Hidden side of paternity fraud

[laughing dog]

Way to completely miss the point. Good job!

Nope - another poorly reasoned reply but at least you spared us one of your moronic analogies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.)

This I agree with.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Sure.... but this thread is about paternity fraud. Not making promises to kids....

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

Where are you getting that from? That isn't all paternity fraud is about. Read what Loren posted above. If the fraud is the mother against the father, and years have gone by and the father has come to regard the kids as his, then sure, dick move for him to walk away from the kid, though he has been severely mindfucked by the mother and I have some sympathy for that too.

And again, that's not all paternity fraud is. What of the cases where men are paying child support for kids they have never met because the mother named them as the father?

 

[RVonse]

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."

Life isn't always fair and I get that.

But the family laws still need to be perceived as fair for all of society including the males ranked low on the totem pole. Otherwise the institution of marriage is doomed not to exist at all. Men (even the horny ones) will catch on and sooner or later none will get married. They will simply pump and dump women. And move on to the next vagina when their current women starts complaining about getting married.

 

[Rhea]

Sure.... but this thread is about paternity fraud. Not making promises to kids....

Only if you think that your “ownership” of the child’s DNA is related to whether you want to financially support that child.
Right?

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

Where are you getting that from? That isn't all paternity fraud is about. Read what Loren posted above. If the fraud is the mother against the father, and years have gone by and the father has come to regard the kids as his, then sure, dick move for him to walk away from the kid, though he has been severely mindfucked by the mother and I have some sympathy for that too.

See, that’s the interesting part. That the child you loved is in any way related to this “mindfuck” of learning about an infidelity. Like, you stop loving it because you find out that there was an infidelity.

That would be like Melania dropping Barron like a hot potato because Trump cheated on her while she was pregnant. Sure she knows forevermore that the pregnancy was relate to the cheating, but is this something to put onto Barron? I know y’all are saying, but! But! Learning that my title is bad is waaay worse than just associating the cheating with the pregnancy! Yeah, if you think of children as possessions rather than people, I guess that’d be true for you/them.

And again, that's not all paternity fraud is. What of the cases where men are paying child support for kids they have never met because the mother named them as the father?

That’s a problem with society that says women “have to” name a “father,” rather than saying she has gone through this pregnancy alone and has made the decision to have it alone. Women are often forced to do this to get public assistance. I say give them the assistance without trying to say people are “at fault” for having children. Just celebrate the child and help the mother out, IMHO.

 

[Rhea]

including the males ranked low on the totem pole.

Oh be real.

Otherwise the institution of marriage is doomed not to exist at all. Men (even the horny ones) will catch on and sooner or later none will get married. They will simply pump and dump women. And move on to the next vagina when their current women starts complaining about getting married.

LOL. I don’t think you’ve quite thought through the dynamic here.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Only if you think that your “ownership” of the child’s DNA is related to whether you want to financially support that child.

You have an obligation to pay taxes. Do you own the state?

See, that’s the interesting part. That the child you loved is in any way related to this “mindfuck” of learning about an infidelity. Like, you stop loving it because you find out that there was an infidelity.

Nobody here has said this. It isn't what people here have expressed concern over regarding paternity fraud. It is your sideline attempt to dismiss valid paternity fraud concerns by trying to attach this to them.

That would be like Melania dropping Barron like a hot potato because Trump cheated on her while she was pregnant. Sure she knows forevermore that the pregnancy was relate to the cheating, but is this something to put onto Barron? I know y’all are saying, but! But! Learning that my title is bad is waaay worse than just associating the cheating with the pregnancy! Yeah, if you think of children as possessions rather than people, I guess that’d be true for you/them.

I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or if you honestly can't tell that the above is a complete strawman regarding myself and others in this thread.

That’s a problem with society that says women “have to” name a “father,” rather than saying she has gone through this pregnancy alone and has made the decision to have it alone. Women are often forced to do this to get public assistance. I say give them the assistance without trying to say people are “at fault” for having children. Just celebrate the child and help the mother out, IMHO.

I already agreed with this above. The state should pay to support those who need support, including children, which means all of us collectively.

That said, I do understand the concern that this enables people to selfishly and carelessly make children without taking responsibility for them.

Are you saying that being a deadbeat dad should be considered ok from a financial perspective? Or do you think biological parents should have some extra responsibility the rest of us don't in regard to their offspring?

