Back From The Dead (Sort Of) And More News To Make You Mostly Nauseous

Hello, Hello - It's Been Too Long....

What can I say? I know I mentioned back in April of 2006 that I had taken a new job which I anticipated would severely limit my blogging opportunities. What even I did not realize then was how much this position would take away from my "blogging time."

Those who have spent much time with me (And you are out there ~ I've been getting your emails!) may have noticed that 95% of my posts were made during what is generally work hours on weekdays. Every once in a great while I would blog from home because I simply had to say something right away - but for the most part I allowed my company to pay me to blog.

This is not to say they minded, as they did not. Nor is it to say that it took away from the quality of my work, as it certainly did not. But that I took advantage of the free time I had during my workday and spent my nights and weekends enjoying my wonderful little family and not allowing myself to be consumed with this horrible reality 24 hours a day.

Where I was generally on the road for around a month a week at my last job - now, I am lucky to be home for a whole week at a time. Where my last position seemed to go from manic to dead and average about the same time period of each - this job never seems to dip below steady rush. Where I used to make catty comments about people who had a cell phone permanently attached to their ear - I recently sucked it up and bought the blue tooth headset thing as I swear I was starting to suffer from wrist fatigue. Where I used to scoff at airline mileage programs as I did not fly nearly enough to warrant understanding all the fine print - I just flew my sister to and from Hawaii for a wedding on miles alone.

This job has certainly changed a lot about my life.

And the point of all of this... It has turned me into a lousy blogger. More, it has made me the kind of blogger I hate - those who post on what appears to be a quarterly basis for what can be assumed no other point but to amuse the four friends who may check in or in the desperate hope to continue to accumulate a few cents from adsense.

I assure you I am neither - but you certainly couldn't tell from my abysmal posting of late.

My job slowly ramped up that by the end of the holidays I was functioning at full speed (or more so) and it seems if I am not in a meeting, or on a plane, in court, or driving (always, of course, on my cell phone), at soccer, baseball, basketball, football, class parties, feeding the gaggle of children my step son has brought home, or trying to have a meaningful conversation with my husband, I am crumpled into a small ball on the couch of the hotel of the day or preferably in my living room. Blogging has fallen precipitously on the list of priorities. If it makes you feel any better, I had to quit my book club outright.

And yet, when I (extremely infrequently) find time to check my personal email, I see new subscribers to the blog signing up almost daily and lots of email from readers checking in to see if I am still kicking around somewhere. Thank you all for your kind notes ~ I truly appreciate your thoughts.

I feel desperately uninformed lately. I have no idea if all the links on the site are still active and I could not provide any idea as to the state of my fellow bloggers. I have received suggestions for reciprocal links that I have ignored, requests for help or information that I have been unable to answer, and reader questions that continue to sit in my inbox (I suppose with the idea that someday soon I will sit down and answer them all in some great flourish).

And as I sit here on my first Friday evening home in three weeks - I mostly feel anxious to wrap this up.

But I owe you better than that - and I glanced at the most recent newsletter from Glenn Sacks which contained some (surprise, surprise) horrific examples of legal inequities and feminist nonsense that I feel compelled to pass on.

But first, let me be clear that I don't anticipate (unless I get fired) my postings to get any more frequent. And the little I have posted lately has for the most part been a regurgitation of information that can easily be found in readily available sources. I can't recall that last post I made in which I included a reasoned argument of my own. And while I will leave the blog up because I feel it continues to serve as a good resource - my contributions will be minimal and likely detached from the movement as a whole.

So... that being said, if there are any readers out there who feel as though they could "pick up the torch" so to speak and would like be able to post on the blog, please just shoot me an email (which I probably will not look at for several weeks - but be patient, eventually I will). You can find my email address under the links session on the main page. I have little criteria except for a belief that joint custody (legal and physical) should be the default and custody arrangements outside of this breakdown should have to be justified, move aways should never be allowed except under the most necessary and extreme circumstances, that there are both crazy/bad mothers and fathers, that when dealing with issues of family, divorce and custody there can be no absolutes, that kids (who have to be children of divorce) fair SUBSTANTIALLY better with two involved and cooperative parents, that this blog will always allow for dissent, that this blog will always provide reasoned and articulated positions with supporting evidence if at all possible and that this blog will never be used as a pulpit to simply attack those of other opinions or genders.

Hmm, maybe I had more criteria than I thought.

I started this blog in January 2004 - it has been a big part of my life up until recently. While I would love to have additional people to post, I would like to stay true to the reasons I began it in the first place.

