Dad wasn’t dad after all, but still owes child support

Friday, February 9, 2007

By Mike LaSalle

Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 9th, 2007 at 7:23 am and is filed under Sex & Metropolis. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 20 views | Trackback | Print this page |

email: editor -@- mensnews daily.com | More from Mike LaSalle

Stumble It!

How to survive the coming food shortage.

21 Responses to “Dad wasn’t dad after all, but still owes child support”

1
TheManOnTheStreet Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 7:51 am
And so it continues…..

Anyone (specifically men) surprised?

TMOTS
2
mirwalk Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 9:09 am
The judges comment really ticked me off. To say it was his responsibility to make sure the kid was his, when he was decieved by the wife is BS. Especially, since men are given no recourse to check into such things before the fact. Its not like I can keep her under lock and key.

It looks like it would be good policy to have every man do the DNA test when a child is born just to make sure it IS his. Or can there be a federal law requiring DNA testing when the child is born? So that we can nip this in the bud each time. It would definitely help in stopping these cases, and it would only cost 100 dollars or so from my understanding. If we can get it to be covered by insurers it would be a drop in the amount spent for birthing already.
3
thurston861 Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 9:35 am
It is good that the FL Legislature has changed the law.

Any court order by any court can be renered a void judgment due to fraud upon the court and that means that it is as if the order was enver entered, thus the man can sue civilly for fraud and demand the money back.

If there is no statute that says it cannot be done, there is no way to stop the results of a void judgement, it is a civil matter first.
4
mruffolo Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Statement from a DNA laboratory.

Annually in the U.S. there are over 300,000 tests performed and that approximately 30% (or 90,000) of these tested Alleged Fathers are proven to NOT be the biological fathers.

Reported males paying child support, it is estimated that 12% or 1.6 million are NOT the real father.

http://www.atlantadnacenter.com/page/page/589631.htm
5
Roger Knight Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Another crime of peonage.
It is still a crime of peonage when the DNA test confirms fatherhood.
6
Robert Stevens Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
And you would be surprized? I am not the “terrorist” who run the Government Sponsored Kidnapping and Extortion Racket the family courts and child support industry have become will NEVER… NEVER…… NEVER give up money, power and control without being made to. You have to know what I know about the court system, First , it does not operate under the constitution anymore. We have been living under a system called Admiralty/ equity that means in simple english a system based on contract law. In effect any time we deal with the “court” (stiffled Laugh) we are dealing with a financial matter. That we have unknowingly and unintenally entered into a contract with them ! A “contract” that is totally unfair, but is none the less valid It is not about right or wrong or justice. It is about money!
I have been working with experts in constitutional law and I now believe it is possible to put a stop to the “terroristic behavior” that is often exhibited by the “courts” (stiffled laugh) and the terrorcrats who support their little reign of terror. TO ineffect make them act more like the obedient, compliant and respectful servants they are really supposed to be. I know.. I know it sounds impossible, but it does work. It may well be the answer to the indignities and the injustices we have suffered at the hands of these bastards. It may well be the beginning of the end of this God Awful little racket.
7
BobH Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Yep, it’s men’s fault for being stupid enough to trust women. That’s a REALLY easy mistake to fix and men don’t even have to change the paternity fraud laws, just start openly treating women as blood sucking leeches. In the unlikely event that women are more interested in have relationships with men instead of just jerking us around, they’ll change the laws.
8
Gvil Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
As stated above how about a law that requires a DNA paternity test at birth, or would that take too much money from the courts? Other than what has already been done we would never hear of these cases again. The child would create a bond with the real father from the begining, that is if the mother can remmember which men (besides her husband) she was banging nine months previous.
9
fourthwire Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
You ought to know that the feminazi lobbyists fight mandatory DNA testing at birth, tooth-and-nail SIMPLY TO PROTECT A WOMAN’S ENTITLEMENT TO COMMIT PATERNITY FRAUD.

As if that’s any surprise……..

The ironic part is that some of them actually employ arguments that mandatory DNA testing at birth violates THEIR RIGHTS.
10
amfortas Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
“We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding,” writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.

F*ckweasel.

You are NOT equal before the Law. Your ‘rights’ are what these Judges say they are. The best interests of the child are what they say they are. It is best, in the children’s best interests, they say, to be raised by a LIAR, DECEIVER, ADULTERER and EXTORTIONIST. Heaven forbid that a child be raised by a moral person. It is best to kick a man when he’s down, simply because he’s a man.

These Judges take the public’s money and ride rough shod over them. When they hold justice so much in CONTEMPT they do not deserve the trust nor the protections of civilised people. They should be removed from the bench, preferably with force and have summary justice executed on the courthouse steps.

