Lion of the Blogosphere

Follow-up on child support post

1. I missed one additional argument against child support which was brought up by commenters. And that is that in the past, it was assumed that only a man could earn a living. But this is no longer true. Today, labor force participation and salaries are approximately equal between the sexes. So in the past the only way to pay for a child was to have a man (the mother’s husband, father, or the guy who had sex with her) pay. But today, women can earn their own money.

2. DNA testing was brought up as a reason in favor of child support.

Well, if the original purpose of child support was to both support a child (because there was no welfare system and no jobs available for woman) and to punish the immoral act of premarital sex, why should it matter if the child shares the father’s DNA?

I am not an expert on family law, but it’s clear that there are instances (which no doubt vary from state to state) where the legal system requires men to pay child support even when the man proves that child is not his. So DNA testing doesn’t necessarily legally protect “innocent” men.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 6, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Posted in Law, Males and Females

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Knowing after some time that your son is not yours and still forced to pay child support is like rape

    Samuel

    January 6, 2014 at 12:17 PM

  2. It does matter – those who dumped that mouth should pay for it, right?

    I already said the baby-raped man should have a choice of getting stuck with it or ending its life.

    Colmainen

    January 6, 2014 at 1:34 PM

  3. The woman and her child should be punished for the immoral act of premarital sex, but men should be released from financial obligation for the same act because, according to sex in the city, they need to have sex in order to have more sex?

    In some states marriage overrides DNA in terms of establishing paternity, NYS may be one of them. There was an article about this in the nytimes, a would-be heiress sought some of her biological father’s fortune but her legal father was the guy her mother was married to. The courts turned her down.

    The paternity of a married woman’s child can be challenged even in those states but it needs to be done in a small window after the child’s birth. Even then the putative father may be on shaky legal ground.

    toomanyspiders

    January 6, 2014 at 1:58 PM

    • So if the mother of the child successfully lies to her husband, then it is OK and nothing is wrong. Maybe the woman should face civil penalties for fraud and the husband should be allowed to recover costs.

      The law should never encourage people to lie and should several punish people who lie (commit fraud) for personal financial gain. If the welfare of the child is important, then the mother should have thought about that before delivering the child.

      superdestroyer

      January 6, 2014 at 6:32 PM

      • Outright paternity fraud by women is rare (even amongst animals it’s rare, most common in certain types of birds) and there have been cases where the husband knew but raised the child as his own, for whatever strange reason. I believe that was the case with the non-starter-heiress.

        toomanyspiders

        January 7, 2014 at 1:14 PM

      • Men are repulsed by female promiscuity for evolutionary reasons.

        eradican

        January 7, 2014 at 10:13 PM

  4. The question of “Have you had any children?” should be seen in a similar vein as questions like “How old are you?” “How many times have you been married?” “Any felonies?” “Have you served in the military?”

    Currently in the U.S., there are effective ways of verifying the answers to all of these questions, and for good reason. We know what would happen if people, even in serious relationships, could answer these questions in whatever way they found most expedient with no possibility of accountability.

    Then suddenly every guy starts presenting as a 28-year-old single, childless war hero, just lookin’ for his perfect companion.

    Fiddlesticks

    January 6, 2014 at 2:01 PM

  5. I am not an expert on family law, but it’s clear that there are instances (which no doubt vary from state to state) where the legal system requires men to pay child support even when the man proves that child is not his. So DNA testing doesn’t necessarily legally protect “innocent” men.

    If a man acknowledges a child is his then he can be on the hook for child support even if DNA testing later proves that he isn’t the biological father:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/11/georgia.child.support/index.html

    Camlost

    January 6, 2014 at 2:18 PM

    • And the reverse is true, a biological father can be denied paternal rights if the mother is married to someone else when he (the biological father) impregnated her. It may vary state by state though.

      Interestingly, in the Old Bailey records it’s apparent that a married woman couldn’t be convicted of infanticide even under glaring evidence of guilt. I’ve always wondered why this was the case.

      http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/

      toomanyspiders

      January 6, 2014 at 5:35 PM

      • Who cares about the reverse? The biological dad was wrong to have impregnated someone else’s woman.

        I hope the old bailey laws come back. Also weeds out dysgenic genes who try to ignore order.

        Colmainen

        January 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM

      • “Who cares about the reverse? The biological dad was wrong to have impregnated someone else’s woman.”

        In theory a woman could misrepresent herself as single, or in the process of divorce, to an unsuspecting man, though my impression is it’s more common for men to do this to attract single women, i.e. Scott Peterson.

        toomanyspiders

        January 7, 2014 at 1:16 PM

  6. Dear God man, you’ve gotten some bitch pregnant.

    And so the blog marches into weird and terrifying directions. Again.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    January 6, 2014 at 8:55 PM

    • It’s Georgina isn’t it? At least with her you stand to win alimony from her for child support. And you can sell your story the Post.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      January 6, 2014 at 8:57 PM

  7. LotBlo, I’m curious as to what you hope to achieve with this proposed change. If you’re trying to reduce poorly planned births, you’d do better to go after welfare. Most women who intentionally have a kid they can’t support, with a man who didn’t want it, will get welfare.

    Of course, there are a few wealthy male celebrities and sports figures, usually black, who are big targets for women trying to trick them into pregnancy. I wouldn’t think you’d worry too much about those guys, though. The vast majority of men who end up being garnished for support for children out of wedlock are men from whom the District Attorney is seeking welfare reimbursement. Do you really think it’s in society’s best interest to let them off the hook? How much do you really sympathize with the average impregnator of a welfare mom?

    If you want to curb the welfare births, and help out well-intentioned poor dads, here’s a better idea: Award welfare payments jointly, at 50 percent, to the child’s mother and biological father. Accompanying this should be an family law order of 50/50 custody issuing automatically upon the birth of a child to unmarried parents. Mom gets the first week of life, dad gets the second. If either parent wants something different, he or she must show good cause to a family law court to go against the legal presumption. This means if the mother is not living with the father, policy goes against her being a government subsidized full-time mother. Even if she lives with him, he controls half the money. Furthermore, the welfare payments don’t increase upon separation of the household. If they want to live apart, fine, but they’ll do it on half a check and half the food stamp allotment.

    When there’s a check involved, these folks will fight tooth and nail over custody. They clog up the family courts already in pro per. This might make it worse, but at least it gives the man more power over the situation, which should deter women from planning single motherhood as a full-time paying gig. They’ll see they are really stuck dealing with these men for 18 years if they have a child with them.

    Sheila Tone

    January 12, 2014 at 11:44 PM

    • I don’t want to get too full of myself, but I think this policy would reduce welfare births, conservatively, by 50 percent right off the bat. Word will get around quickly that HE AUTOMATICALLY GETS HALF THE CHECK, and he automatically gets every other week with your kid, and even if he doesn’t really take the time he still automatically gets the money and the burden is on you to convince a court to order otherwise. How many women do you think would want to bear a child knowing that, right off the bat, they only get to be with it 50 percent of the time? And it’s completely out of their control the other 50 percent? While he hangs with his other girlfriend …

      Sheila Tone

      January 12, 2014 at 11:55 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: