# Duped Dads Fight Back



## Ping898 (Feb 2, 2007)

What do you think of this?  Where a dad was decieved about "his" kid and is forced to continue paying child support because it is in the best interest of the child...and it seems to me that the best interest of the child is a verry nebulous undefined thing....
I have to wonder if it is really in the best interest of the child when, at least in the instances of this story, the men immediately, emotionally pull away.  Isn't it the responsibility of the mother if she needs financial help to raise her kid to go after the real father...assuming she purposely mislead the guy....and should they have the right to go after the biological father for support money they paid all those years....?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580398-1,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580398-2,00.html



> A few months after his divorce in 2000, Davis, 36, a software engineer in Denver, took a DNA test to confirm a nagging suspicion that he was not the biological father of his 6-year-old twins. The negative test results led him to give up partial custody of the boy and girl--"The anger grows and grows, and it just keeps chipping away at your love for those children," he says--and since his ex-wife moved to another state, he has had no contact with the twins. But under Colorado law, he is still required to pay $663 a month in child support. So Davis is lobbying to change the statute so that he and others like him won't be held financially accountable for children who aren't biologically theirs.
> Advocates for these so-called duped dads say such men should be treated as victims of fraud and liken the need for paternity-disestablishment amendments to truth-in-lending laws. They point to many an egregious case in which the law's marital presumption of fatherhood has ended up enslaving a divorced dad, like the Michigan man who proved he had not sired his son but was still ordered to send child-support payments directly to the boy's biological father, who was granted custody after the mom moved out of his place and left the kid there. Increasingly, policymakers across the country are turning a sympathetic ear to such complaints. Florida last year joined Georgia and Ohio in allowing a man to walk away from any financial obligations regardless of how many years he may have been acting as a minor's father if he discovers he was deceived into parenthood. Fathers' rights groups in Colorado, Illinois and West Virginia are pushing for similar legislation that would remove or extend existing time limits for challenging paternity.
> Spearheading the legislative movement is Carnell Smith, a Georgia engineer who found out shortly after he broke up with his girlfriend that she was pregnant and spent the next 11 years believing he was the girl's father. Then, in 2000, after his visitation time had been cut back around the same time that a court order nearly doubled his monthly child-support payments, he took a test that showed he was not the biological parent. Three years and about $100,000 in child support and legal fees later, Smith, 46, managed to disentangle himself from any responsibilities for the girl, and says he walked out of court "a broke but free man." He successfully lobbied his home state to pass its paternity-fraud law in 2002 and now runs a DNA-testing company. Its slogan: "If the genes don't fit, you must acquit!"
> Even so, last May the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the state's current law doesn't let a court consider a child's best interests when a father requests DNA testing to determine paternity. And in a sign of the further complications genetic testing may have unleashed, the New Jersey Supreme Court is debating whether a nonbiological father can sue the biological one for $110,000 in child-support reimbursement. The plaintiff in the case didn't learn the truth about the son he had believed to be his own until the kid was 30.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 2, 2007)

I most certainly agree that a non-biological parent should not be responsible for support in any circumstance.  Quite simply, it isn't their responsibility, unless they legally adopt the child.

I also believe that a "duped", non-biological parent who has paid out child support unwittingly should be able to sue the biological parent that would have been responsible for support in the first place for compensation.

Good Lord, people need to start accepting their responsibilities.  *shaking head*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2007)

I wish them luck.  Sadly, the courts will mostly not be in their favor. Their job is to find income sources, and collect, sometimes resorting to 'helping' the DNA along. Testing on your own can be expensive, something most folks can't afford. Even when you do manage to get the courts to drop the support orders, it takes time for a careless and unconcerned government to stop seizing bank accounts, drivers licenses and other things.

The deadbeats need to be dealt with. But the system is flawed. 
As to the "childs best interests", my reply to these judges is "Hey Dumbass, Fraud is Fraud!. Last I heard, that's illegal."