Enough about all of that ~ on to the news....

All of the following came from a Glenn Sacks newsletter which you can access yourself by clicking here....

Colorado has a new paternity fraud bill SB 56.

Glenn wrote the following article: 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties.

Excerpts from the article:

SB 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence.

Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 which prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it. If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.

On Point: Suffer the children offer a different point of view. Excerpts:

Dads, if you are the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link with your child, make sure to get a DNA test during a divorce. That way you can establish without a doubt whether your wife deceived you - and if the kid isn't yours, you may be able to toss the tyke overboard with a minimum of fuss, avoiding that everlasting nuisance of child support.

What's that, you say? A kid might grow to love or depend upon a "duped dad" as much as if the two shared a genetic profile? Tough luck. This is an age when adult convenience and autonomy trumps the interests and expectations of mere children. And that, not incidentally, is why it's so important that all right-thinking adults (or at least right-thinking men) support Senate Bill 56, which would allow a duped dad to take the DNA test any time during a child's life with an eye toward ditching child support.

Take a look at this press release about Sherri Donovan's new book Hit Him Where It Hurt$: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony, Custody, Child Support. My favorite excerpt:

Eighty-five percent of the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed.

I suppose at least she admitted women initiate the majority of divorces.

On a better note, Utah Senator Mark Madsen sounds like he might be a reasonable guy. In this article, Child-support delinquency could cost parents their licenses, it stated:

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, said he wanted to see more punishments for those who interfered with the visitation rights of non-custodial parents before he could support another measure for collecting child-support payments.

"I'd like to see some parity," Madsen said. "There is already a disproportionate amount of methods (for punishing those who don't pay their child support)."

There is lots more in the newsletter like:

"A study in the January/February issue of the journal Child Development found that when nonresident fathers are involved with their adolescent children, the youths are less likely to take part in delinquent behavior such as drug and alcohol use, violence, property crime and school problems like truancy and cheating.

and

"Meanwhile, lobbyist Mike Robinson said that he has found multiple sponsors to draft legislation that would amend California's domestic-violence laws to apply to 'victims,' rather than only to women. He said the language has been approved by the Legislative Counsel. There are several Republicans who have said they are willing to sponsor the legislation, Robinson said, but he is trying to line up a Democratic co-author."

and

"Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

plus

I've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.

I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.

Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner's appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner's relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.

and finally (though there is more I haven't mentioned in the newsletter)

"A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.

So visit Glenn Sacks to read the newsletter in its entirety.

Finally - Signs, Pictures and Billboards I Like (Or Don't)

What the hell is this? Apparently a marketing scheme by Court TV....

borrowed from Cartoon Barry Blog

We have seen this one before from ACFC:

As well as this one from NHCustody.org:

Equal rights for unwed fathers

Equal rights for unwed fathers

This is the latest article from Cathy Young. You can also visit her on her blog - The Y Files. On her blog she has another excellent post about Male Reproductive Rights.

Excerpts:

Today, partly as a result of several legal controversies in which unmarried fathers successfully contested adoptions, the majority of states have ''putative father registries" by means of which a man can assert his paternity. But the purpose of these registries often seems to be less to protect the rights of the father than to protect the rights of everyone else: the mother who wants to give up the baby, the adoption agency, and the adoptive parents. Some would say that they also protect the rights of the child. But that depends on whether you believe that a child is better off being adopted than being raised by the biological father.

In most states, the unwed father has to file with the registry either within a certain period of the child's birth -- from five to 30 days -- or, as in Massachusetts, at any time before the adoption petition is filed. But neither the mother nor the adoption agency has any obligation to notify the man of the adoption, or of the fact that he is a father or father-to-be. Even when the father is notified, he may not be told about the putative father registry -- which is what happened to Jones, whose attorney, Allison Perry, refers to the Florida registry as a ''well-kept secret." That is the situation in most states. Not only are most men unaware of the registries' existence, even some lawyers don't know about them.

Amazingly, many specialists believe that it's too much of a burden on the woman or the adoption agency to require that a man be notified of his paternity. Instead, they argue that it should be his responsibility to file with the putative father registry every time he enters a sexual relationship with a woman, on the off-chance that a pregnancy may result -- a requirement that, if nothing else, smacks of a humiliating invasion of privacy. Surely, it is far more efficient and less invasive to limit the notification requirement to cases in which a pregnancy actually happens, and to place the burden on those who are aware of the pregnancy.

