Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by satcomer, Apr 29, 2017.
Then we say we are free, think again!
Those are the ones that know they are not the fathers, almost 1/10 fathers are raising children that they do not know are not theirs. The there is paternity fraud where the father never knows he is the father.
In Canada it is even worse, if you move in with a girlfriend who has children kids for a year or 2, when you break up you are on the hook for child support. You can get child support from 3-4 different men for the same child.
Hmmm. To me, it doesn't seem like a problem with the law itself
It seems like the problem is that these guys got screwed over by people committing fraud (process servers and baby mamas). Stop/prosecute the fraud and give these guys an appeal.
As a general standard, why not?
Minnesota also requires this. Any responsible system should imo.
It requires someone be a father just because someone claims they're the father?
Is that how it is in Michigan? If contested, a DNA test is required at least in Minnesota. Word of mouth is not, should not be good enough.
According to this news story, at least one of these guys missed his hearing because the processor lied about serving him. The others seemed to have missed their hearing due to illness (not sure if they had proof). All of them had DNA tests done but apparently it was too late.
EDIT: I do agree though that if you decide you don't want to go to your hearing you are automatically ruled against. But they at least need to give guys a chance.
If the cases are as described, DNA evidence should always be allowed and count in any determination, even after the fact. How about you are given two chances to comply and if no cooperation is forth coming, you are granted title of Father along with the legal responsibilities?
So a woman you never met or ever had sex with should name you father and then charge you child support is ok? Are you crazy?
--- Post Merged, Apr 30, 2017 ---
How about changing that law because of unattended consequences? How about finding the Family court clerk that fabricated the dude in jail being served!
--- Post Merged, Apr 30, 2017 ---
Seriously, in the real world, until relatively recently, the situation was much more likely a case that a woman you met and did have sex with, and impregated, - because you didn't believe that birth control was your concern, and besides, it is much more fun without it, for you, - was not your responsibility because, it couldn't be proven, (DNA testing was not the norm), you didn't see it as your problem, and/or you did a runner.
More to the point, if guys took some responsibility for birth control, then, they couldn't be hit with such charges as the DNA wouldn't match, and such charges, therefore, wouldn't stick.
You obviously didn't watch or didn't understand the report. Furthermore, if a woman you never even slept with can claim you are the father then wearing a consol isn't going to change anything. All she has to do is make a claim.
Also, saying that an unfair law is ok because something else used to be unfair is just silly. Be better than that.
Read my posts and stop kneejerking. If you are having trouble, Parenthoid should never be assigned by word of mouth/accusation, not today.
This is pretty condescending toward women. Can women not have safe responsible sex, or insist upon it?
You could say the same thing about women. But moreover many guys take responsibility for birth control by using condoms.
Has that accuracy of the report been established?
My comments in this thread regards a States duty to force Fathers to pay child support, which I support with the premise that parenthood has been established by DNA.
I did some brief research and although I'm not prepared to say Fatherhood was never assigned by default, I could not establish the current law in Michigan on the issue, nor determine rulings other than claims by individuals.
However I did find this State of Michigan page: Establishing Paternity.
No, it is not condescending at all towards women, but is, rather, merely remarking upon the tendency of (by no means all, or even most, but yes, many) men to pull a disappearing act in such circumstances in Ye Olden Days Of Yore.
And, no, I can't be the only woman - in fact, I know I am not - who has had conversations with gentlemen who whinged and whined and pouted petulantly and plaintively, "But it interferes with the sensitivity of the experience which means I don't enjoy it as much," when the topic of condoms arose (all puns intended) in my undergraduate days, yes, many moons ago.
And, no, I'm bad-tempered, curmudgeonly, quite irascible by nature and rather risk averse in such matters, so you can guess the outcome of those discussions.
But there were women who would have felt obliged to surrender to such plaintive pressure, because, many guys assumed that birth control was the responsibility of the woman.