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 2, 2007)

Before I married my second wife, I was almost a victim of this.  Luckily I had the wherewithal to have the test done before it became an issue.  I was all set to marry the woman and a friend of mine suggested this.  I am so glad I did it as my life would be a lot less comfortable than it is now.

Jeff


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 2, 2007)

Well I think the duped dads should be able to go after the biological father for money that they had to pay, plus legal fees, etc.  

However, what bothers me is not financial investment, it is the emotional investment in the child and the child's emotional investment in the duped dad.  If I were in the duped dad's position, I certainly would have no qualms about getting out of the financial obligation and also suing the biological father for what I had paid + plus interest (if I could pull it off).  However, if I am emotionally invested in the child, how does one balance this cold and calculated litigation with the emotional connection.  Hypothetically, if I were find out my child was not mine, I could NOT just turn off that connection and walk away with no concern.  I just could not....  Fortunately, that is not the case, but, I just couldn't imagine having to deal with that.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Well I think the duped dads should be able to go after the biological father for money that they had to pay, plus legal fees, etc.
> 
> However, what bothers me is not financial investment, it is the emotional investment in the child and the child's emotional investment in the duped dad.  If I were in the duped dad's position, I certainly would have no qualms about getting out of the financial obligation and also suing the biological father for what I had paid + plus interest (if I could pull it off).  However, if I am emotionally invested in the child, how does one balance this cold and calculated litigation with the emotional connection.  Hypothetically, if I were find out my child was not mine, I could NOT just turn off that connection and walk away with no concern.  I just could not....  Fortunately, that is not the case, but, I just couldn't imagine having to deal with that.



Agreed.

I believe one reason why the legal system is so flawed when it comes to child support is the amazing amount of non-compliance for child support.  More than half of Americans on welfare are children.  When I divorced, the statistics were that there were more people ordered to pay support who don't pay than there are who do pay willingly, fully, and on time.  Hence, there is a tremendous strain on social services which is children who are not receiving the financial support they require.

And children are not for rent.  The idea that the knowledge of one's biological genes being absent in two children one has fathered for 11 years can "chip away at the love for the child" ... well ... that's childish and someone of that opinion doesn't deserve to be a father whatsoever.  Parenthood isn't all about sperm and egg, though responsibility is.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 2, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Well I think the duped dads should be able to go after the biological father for money that they had to pay, plus legal fees, etc.
> 
> However, what bothers me is not financial investment, it is the emotional investment in the child and the child's emotional investment in the duped dad. If I were in the duped dad's position, I certainly would have no qualms about getting out of the financial obligation and also suing the biological father for what I had paid + plus interest (if I could pull it off). However, if I am emotionally invested in the child, how does one balance this cold and calculated litigation with the emotional connection. Hypothetically, if I were find out my child was not mine, I could NOT just turn off that connection and walk away with no concern. I just could not.... Fortunately, that is not the case, but, I just couldn't imagine having to deal with that.


 
I had that same thought.  It was hard to tell from the article how much investment the father had.  Were the twins six when he got divorced in 2000, or are they six now?  The other cases didn't make it clear it the fathers had helped raised the children or if they were non-participating "baby daddys".  If I found out tomorrow that my seven-year-old was not mine, there is no way I could emotionally divorce from him.  He's my boy.

This story kind of reminds me of a Nat'l Geographic I saw once where there was a bird that would lay its eggs in another birds nest so the other bird would raise it.


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 2, 2007)