You would think that, unlike men who seek to avoid their paternal responsibilities, fathers who want to be responsible for raising their own children would at least encounter societal sympathy and support. Sadly, that has not generally been the case. Unwed fathers who contest adoptions are often faulted for not taking affirmative steps to find out about the child's existence, and in some cases are blamed even if they were actively deceived by the mother. Often, they're suspected of being abusers whose real hidden motive is to control the mother.

The issues of men burdened with responsibility for unwanted pregnancies, and of men who are not allowed to be fathers to wanted children, are linked by a common thread. Biology has made men and women unequal with regard to reproduction. In recent decades, thanks to both technology and social change, we have made strides to alleviate the inequality for women, helping them avoid unwanted childbearing. But we have lagged far behind in equalizing the situation for men. We cannot ask men to be equal parents while giving virtually all the power in reproductive decisions to women.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Excerpts:

More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that didn't stop the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn't the father of the child in question.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as "fathers," for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It's called "paternity fraud," and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

Tis the Season for Divorce

Well, divorce is all over the news lately. And for good reason - as pointed out by MIsForMalevolent January is the peak month for divorce.

I do some work with a local agency that is available to parents who would like to try and have a more amicable divorce. It is not a true "collaborative divorce" program as has been described by the media lately. The parties are not represented by their own respective lawyers - though there is always an available attorney to answer points of law. The crux of the program is learning based - understanding how divorce affects children and then the parents go into an unbinding mediation session where they try to come to a resolution on custody. While we will help them to dissolve all of their marital property if they can do so quickly and without much rancor - primarily we deal with issues involving the children.

The success rate of this program is very high but there is a pretty rigid screening process so only those who truly desire to cooperate but are impeded by hurt feelings, etc are accepted. It is almost entirely volunteer - including the advising attorneys and the court approved mediators.

The "traffic" of the agency pretty much dies in December. People become involved in the holidays and often wait to break the news to their spouse after they "get through the holidays." Often their reasoning for this is to not ruin the children's holiday.

But in January we get slammed. It seems the calls start on New Years Day and things don't get back to normal levels until mid February or so. Every year it is this way and we have to turn away even qualified couples due to lack of resources.

So this is a depressingly busy time for me. And for a lot of other people as well.

Soldiers' divorce rates up

Excerpts:

Among enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army, there were 7,152 divorces in 2004, an increase of 28 percent over the previous year and 53 percent since 2000. Among Army officers, the rate of divorce jumped 78 percent between 2003 - the year the U.S. invaded Iraq - and 2004.

A total of 3,325 Army officers were divorced in 2004, more than three times the number that divorced in 2000. The increases are especially meaningful considering the overall number of enlisted military personnel has barely changed over the last five years.

Research has shown that around 20 percent of military marriages end in divorce within two years of one partner's going to war.

Divorce has lasting effects on happiness levels

Excerpts:

A study published in the December 2005 issue of Psychological Science shows that divorce leaves a lasting effect on one's satisfaction levels. A person's happiness level drops as she or he approaches divorce and gradually rebounds over time. But the level of satisfaction does not return to baseline (the level of satisfaction felt prior to the divorce).

Putting the children first

Excerpts:

For years the national divorce rate has fluctuated between 45 and 50 percent, on the source. Wyoming's divorce rate is 44 percent higher than the national average, according to a national vital statistics report.

Many of these separations involve children. In 2003 alone, nearly 2,500 Wyoming children were directly affected by their parents’ divorces.

The Wyoming Children's Access Network provides parent-education seminars for divorcing, separated and never-married parents. The one-time, 4-hour seminar is offered monthly in Cheyenne, Cody, Gillette, Jackson, Lander, Laramie, Rawlins, Rock Springs, Sheridan and Torrington.

The seminar provides information on the impact of parental conflict on children and teaches parents skills to help with the difficult transition. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other adults close to the children are welcome to attend as well.

A nominal fee is charged; based on need, the fee may be waived upon request. Pre-registration is required 24 hours in advance. Info: toll-free (866) 726-3700.

Colorado's Restriction of Protections Against Paternity Fraud

Excerpts:

On New Year's Day the children and fathers of Colorado got a present courtesy of the state legislature. Effective January 1, a man's right to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring was restricted to the duration of the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child support action.

Once a final order is entered in that proceeding, a new state law says, the putative father is barred from presenting newly discovered evidence of non-paternity -- ever.

State Senate Bill 181, enacted in Colorado's 2005 legislative session, requires that any evidence from genetic testing of parent and child be introduced before the entry of final orders. The new law applies to divorce, child support establishment and enforcement and parentage.

