved them or even tolerated them was because they came from your particular orgasm which you thought forced you to care - and now you're free of the burden.

You just shouldn't marry in the first place.

Or inject your sperm into a woman's vagina.

 

[Rhea]

You just shouldn't marry in the first place.

Or inject your sperm into a woman's vagina.

I actually wouldn't personally make that my line. I think humans have a right to have sex and not be parents. And in the case of non-marital sex, one can fairly readily ask for a paternity test to avoid becoming embroiled in parenting. So my line would be, "don't say you're going to love a baby unless you are planning to LOVE the BABY and not only the baby's lineage."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is basically modern cuckolding slavery being practiced by 1 out of 8 births today.

I call bullshit. If it were that high it would have been on the news. I suspect that this has as much chance of being an epidemic as an actual zombie outbreak.

The reality is that we don't know because the testing is non-random--people who have questions about paternity are more likely to be tested. 1 in 8 isn't out of line for what has been found in testing, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are THAT AFRAID of having to raise a kid, don't fuck a woman. Men, RealDolls, cattle, meringue pies....

You don't have to fuck a woman to be a victim of paternity fraud. Amazing I know, but true.

And what is the documented rate of virgins paying child support?

What part of "fraud" do you not understand?

And it's quite possible for virgins to end up paying child support. Consider a case from another board: His wife ran off with another man. She got pregnant by that other man. However, she listed her still-married-to husband as the father. He knew nothing of being listed on the birth certificate until a few years later when she filed for child support.

The time to contest being on the birth certificate was over (not that he had ever been notified he was on it in the first place), he's paying 18 years of child support for a kid that there never was any question that he is not the father of.

Or, consider, women on welfare are required to name the father--no name, no welfare. Consider what happens when she doesn't know who the father is--she just keeps naming names to delay the system. If one of those people doesn't respond to the legal papers they get to pay the child support, even if they have never even met the woman. Or what happens if they can't reach you (long vacation, temporary job somewhere else)? Service by notification--which amounts to no meaningful service for most people. You don't show up, she gets a judgment by default. If she doesn't do anything about it for enough months you'll have a very hard time challenging it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What makes a child "yours," anyway? And why are the men in this thread working so hard to deny love to children?
I find that very very interesting, and more than a little foreign.

The child is a person unto themsleves. They are not a possession of others, not chattel, not an extension of self. They are little human beings who "owe" you nothing if you are a bad parent and who "deserve" care as much as any other human being.

So as I watch people say, "I should be able to walk away from a relationship because of a genetic condition of which I only just became aware," sounds so heartless and cold, as if the only reason you loved them or even tolerated them was because they came from your particular orgasm which you thought forced you to care - and now you're free of the burden.

You just shouldn't marry in the first place.

He's already been hurt by her infidelity and then he's expected to help the man she cheated on him with to the tune of something like $100k and you think he shouldn't have a problem with this?!?!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In my state, if a man's legal wife has a baby, it's his. The only way out of it is to deny paternity at birth and not extend any support or comfort to the infant.

Of course, some men discover too late that the child was actually fathered by some other man. Doesn't matter. It's still his child, as far as support goes. This is one of those legal conditions known as "Sucks to be you."

Or it's great to be you. The man gets to be a father of a child. A lot of men consider fatherhood to be an enormous blessing.

It can also produce a wonderful situation for a child whose genetic father is a bad or at least irresponsible person and whose purported/legal father wants to be a father to the child.

Sure. But that's not the point. And there is nothing stopping him from adopting the children. It should be a choice he makes. He shouldn't have to opt out, nor should he be looked down on if he doesn't wan't to raise a kid he didn't produce. Consent matters.

- - - Updated - - -

I find both issues to be pretty absurd and infinitesimal to make any fuss about. And it's pretty obvious that the original post was intended to manufacture outrage over facts. I definately think the "1 in 8 births" assertion to be complete bullshit, and I'm almost convinced the cost of this "epidemic" we are discussing to be almost negligible. This entire discussion is similar to what 4 incels in an 8chan thread would be salivating over and just as inconsequential.

I disagree that something being less than super common makes it inconsequential. Paternity fraud is probably more common than priests raping little boys, but the latter matters when it happens right?

First, one would think it is obvious that lifelong physical, emotional and psychological harm along with the betrayal of the priestly vows and trust greatly outweigh the emotional and fiscal harm of real paternity fraud.

Second, there is no evidence that real paternity fraud (i.e. the mother lying about the father as opposed to making a mistake) is more or less common than priest raping boys (or girls).

Way to completely miss the point. Good job!

 

[Rhea]

This is why I think it is wrong to go after a person who does not want to be a parent for child support. We should pay child support as a society. And if you don't want to be a parent, you are stricken from the parental record and have no rights over the child - just go away, you give up any "rights" you had. THis includes, IMHO, during pregnancy. If a woman is pregnant and she wants to continue the pregnancy, but the man does not, she is making the decision to continue with no support from him, he loses all rights over the resulting baby, she gives up rights over him/his finances. If she wants to continue the pregnancy alone and needs public assistance, she has to apply for it. (Corollary; if she wants to end the pregnancy but he doesn't - he'll need to get himself his own uterus. She is not required to donate hers.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What makes a child "yours," anyway? And why are the men in this thread working so hard to deny love to children?
I find that very very interesting, and more than a little foreign.

Are you volunteering to adopt every orphan in America? I'm impressed.

 

[Rhea]

He's already been hurt by her infidelity and then he's expected to help the man she cheated on him with to the tune of something like $100k and you think he shouldn't have a problem with this?!?!

Gee, to you it's not helping the kid at all, hunh?
To me it's only about the kid. Who did no act of infidelity.
You are consistent in thinking the kid is of no merit or concern, I guess, but my point was, if you make a promise to a kid, then getting mad at its mother is no reason to break your promise to a kid. Breaking a promise to a kid is not equivalent to thinking you owned a person and then finding out there's a title issue.

- - - Updated - - -

What makes a child "yours," anyway? And why are the men in this thread working so hard to deny love to children?
I find that very very interesting, and more than a little foreign.

Are you volunteering to adopt every orphan in America? I'm impressed.

Yes. I propose social welfare rather than forced deadbeat toxic damaging parents.

Although your comment is a non sequitur. The child is not an orphan. It has a parent that loved it, until they found out that they don't "own" it, then the parent dissolves their love and it just disappears, despite the child that they loved still being right there (looking at them, crying, wondering why the love was withdrawn from the child as a punishment to the woman.)