War on Men continues - Thousands of men in Michigan alone forced to pay for kids they didn't father

[danielpalos]

The issue of paternity is much more complex than it might seem it should be, because the state prioritizes the best interests of the child over the squabbling of adults - for very good reason. This is an evolving area of the law, but generally speaking, courts will uphold a man's obligation to his children whether they are his biologically or not, out of concern for the child's well-being.

Here is a good article that explores the issue in some depth - warning, requires critical thinking and a greater than 5 minute attention span: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Material facts are the issue, not the socialism of the law, in a vacuum of special pleading. Are you on the right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every time the judge restricts the domicile of minor children to the District, all the members of the "family" unit are better served.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The issue of paternity is much more complex than it might seem it should be, because the state prioritizes the best interests of the child over the squabbling of adults - for very good reason. This is an evolving area of the law, but generally speaking, courts will uphold a man's obligation to his children whether they are his biologically or not, out of concern for the child's well-being.

Everyone knows that, you idiot. The question is whether it's right to subordinate a man's rights to what a kid needs.

Tell us something we don't know, moron.

 

[danielpalos]

Women love to falsely accuse a man of fathering their kids figuring he has more money than the real father. Happens every day and feminists encourage it.

Refreshing News State tells Detroit man Pay for child that isn t yours or go to jail

jan 24 2015
Carnell Alexander is a wanted man. The reason? He refuses to pay child support for a child that is proven to not be his. As a result, a warrant has been issued for his arrest.

Alexander says he learned about the paternity case against him during a traffic stop in Detroit in the early 90s. The officer told him he is a deadbeat dad, there was a warrant out for his arrest.
“I knew I didn’t have a child, so I was kind of blown back,” said Alexander during an interview in October.
He would later learn this happened because his ex needed help caring for her kids.
“I put him down as father to get assistance,” she told 7 Action News.
She didn’t realize that would start a paternity case. The state would want to get reimbursement for welfare benefits from the child’s dad.

By the time Carnell learned about the paternity case, judges told him it was too late. Legally he owes the state more than $30 thousand for assistance paid to care for a child.

Carnell refuses to pay. As a result, the warrant was issued for his arrest. He plans to turn himself in on Friday.
“I will go to jail if I have to because I am tired of the mishandling of the case,” said Carnell.
“It’s not right,” said Murray Davis of the National Family Justice Association.

Davis says there are thousands of men in Carnell Alexander’s shoes because Michigan doesn’t have paternity fraud laws that protect men.

When there is evidence a woman mistakenly or purposefully declares the wrong man as husband, it doesn’t necessarily impact paternity obligations.
Davis did a study a few years back that looked at how many of the men who are declared fathers by default in Wayne County are indeed the father. He says DNA tests found 79% of the time they are not.

Shit,

They don't even want the father in the childs life. They'd rather suck him dry this way and promote single parent families where the child is raised on the street.

Evil.

If you read the case she didn't go after him, the state did, because the mother was on welfare.

See a woman technically can't waive child support. Once the state gets in involved (which they always do when the mother requests public aid) then the woman cannot call off the government dogs.

Actually, i believe even this problem can be much ameliorated on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State through Individual Liberty instead of the socialism of a War on Poverty.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

```

Actually, i believe even this problem can be much ameliorated on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State through Individual Liberty instead of the socialism of a War on Poverty.

HAHAHA. More meaningless gibberish from the left.

 

[BoSoxGal]

The issue of paternity is much more complex than it might seem it should be, because the state prioritizes the best interests of the child over the squabbling of adults - for very good reason. This is an evolving area of the law, but generally speaking, courts will uphold a man's obligation to his children whether they are his biologically or not, out of concern for the child's well-being.

Everyone knows that, you idiot. The question is whether it's right to subordinate a man's rights to what a kid needs.

Tell us something we don't know, moron.

You're quite special, aren't you?

In any case, clearly not everybody knows this, because you have vehemently argued the opposite in this thread with no attention to nuance, complexity or the competing public policy interests at stake.

The courts have generally held that YES, it is right to subordinate a man's rights to the best interests of the child, given the child's protected status. Really, you could learn something by reading the NYT piece I posted.

The case posted in the OP has some very specific circumstances that seem to raise due process violations. The 'father' was, allegedly, not served with summons to appear in court at the initiation of the paternity suit - at which time he would have had the opportunity to challenge the mother's assertion and to demand a DNA test. For very good reason the courts generally don't allow the revisitation of paternity after the first few years of a child's life, even if it's undisputed the that father recognized as biological by the court is not, in fact, biological. The case in the OP is a poor example of this phenomenon, because of the potential due process violations. Hopefully the man's lawyer will get him a fair hearing on the issue and the order will be overturned.

But are we really supposed to feel sorry for men who can't bother to show up to court on a properly served summons in a paternity action? If you are putting your dick into women without a condom on it, you should expect that something like this will happen at some point. Ignoring a legal matter of such importance does not raise any sympathy in me.

I wonder if the summons were for a lawsuit on a debt if you would be so quick to defend the respondents who fail to show at court and then bitch and moan about default judgments?

 

[danielpalos]