"Women file over two-thirds of all divorces in America," said Richar' Farr, founder of the Internet radio station KRightsRadio.com. "And with the increasing number of cases constesting paternity across the nation, this action is simply another example how our elected officials are out of touch with the real needs of the people they are elected to serve. This law benefits no one but the state's treasury," Farr added.

Tardiness on paternity tests can be costly for men - Kansas

Kansas City Star

Excepts:

Leroy Jones of Kansas City paid more than $30,000 in child support over 12 years — about $6,000 of it after a DNA test proved he was not the father.

Because Jones’ test came more than a year after a court first ruled he was the child’s father. His late test doesn’t matter, not in Missouri, Kansas or most other states. Alleged fathers have a short time — one year in Missouri and Kansas — to contest court findings that they are a parent.

Jeffery Leving, a Chicago lawyer who specializes in fathers’ rights, says his staff is preparing a bill for next year’s Missouri General Assembly that would require DNA tests for all alleged unmarried fathers. A similar bill failed recently in Illinois but will reappear next year, he said.

Bush to sign paternity, child support bill - Florida

AP Wire 05/20/2005 Bush to sign paternity, child support bill

Excerpts:

Gov. Jeb Bush planned to sign a bill Friday aimed at making it easier for the government to establish paternity and make sure child support payments are efficiently made.

The measure (HB 1283) makes several changes, many of them technical, dealing with how it is determined who the father of a child is and how child support is collected.

Among the changes is one that would allow the posting of information about undistributed child support on the Internet and another that could allow paternity to be established without a court order in some cases when genetic testing is conclusive.

For child support to be ordered, there currently must be a court ruling on paternity. Under the bill, if genetic testing shows paternity with more than 99 percent certainty, the court order could be skipped, although men who are involved could still bring the case to court to contest it.

Sperm donor gets sympathy,still must pay - PA

Philadelphia Daily News 05/18/2005 Sperm donor gets sympathy,still must pay

I hate to say it men, but if I were you I think I would stay away from women all together...

Excerpts:

Several justices said they were concerned by the wider public-policy implications of the case, which arose after a woman who convinced her ex-boyfriend to help her conceive by in-vitro fertilization later changed her mind and sued for support.

A Dauphin County judge excoriated the mother, Ivonne V. Ferguson, but awarded her up to $1,520 a month from the biological father, Joel L. McKiernan. The decision was upheld last year by the Superior Court.

Justice Ronald D. Castille asked Ferguson's attorney, Elizabeth A. Hoffman, whether letting Ferguson renege on her deal would make it harder for couples to obtain sperm donors. Castille offered the example of a lesbian couple who needed a donor to conceive.

"What man in their right mind would agree to that if we decide this case in your favor? Nobody," Castille said.

Ferguson and McKiernan had a two-year affair while they both worked at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg, although according to court records it had "waned" before the twins, now 10 years old, were conceived. Their birth certificates list her ex-husband as the father, although DNA tests later confirmed that McKiernan is the biological father.

McKiernan later moved to the Pittsburgh area, married and fathered two other children.

In exchange for his sperm, Ferguson released McKiernan from "any obligation, financial or moral," according to the Superior Court ruling. She filed for support in 1999, five years after the twins were born and three years after her most recent contact with Mc-Kiernan.

The county and Superior courts both sympathized with McKiernan and called Ferguson's actions "despicable," but they also ruled against him, saying "legal, equitable and moral principles" made it impossible to enforce their contract.

Legislature targets alimony, paternity legislation - Oregon

theworldlink.com

Excerpts:

A bill that would end alimony after an ex-spouse remarries has backers in both parties, and one giving men more time to challenge paternity claims is headed to a Senate vote.

Effects could be broad-reaching. Oregon has 15,000 divorces a year, and about a quarter of challenged paternity cases show the man in question is not the father.

"At some point, you should not be able to go back to a former spouse and reconnect for support," said Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene. Senate Bill 945 would do that.

Senate Bill 234, voted out of committee last week, would allow a married man to end his paternity obligations if blood or DNA tests prove the child is not his.

The bill would give an unmarried man two years to challenge a paternity claim. Current law allows one year.

Bill could help avoid paying support -Florida

Tallahassee Democrat 04/19/2005 Bill could help avoid paying support

What a SICK title - as if not wanting to pay for a child that is not yours is AVOIDANCE!!