Leave them there and they will do more damage. As a Judge said in training other Judges, “We’re not here to consider his rights, throw the bum on the streets”. I say, throw the Judge, INJustice Kenneth Bell, on the streets, and take him and a rope to the nearest lamp-post. Let that be the new precedent.
11
roger Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
“Critics see it as a potential danger to the well-being of mothers and their vulnerable children.”

The well being of mothers?
This type of argument endorses slavery of ANYBODY to provide well being for mothers.

And the children? Well, that all depends on if the mother feels like spending any of the extorted monies on the child. After all. It is her choice.
12
tonysprout Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 10:10 am
We need a Fraud Tax placed on all feminine products and services. The proceeds will be used to pay back support money to defrauded fathers. Partial list of items to tax: abortions, tampons-pads, makeup, midol, birth control pills, plastic surgury and other feminine medical procedures.
13
right2parent Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I would suggest the court (family court) lost jurisdiction of the cause when evidence was presented that proved he was not a responsible, absent parent. There is a dead guy case that explains what I mean here. SCOTT v. MCNEAL, 154 U.S. 34 (1894). Look it up. As was the case with this probate case, family courts are similarly limited, and administerial in nature where the state has an interest under an often misunderstood doctrine of parens patriae. The order is void from the beginning.
14
donnieboy57 Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
80% of men are blind as an effin bat. the other 20% are not being listened to at any time for any reason on any subject. ever! never have been, never will!

until we burn the “village” and everyone in it, nothing will even come close to changing.
15
fourthwire Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
“We need a Fraud Tax placed on all feminine products and services. The proceeds will be used to pay back support money to defrauded fathers. Partial list of items to tax: abortions, tampons-pads, makeup, midol, birth control pills, plastic surgury and other feminine medical procedures.”

Now there’s a nasty example of “turnaround” being “fair play”, tonysprout.

Obviously you have heard about Swedish feminists’ efforts to have a “rape tax” imposed upon everyone born with a penis in that nation.
16
Charles Fockaert Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Reminds me of a joke:

The husband is on his death bed. He asks his wife about one of their three sons who doesn’t look like him.

“Tell me, honestly, is #3 my son?”

The wife replies, “Dear, you’re going to die and their is no reason for me to lie to you. Yes, he is your son.”

A few hours away, the husband passes away. The wife, relieved, turns to other family members in the hospital room,

“Whew, I’m glad he didn’t ask me about the other two.”
17
Denis Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
â€œWe find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding,â€ writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.

Judge Bell is working straight from Mein Kampf.

â€œThe state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.â€

Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf
18
roger Says:
February 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
would we have revolution if, in these cases, the men just shot the women? or would that just be considered a crime spree?

seriously – these women maliciously destroy men’s lives. what do they have to lose?
19
Dave Stone Says:
February 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Hey guys, one good thing about the invasion of America by the Third World and our ultimate defeat by Islam (because America’s a wimp country afraid of offending our enemies) is that our legal system will radically change in our favor. (Those of us still with our heads. . . which we’ll be bowing to Mecca). I have a sneaky suspiscion that Islami law won’t rule as favorably for unfaithful wives.

I suggest that whenever a married man fathers a child with another woman, his wife should be forced to breast feed it while her husband takes the girlfriend out to dinner five times a week.
20
BobH Says:
February 12th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
To Dave Stone:

You need to think about this a bit more. Islam allows Polygyny (single husband, multiple wives) with each man being allowed a maximum of 4 wives at one time. Assuming that there a similar number of male and females born, that means that, at worst, 1/4 of the men, typically the richest and most powerful 1/4 of the men, will monopolize the woman and 3/4 of the men will have no wives…and probably no sexual access to women at all.

One way for these involuntarily-celebate men can acquire wives is to kill the men who have them and steal them. At least one anthropologist has seriously proposed monogamy as essentially an agreement between men in an attempt reduce the level of male-male violence over the scarcest of breeding resources…women, particularly in their roles as fetus incubators.

And if you were one of the lucky men with multiple wives, what might you do? Well, you might create this whole mythical belief structure where men who committed suicide to advance some religion (and, coincidentally, protect you) were promised 72 virgins when they reached heaven?

It wouldn’t surprise me if most of these men were virgins when they blew themselves up.
21
highline_101 Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Hi.. I am looking to possibly file a void judgement motion on a 1992 support order from which the mother had stashed away as a 401k.
1. The Judgement order was rubber stamped, no signature of the judge 2. indications are that the mother had mentioned or stated that a marriage was involved(nothing of the sort). My question is if a line exists for a superior court judge to sign, this does not constitute a rubber stamping whereas anybody could have done this. This was an Alameda county Ca. judgement. please inform if anybody knows the facts on a judges signature being required on judgement support orders. Thanks Craig