Well I think we as MA-ers might be a different breed, but also not being in the situation I think it is hard to know how much emotional investment is there to begin with.  If the 'father' is one who works 100 hour weeks and only knows what his kids look like cause of the pictures, then they may not have an emotional bond to begin with, so there is really nothing to sever.  Also not knowing what kind of relationship the adults have I think it is hard to know or judge the people who after 11 years suddenly don't feel much.  The kids may now suddenly represent the betrayal of the marriage.  Sort of like why I think some women who are raped and get pregant as a result have problems with the child because as much as they may love the child, the child always reminds them of their worst moments in life...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 2, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Well I think the duped dads should be able to go after the biological father for money that they had to pay, plus legal fees, etc.
> 
> However, what bothers me is not financial investment, it is the emotional investment in the child and the child's emotional investment in the duped dad. If I were in the duped dad's position, I certainly would have no qualms about getting out of the financial obligation and also suing the biological father for what I had paid + plus interest (if I could pull it off). However, if I am emotionally invested in the child, how does one balance this cold and calculated litigation with the emotional connection. Hypothetically, if I were find out my child was not mine, I could NOT just turn off that connection and walk away with no concern. I just could not.... Fortunately, that is not the case, but, I just couldn't imagine having to deal with that.


It is because of the child that once you start paying, you keep on paying. The Government is quite unbending on this.
Sean


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 2, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> It is because of the child that once you start paying, you keep on paying. The Government is quite unbending on this.
> Sean



Hmmm.... OK.  I understand that part.  How is this related to what I posted?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 2, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Hmmm.... OK. I understand that part. How is this related to what I posted?


You mentioned the childs welfare in your opening statement... sorry.


----------



## Senjojutsu (Feb 3, 2007)

To state the obvious all children need support and love, but using that logic why can't it be mandated that all productive adult males in this country are ordered to participate in state run lotteries where they "are legally assigned" to become the financial father to a selected child in need until their 21st birthday because the child's mother made bad life decisions.  Sort of like a modern day British naval press gang. Oh wait you say it exists already, it's called being a taxpayer.

Here's a bizarre child support story from New Mexico:

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/7878.html#

*Man paid $20,000 in support for nonexistent child *


"...After Barreras was hauled into court, peppered with threats and demands for money for a child he adamantly denied fathering five years ago and even paid out $20,000 to support, his ex-wife was under a judge&#8217;s order to produce the child."

"...The elaborate ruse stretched over five years and involved fake DNA evidence, a forged Social Security number and birth and baptismal certificates, court records show. "

But nowhere in this story is whether this scheming ***** or her daughter are facing any criminal charges.

NO
Because in modern American probate courts the guilty are the ones who piss standing up.


----------



## grydth (Feb 3, 2007)

Senjojutsu said:


> To state the obvious all children need support and love, but using that logic why can't it be mandated that all productive adult males in this country are ordered to participate in state run lotteries where they "are legally assigned" to become the financial father to a selected child in need until their 21st birthday because the child's mother made bad life decisions. Sort of like a modern day British naval press gang. Oh wait you say it exists already, it's called being a taxpayer.
> 
> Here's a bizarre child support story from New Mexico:
> 
> ...



A few points......

Just because a Newspaper/TV/Magazine story doesn't mention something des not mean it didn't happen. You almost never get the full story in media accounts. One possibility - Reporters have deadlines and it is possible the decision was made to prosecute, but only after the story went to press. I do wish the media followed up on these much better.

No, those responsible for neglected kids aren't only "taxpayers", they are often "stepfathers". I am one. These boys are great kids who show the promise to be fine men. I enjoy the time I get with them, and give them everything I do my (biological) daughters. But their natural father is a total deadbeat....or, should I say, "was". He got away in luxury for years, with the mom and kids barely scraping by,  until his former wife happened to marry someone with the education and funds to run him down and (legally) choke the money out of him. Tough world. Honestly, I really enjoyed it.

Such issues as you make are decided in family and criminal courts, not probate. Probate courts handle wills, estates and such. I'm not trying to ding you on a minor legal point...... why I point this out is that you all need to know your legal system a lot better.


----------



## Senjojutsu (Feb 3, 2007)

grydth said:


> A few points......
> Such issues as you make are decided in family and criminal courts, not probate. Probate courts handle wills, estates and such. I'm not trying to ding you on a minor legal point...... why I point this out is that you all need to know your legal system a lot better.


 
There are fifty states in the USA, with fifty distinct naming conventions for their court systems.

I do have knowledge of my state court system - and for the record its full name is Massachusetts Probate & Family Court where these matters are handled.