Excerpts:

Men who get DNA tests to disprove paternity could avoid paying child support, under a bill Rep. Curtis Richardson steered through a key House panel Monday.

Some members of the House Justice Council objected that "the best interests of the child" were being trumped by belated proof that a man ordered to pay support was not the biological father of a child. But Richardson, D-Tallahassee, said his bill would not allow men to escape financial obligations if they have previously acknowledged fatherhood, adopted a child or tried to stop some other man from assuming parental responsibility.

Former state Sen. Fred Dudley, representing The Florida Bar family-law section, said it was important the bill only applies to future child-support orders "so we're not subjecting literally tens of thousands of child-support orders out there to a new rule about collateral attacks on the judgments." Dudley also said judges "always need to use the 'best-interests-of-the-child test' in making this determination" to end child support. (Read: Let's not give men who are currently paying support for children they did not father a reprieve.)

If a man has adopted a child, or has consented to being listed on a birth certificate as a baby's father, he could not change his mind and try to get out of child support under the bill. Richardson said if a man has stopped some other man from adopting a child or asserting fatherhood, he could not later renounce paternity and stop paying.

Richardson said men would have to file an affidavit in court stating that they do not think they fathered a child and would have to pay for DNA testing. A judge could require the mother to have the child tested.

Rep. John Quinones, R-Kissimmee, objected strenuously to the bill. He said some children have bonded with men they believe are their fathers, who may have accepted responsibility for years before getting suspicious and having a DNA test.

"You have children who are essentially going to be bastardized," Quinones said. "You have sperm donors and then you have fathers, and when someone has raised a child as their own for this many years ... they should continue their obligation."

But Rep. Mark Mahon, R-Jacksonville, said as a family-law attorney, he has had to explain to men that they must continue paying child support for children they can prove are not theirs.

"The courts are supposed to be searchers for truth," Mahon said. "It's very difficult to explain to a man that DNA testing can get someone off Death Row, but DNA proving they are not the father cannot get them relieved of a support order."

A companion bill (SB 1456) by Sen. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee, has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and is pending in the Children and Families Committee.

New Zealand Men Sending Away to Australia for Paternity Tests

Full article at manawatustandard

Sly DNA tests show 1 in 3 dads duped
By TIM HUME

Hundreds of Kiwi men are paying out almost $900 for secret tests in Australia to determine whether they are really a dad.

And the company which runs the tests says that in one in three cases, the man finds he's been duped.

The men have been secretly sending samples of saliva or hair to Australian clinic DNA Solutions because they often find the test here is blocked when the mother won't give her consent.
The tests are used by men who suspect they are not the child's biological father, to disprove fatherhood of children they are paying for - and in some cases to get access to a child they believe is theirs.

Fathers' rights groups say the secret "motherless tests" provide vital protection for men and children in a system where women can abuse their position as "gatekeepers" and commit paternity fraud by concealing a child's true father.

"These tests are just giving people the right to know," says Bruce Tichbon, of Families Apart Require Equality (FARE). "Fathers have a right to know, but even more importantly, children have a right to know."

The 20-year-old technology is reliable and affordable but paternity tests in New Zealand are difficult to get. The only laboratory which does the tests here, DNA Diagnostics, insists on having the mother's consent. Obtaining a test through the courts can be cumbersome and laborious.

FARE advised fathers to get the test done overseas. Although it could not be presented as evidence by the courts, it would provide valuable peace of mind. "We tell people, don't get it done here. Bugger the system, it's bankrupt," said Tichbon. "Women used to get backstreet abortions, now men have to get backstreet paternity tests."

Law aids paternity fraud victims

Washington Times

Law aids paternity fraud victims
By Cheryl Wetzstein

A lawyer says she has helped seven California men escape erroneous child support orders, though another man, who has been fighting his order for almost a decade, is waiting for his day in court this month.

California "paternity fraud" victims are finding relief under a landmark 2004 court decision and a law that went into effect Jan. 1. Both offer opportunities for courts to overturn established child support obligations for men who can prove they are not the fathers.

In just the past few weeks, "I have overturned seven [men's cases]. ... They're off the hook," Santa Ana, Calif., lawyer Linda S. Ferrer told The Washington Times last week.

All seven men had been assigned child support orders by default, which means they weren't in court to defend themselves, she said. Two of the men had been close enough to the mothers to have once had a relationship with the children, but the other five "had never met the mother," Miss Ferrer said.

News has spread, and she said she has heard from fathers from "all over the state" asking for help.