 

[Rhea]

Nobody here has said this. It isn't what people here have expressed concern over regarding paternity fraud.

It’s been pretty clear that the “problem” is “paying” for a child that “isn’t yours”.
Withdrawing support from the child because you are “defrauded” in some way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

From the OP:

"Fraud that is institutionalized by government."

Seems to be claiming quite a bit common.

Yeah, this seems to be one of those... type of threads. Raise an issue that exists in a some minor form, but being exaggerated greatly. People file into their typical roles and the thread goes nowhere.

 

[RVonse]

Only if you think that your “ownership” of the child’s DNA is related to whether you want to financially support that child.
Right?

Right.

And that is why we also have laws for inheritance too. Because rich people want to continue their lineage and support their real offspring. It may not make sense to you that old people want the best for their real biological offspring and could not care squat about someone elses kid. But thats just the human condition and the world of man. Its the real world Rhea and not your utopia.

The fact that family law allows and encouragies bastard children will further erode the institution of marriage in the future IMO. Because it was the reason for marriage in the first place.

 

[RVonse]

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?

From the OP:

"Fraud that is institutionalized by government."

Seems to be claiming quite a bit common.

Yeah, this seems to be one of those... type of threads. Raise an issue that exists in a some minor form, but being exaggerated greatly. People file into their typical roles and the thread goes nowhere.

1 in 8 odds of raising someone elses bastard child because you married a slut.

As Loren said, the facts might be off a little but probably not that much.

But we know it has to be a significant problem even for you. Because now there are even women complaining about it on youtube.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nobody here has said this. It isn't what people here have expressed concern over regarding paternity fraud.

It’s been pretty clear that the “problem” is “paying” for a child that “isn’t yours”.
Withdrawing support from the child because you are “defrauded” in some way.

At least some here have sought to minimize its impact in dismissing it (and again, I restate that rarity (if it is rare) doesn't make something not wrong). You dodge it completely, based on semantic games. You are approaching laughing dog levels of dodge and snipe.

For the umpteenth time, it isn't "withdrawing support" that people here are concerned with. It is that you shouldn't be roped in in the first place for paying money (while the rest of us don't) for a child you never met or never agreed to be the "father" of and that the mother put your name down for.

And as Loren said the state is complicit in the wrong against the guy if it forces the mother to give a name for the father (and guess) in order to get social assistance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because now there are even women complaining about it on youtube.

Which seems to be the only way people will listen, and often even not then.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that it also can fuck with the minds of the kids themselves, discovering that the man they always thought was their biological father is not. In that way it is like hiding from a child that they are adopted.

What amazes me most of all is that some here can take something like paternity fraud, where the mothers deliberately or recklessly lie about something important to people, and turn it around to vilify the victims.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

From the OP:

"Fraud that is institutionalized by government."

Seems to be claiming quite a bit common.

Yeah, this seems to be one of those... type of threads. Raise an issue that exists in a some minor form, but being exaggerated greatly. People file into their typical roles and the thread goes nowhere.

1 in 8 odds of raising someone elses bastard child because you married a slut.

1 in 8?

As Loren said, the facts might be off a little but probably not that much.

Oh... you started with 1 in 8 in your post, but then in the next sentence walk back from it... but not much. Well, as long as you say "probably not that much", that's good enough for me. Where do I press the panic button about my slut wife?

But we know it has to be a significant problem even for you. Because now there are even women complaining about it on youtube.

On YouTube?! Jebus Christ! *presses panic button for realz!!!*

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Again, the frequency of something happening doesn't make it any more or less excusable.

And similarly, how many other victims there are of something doesn't make any of the victims more or less worthy of our empathy. You aren't less victimized if few others are victimized in the same way.

 

[laughing dog]

At least some here have sought to minimize its impact in dismissing it (and again, I restate that rarity (if it is rare) doesn't make something not wrong). You dodge it completely, based on semantic games. You are approaching laughing dog levels of dodge and snipe.

For the umpteenth time, it isn't "withdrawing support" that people here are concerned with. It is that you shouldn't be roped in in the first place for paying money (while the rest of us don't) for a child you never met or never agreed to be the "father" of and that the mother put your name down for.

The effect is the same - withdrawing support from a child. So please stop playing semantic games.