Of course she may have been charged, the initial linked story is a point of time.  I have searched a bit and did find she was later convicted for this fraud but in an ancillary way (the way tax laws got Al Capone).

http://www.dadsdivorce.com/news/artdet.php/85042.html

My rant is that there was not one mention of any potential criminal prosecution - only state agency CYA babble and improving the process. As another rant - how many times are women ever brought up with falsifying claims of abuse in obtaining a restraining order (as in a power move during a custody battle with their sleazeball divorce lawyers).

What, women never lie?   (...and no this did not happen to me.)

BTW, sincere best of luck in you stepfather endeavors.


----------



## Kreth (Feb 3, 2007)

grydth said:


> But their natural father is a total deadbeat....or, should I say, "was". He got away in luxury for years, with the mom and kids barely scraping by,  until his former wife happened to marry someone with the education and funds to run him down and (legally) choke the money out of him. Tough world. Honestly, I really enjoyed it.


Nicely done. On the other side of the coin are the fathers who are barely scraping by while the majority of their paycheck goes to an ex.  I have a friend in that situation. He went to court a few months ago when his ex petitioned to have his support raised. He told the judge that he would have trouble keeping up with his own bills at the new higher rate, and was basically told to deal with it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 3, 2007)

From my point of view:

If I were emotionally invested, I would insist on joint custody and also insist that they could not leave the state. I know many a women who has done the same, but that is my point of view. 

I also know that California has issues with the same problem. California finds it easier to have the "father" of record pay, then try to track down someone and then get then into the system. No matter what the DNA says, even if you were not married. Yes even if you were not married and a woman lists you as the father you are responsible. The only way this will change is if someone decided to abuse it with a celeb who can get the media attention and have the money to make it a three ring circus and to try the government in the press. Just a couple of single working Dad's trying to change the system have a much harder path to follow.


----------



## grydth (Feb 3, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I wish them luck. Sadly, the courts will mostly not be in their favor. Their job is to find income sources, and collect, sometimes resorting to 'helping' the DNA along. Testing on your own can be expensive, something most folks can't afford. Even when you do manage to get the courts to drop the support orders, it takes time for a careless and unconcerned government to stop seizing bank accounts, drivers licenses and other things.
> 
> The deadbeats need to be dealt with. But the system is flawed.
> As to the "childs best interests", my reply to these judges is "Hey Dumbass, Fraud is Fraud!. Last I heard, that's illegal."



Courts can only help those who make reasonable efforts to help themselves.... and in a timely fashion. 

This story, on its face, is an outrage. How can any judge think it is in "the best interests of the child" to have the wrong guy pay.... and a lying wife prosper freely.

Reading the story more closely, however, leads me to suspect a couple of things. One guy waited 11 years (!) to get a DNA test, and only got it then to avoid higher payments. Courts have various tools - Statutes of Limitations and the Doctrine of Laches - which basically say this: You may have the best case and evidence in the world, but you can't wait forever. You need to prepare and present your case in a timely fashion.... you can't wait 10+ years and sucker punch somebody. I strongly suspect Laches was found here.

Then there's the (supposedly) lying wife. Would it be grotesque injustices to allow her to keep the money and not toss her sorry carcass in jail. Yes - if in fact she lied. There's no delicate way to put this, folks, but in today's  society many people have no idea who sired their children. Some are lucky if they can narrow it down to the Offensive Line or the Defensive Secondary. 

Does Aggravated Sluttiness = Perjury? Probably not, especially if the husband was so busy playing Musical Beds himself as to not even ask. It is not clear that the other guy even asked her.... maybe he just "assumed".....and every 1st year law student learns about "assume"...

Should lying wives be prosecuted and sent to jail like other frauds? Yes. Should innocent men pay? No. 