Meanwhile, Taron G. James of Torrance, Calif., founder of Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud, is eagerly awaiting his Jan. 25 court date.

"I am trying to get my name cleared as the father of this child that isn't mine and I don't even know," said Mr. James, a Navy veteran from the Gulf war.

Mr. James admits he had an affair with the mother, but it ended a year before her child was born in 1992. A DNA test obtained in 2001 excluded him as the child's father.

In addition to relief from the child support order, Mr. James wants restitution for the estimated $12,000 taken from him in child support and $38,000 he has spent fighting the system since 1996. A separate suit, filed in civil court, seeks monetary damages from the mother and Los Angeles county officials, all of whom defrauded him, said his lawyer, Marc Angelucci.

Paternity fraud cases typically languished until two pivotal events last year.

The first was a June court decision in the case of Whittier, Calif., construction worker Manuel Navarro.

Mr. Navarro's saga started in 1996, when a woman who lived in his neighborhood named "Manuel Nava" as the father of her twin boys. Child support officials assumed Mr. Navarro was the father and sent a summons to his sister's home. When Mr. Navarro didn't respond within 30 days, the court established a $247-a-month child support order for him by default.

This "default" practice is not uncommon in California. More than 70 percent of the state's child support orders were established by default — a rate that is "dramatically higher" than in other states, Urban Institute researchers said in a 2003 study of California's child support system.

In 2001, with DNA proof that he was not the father, Mr. Navarro, represented by Miss Ferrer, sued to have his child support order thrown out. A lower court refused, saying too much time
had elapsed, but Mr. Navarro won on appeal.

The county "should not enforce child support judgments it knows to be unfounded," the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District said in its June 30 decision. "[W]hen a mistake occurs in a child support action, the county must correct it, not exploit it," it added.

Child support officials quickly moved to get the Navarro decision "depublished" or rendered moot for use in court. But in November, the California Supreme Court denied their request, and the law stands.

The second pivotal event came in September when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a paternity fraud law called AB 252, which allows men to challenge established child support orders under limited circumstances. It went into effect Jan. 1.

A spokeswoman for the California Department of Child Support Services told The Washington Times that it has been updating its officials on AB 252. Child support workers, she added, are using better tools to locate fathers, which means fewer default orders are issued.

Paternity: Innocence Is Now a Defense

This is the latest article from Wendy McElroy and available at ifeminists.com.

A California man was ordered to pay child support on a child that was proven NOT to be his by a DNA test. On June 30th, the Second District Court of Appeal of California overturned this order.

The appeals court explained, "the County ... should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature's clear directive that child-support agencies not pursue mistaken child-support actions, the County persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse."

The entire article can be viewed here.

Doesn't is seem odd that we celebrate when a man gets out of paying child support for a child he did not father?

Wisconsin Paternity Suit

This is an extremely interesting and unbelievably convoluted case out of Wisconsin. I will attempt to provide a synopsis:

A married woman had an affair and shortly thereafter became pregnant. While she made the man she was having the affair with aware that the child might be his, she never told her husband of the affair. A few years later the woman and her husband are divorcing and the husband is seeking custody, visitation, etc... The woman then tells her husband that the child is likely not his. After a paternity test this is found to be true and the biological father attempts to assert his rights to the child. The court rules in favor of the non-biological father and is reaffirmed (kind-of at least, they rule in favor of the non-biological father but for different reasons) by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The biological father is ordered to have no-contact with the child. The kicker here is that the mother has since married the biological father and shares custody with the non-biological father, but her husband (the biological father) is currently not allowed to see the child. Apparently the biological father could be awarded some sort of visitation if a "child psychologist decides it is appropriate in the future."

Personally, I think this mother is crazy and obviously doing large amounts of harm to her child. Other than that, I'm not sure how I feel about the ruling. It is not the non-biological fathers fault this occurred and he has acted as father since the child was born (I believe the child is roughly 6 now). However, giving the biological father no access does not seem correct either. Read the article for yourself at gmtoday.

Mississippi Supreme Court

The Mississippi Supreme Court may hear the appeal of a man faced to pay child support on a daughter he never knew existed. The child, now 4, thought she was the daughter of her mothers now ex-husband, as did the ex-husband. When the ex-husband asserted his right to custody and visitation during divorce proceedings, the mother told him that she did not believe he was the father. Paternity tests were administered and the biological father was located. Even though the ex-husband offered to take full parental responsibility for the child, the court ruled he had no legal standing to request custody or visitation and forced to biological father to begin paying child support. HeraldTribune.com