The misattribution of the father is an issue, but it is not a pressing social one nor has anyone come up with a reliable estimate of its extent. Until a state or the US as a whole adopts Rhea's proposal, what exactly should be done? The states that require a father to be named in order to get assistance, do so in order to get money from the father. Do you believe they are magically going to change their policy? For someone who claims that using empathy to understand those with whom one disagrees in order to get them closer to one's view, just how would you go about this?

 

[RVonse]

1 in 8?

Yes. More than a 10% chance. And that is a lot IMO. It stands to reason that women cheat the same as men because it takes exactly 1 man and 1 woman to cheat. But the difference is men are proud to cheat and the women are almost professional at covering it up.

Where do I press the panic button about my slut wife?

The problem is you wont know. Women dont put signs around their neck telling you they are a slut. Your wife could be doing anything behind you back....and you would not know it.

You never really know who your wife is until you get divorced.

 

[RVonse]

At least some here have sought to minimize its impact in dismissing it (and again, I restate that rarity (if it is rare) doesn't make something not wrong). You dodge it completely, based on semantic games. You are approaching laughing dog levels of dodge and snipe.

For the umpteenth time, it isn't "withdrawing support" that people here are concerned with. It is that you shouldn't be roped in in the first place for paying money (while the rest of us don't) for a child you never met or never agreed to be the "father" of and that the mother put your name down for.

The effect is the same - withdrawing support from a child. So please stop playing semantic games.

The misattribution of the father is an issue, but it is not a pressing social one nor has anyone come up with a reliable estimate of its extent. Until a state or the US as a whole adopts Rhea's proposal, what exactly should be done? The states that require a father to be named in order to get assistance, do so in order to get money from the father. Do you believe they are magically going to change their policy? For someone who claims that using empathy to understand those with whom one disagrees in order to get them closer to one's view, just how would you go about this?

It should be mandatory DNA testing for all live births. Problem solved.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1 in 8?

Yes. More than a 10% chance.

It is 12.5% which is wickedly more than 10%. Now if it were only 9%....

And that is a lot IMO.

But you already said that that 1 in 8 is wrong.

It stands to reason that women cheat the same as men because it takes exactly 1 man and 1 woman to cheat.

That math is pretty solid.

But the difference is men are proud to cheat and the women are almost professional at covering it up.

Wait... men don't cover up cheating? What? They carve notches on their bedpost for their wife to see?

Where do I press the panic button about my slut wife?

The problem is you wont know.

I know, that is very worrying. It is probably too late already!

Women dont put signs around their neck telling you they are a slut.

Well clearly some guy is getting the point she is a slut. How can they tell but not the husband?

Your wife could be doing anything behind you back....and you would not know it.

OMG!!!

You never really know who your wife is until you get divorced.

Or commit to a life long journey and have a child.... but then again, could be a slut baby! But then again, she is the one stuck up at night breast feeding the slut baby... so there is that!

Jebus, no wonder you like Trump and go for 9/11 CTs.

 

[Toni]

At least some here have sought to minimize its impact in dismissing it (and again, I restate that rarity (if it is rare) doesn't make something not wrong). You dodge it completely, based on semantic games. You are approaching laughing dog levels of dodge and snipe.

For the umpteenth time, it isn't "withdrawing support" that people here are concerned with. It is that you shouldn't be roped in in the first place for paying money (while the rest of us don't) for a child you never met or never agreed to be the "father" of and that the mother put your name down for.

The effect is the same - withdrawing support from a child. So please stop playing semantic games.

The misattribution of the father is an issue, but it is not a pressing social one nor has anyone come up with a reliable estimate of its extent. Until a state or the US as a whole adopts Rhea's proposal, what exactly should be done? The states that require a father to be named in order to get assistance, do so in order to get money from the father. Do you believe they are magically going to change their policy? For someone who claims that using empathy to understand those with whom one disagrees in order to get them closer to one's view, just how would you go about this?

It should be mandatory DNA testing for all live births. Problem solved.

Would not work and would be detrimental if the child were a chimera.

We don't actually know how common this is. Probably not common.

And the 1 in 8 is an unreliable, biased number as was pointed out upthread and acknowledged by you.

I wonder how many men refuse to acknowledge paternity or provide any material support for the children they father? Do you see this as equally terrible, more terrible or less terrible?