But men need to investigate and enforce their rights in a timely fashion. Waiting over a decade has never cut it.... not even in 'the good old days'.... and if you come home early to find the Oakland Raiders team bus in your driveway, all the more reason to start thoroughly preparing your case.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 3, 2007)

_...and if you come home early to find the Oakland Raiders team bus in your driveway, all the more reason to start thoroughly preparing your case._

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that.  The Oakland Raiders haven't been able to perform in years


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 5, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Nicely done. On the other side of the coin are the fathers who are barely scraping by while the majority of their paycheck goes to an ex.  I have a friend in that situation. He went to court a few months ago when his ex petitioned to have his support raised. He told the judge that he would have trouble keeping up with his own bills at the new higher rate, and was basically told to deal with it.



I have a cousin who is in that situation.  He can't even afford to rent.  He has a camper he stays in at local camp grounds.  His ex gets most of his meager paycheck.  Truly a sad situation.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 5, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> And children are not for rent. The idea that the knowledge of one's biological genes being absent in two children one has fathered for 11 years can "chip away at the love for the child" ... well ... that's childish and someone of that opinion doesn't deserve to be a father whatsoever. Parenthood isn't all about sperm and egg, though responsibility is.


I doubt it's merely the genetics. The fact he was tricked into caring and financially supporting the kids by a conniving mother would seem to be eating at him far more.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 6, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> I have a cousin who is in that situation. He can't even afford to rent. He has a camper he stays in at local camp grounds. His ex gets most of his meager paycheck. Truly a sad situation.


The state can usualy only take about 20%.
Sean


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 6, 2007)

Marginal said:


> I doubt it's merely the genetics. The fact he was tricked into caring and financially supporting the kids by a conniving mother would seem to be eating at him far more.


Not that I'm absolving this poor excuse of a woman from blame but - I don't think he was tricked into caring.  That would indicate he has no control over his choice to care.  The article states he had a nagging suspiscion but doesn't state when that suspiscion arose; was it from the very beginning of the relationship? If so, then it's his fault he didn't demand a paternity test and make his choice accordingly then - that would have been the responsible thing to do for himself and for the child.  And if his suspiscion was raised only recently or near the split/divorce, then he's already emotionally invested in these children and THEY are emotionally invested in HIM.

We don't know all the particulars as to why she moved away and I won't even go near that subject.  And I do think he has a right to go after any child support that would be due him ... however ... these children are getting lost in the tornado here and I have to ask, what's the worse damage being done?

Here's another excerpt from the article:


> But justice for a disillusioned dad can clash with the best interests of a child raised to think of him as a father. "These cases get cast as the duped dad vs. the scheming wife," says Temple University law professor Theresa Glennon, who has examined the changing legal landscape. "This is really about men deserting children they have been parenting." She points out that severing paternal ties could devastate a child depending on the length and quality of his relationship with the nonbiological father.


and the last paragraph:


> Some legislators, however, are acknowledging that there is more to fatherhood than what can be defined solely by the sharing of a few genes. Oklahoma last year joined several states in adopting a law that limits the time frame for contesting paternity to a few years after the child's birth. Paula Roberts, an attorney at the nonprofit Center for Law and Social Policy who helped craft these measures, argues that such time limits protect both the child and the nonbiological father, should Mom ever try to shut him out or the biological dad suddenly show up wanting to horn in. Meanwhile, activists in Oregon are planning to submit two competing bills this session. Both allow a man to contest paternity within a year of discovering he is not the biological father, but only one forces the courts to consider a child's best interests in every case. The other allows a nonbiological father to get out if he wants to, but if he's the one fighting to maintain parental status, then the court has to consider the child's interests. That's a lot of nuance, but when it comes to determining fatherhood, sometimes an easy answer isn't what's best.



It's never easy when it comes to the fate of children.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 6, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> It's never easy when it comes to the fate of children.



This is, I think, the key - *what is in the best interest of the child*?  Biological relationship is only a part - once a child becomes emotionally attached, I think a whole different type of commitment comes into play.  On an individual level, I can understand the fathers who find out that they were cuckolded, but on a larger level, I have a problem letting parents out of their commitment to children that they have helped to raise.


----------