Most women do take responsibility for birth control; they have to - not least, because the consequences if they don't can be considerable.
But, in my time, I have met - and female friends of mine have met - men who blithely assumed that birth control was the responsibility of the woman - that it was nothing whatsoever to do with them.
The first part: That's wrong imo, even in the realm of common law marriage. I suppose men in Canada should seriously consider who they want to move in with. Is this a case where Canada considers it a Common Law marriage accepting and assigning parental duties equivilent to paternity?
The second part: Multiple support payments from different men for the same child? if this is an accurate description, that's wrong too.
--- Post Merged, Apr 30, 2017 ---
I agree there was a time which may still exist today where some men view avoidance of pregnancy as the woman's concern, but much less likely today with the advent of DNA testing, where men can find themselves forced into responsibility.
It seems to me the only way to get a man intent on avoiding responsibility, not willing to own up, it would have to start with an accusation from the woman and a mandatory test pushed by the State. And if the man is unwilling to cooperate, he gets the Father title awarded. That is the reality for some circumstances. I would not be surprised if this is the case of some of the men who maybe calling wolf (where they did not cooperate).
I also think that some women as a judgement call of their relationship are willing to take the chance of pregnancy as a means of securing a more permanent relationship. It's a much better bet today to at least end up with child support. Hence men if they are not, better put more thought into it.
When I was a young adult, I was unwilling to take the chance of an unwanted pregnancy, by using protection.
I've met both types of women. Some don't care at all and the condom ruins the experience for them too.
The bottom line is that safe sex falls on both parties regardless of circumstances. "Feeling obliged" because the guy doesn't want to use a condom (or vice-versa) is absolutely no excuse. When you say something like that, you're implying women don't have the power or responsibility to say no, which is condescending toward women.
And I also take issue with the fact that "most women take responsibility" as though men just don't give a **** about children they may father, or the repercussions. That's simply not true. I certainly care. If I fathered a child and it was mine (key point there) then I would want to be in the child's life and help raise the child. That's when things start getting messy and youget into parental rights, which heavily favor the mother (which is fine).
Ultimately, however, its 2017. Women are equal to men and share equal responsibility. We need to ensure our laws and treatment of both men and women reflect that fact. To reiterate: safe sex is the responsibility of all parties. Period. If you're a woman and you don't insist on a condom, then you have only your self to blame, same if you're a man and you fail to use a condom.
No need to take issue, I believe @Scepticalscribe was making a general historical observation about the attitudes of men. That was the reality, the mindset, the biological duty. Were there exceptions? Sure!
I really don't mean to sound cruel, but I'm struggling to find sympathy for a woman who "surrenders" to a whiny, selfish loser who insists on having unprotected sex with her.
Not talking about you, but the women you're alluding to.
One of these guys should sue for full custody. That would get someone's attention.
Or it needs to happen to a lawmaker and watch how fast the law changes.
And I am not talking about you, but attitudes, perspectives and outlooks, that a lot of women have experienced, including myself.
Now, as I am neither young (I don't think I was ever young, apart from in years, mentally, I suspect that I am one of those who was born middle-aged), nor on the dating scene as it appears to young people in 2017, I cannot adjudicate on this with any authority.
I have written about attitudes and experiences I - and female friends - experienced - in our student days, Quite Some Time Ago.
But - as @Huntn also recalls - such attitudes were real and were pretty widespread and openly expressed.
I suppose by the name applied you lack respect for the male loser too. I think we can agree that people who casually enter into sex without some preventative planning get what is a highly probable result, unintended complications. Nothing to be impressed with, not controlling your domain.
Sure, but I'm here to guard against what I see is a broad overreach by society to peg every problem on men, and white men in particular. The point of this being that we need to have a moderate discussion and not have dissenting views be drowned out. Not that it was the case here, just trying to explain a little better.
Don't be insecure because you are white, I am too.
I don't follow