```

Actually, i believe even this problem can be much ameliorated on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State through Individual Liberty instead of the socialism of a War on Poverty.

HAHAHA. More meaningless gibberish from the left.

It is only meaningless to the right, simply because they don't have a clue or a Cause.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The issue of paternity is much more complex than it might seem it should be, because the state prioritizes the best interests of the child over the squabbling of adults - for very good reason. This is an evolving area of the law, but generally speaking, courts will uphold a man's obligation to his children whether they are his biologically or not, out of concern for the child's well-being.

Everyone knows that, you idiot. The question is whether it's right to subordinate a man's rights to what a kid needs.

Tell us something we don't know, moron.

We as a society needs to promote strong families, assuring that shit like this doesn't happen to a man that doesn't deserve it.

Deserve it as in the kid is his as he remains with one woman.

 

[BoSoxGal]

The issue of paternity is much more complex than it might seem it should be, because the state prioritizes the best interests of the child over the squabbling of adults - for very good reason. This is an evolving area of the law, but generally speaking, courts will uphold a man's obligation to his children whether they are his biologically or not, out of concern for the child's well-being.

Everyone knows that, you idiot. The question is whether it's right to subordinate a man's rights to what a kid needs.

Tell us something we don't know, moron.

We as a society needs to promote strong families, assuring that shit like this doesn't happen to a man that doesn't deserve it.

Deserve it as in the kid is his as he remains with one woman.

If you read the NYT article I posted, you'll see that some men aren't motivated to destroy a years-long relationship with a child they love just because they aren't biologically related. It's not so black and white.

It might be a good idea to consider DNA testing as a routine post-birth practice, BUT - even that is complicated - men have raised others men's children for millennia, in many cases without wishing to know the truth of paternity. Parenting is so much more than biology, after all - especially in an age where not only is adoption at an all-time high, but babies manufactured from the biological parts of several different adults (egg from donor inseminated by sperm donor implanted in surrogate to be raised by two entirely separate 'parents' who are not the source of any of the biological material).

When men are served with paternity paperwork, they need to show up in court and assert their rights/objections, or forever hold their peace. The overarching principle that children deserve the financial and emotional support of two parents whenever possible should continue to override the Johnny-come-lately objections of men who can't be bothered to read court paperwork.
There are a great many men of character who voluntarily step up to parent children not their biological offspring - and we should not legislate away their right to do so without emotional devastation to the family unit.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

When men are served with paternity paperwork, they need to show up in court and assert their rights/objections, or forever hold their peace. The overarching principle that children deserve the financial and emotional support of two parents whenever possible should continue to override the Johnny-come-lately objections of men who can't be bothered to read court paperwork.
.

That's more of the left's "guilty until proven innocent" crap. You take the view that when the state orders you to provide for a kid, then the burden of proof is on YOU to show otherwise even if you are not the father!!!

You are one sick fascist nutter.

 

[BoSoxGal]

When men are served with paternity paperwork, they need to show up in court and assert their rights/objections, or forever hold their peace. The overarching principle that children deserve the financial and emotional support of two parents whenever possible should continue to override the Johnny-come-lately objections of men who can't be bothered to read court paperwork.
.

That's more of the left's "guilty until proven innocent" crap. You take the view that when the state orders you to provide for a kid, then the burden of proof is on YOU to show otherwise even if you are not the father!!!

You are one sick fascist nutter.

Do you have a learning disability?

No, that is NOT the position I've taken.

I've educated you that there is a process by which a putative (claimed by the mother) father can very easily prove he is NOT the father. All he has to do is show up to court and proved a cheek swab for DNA testing. Hardly a huge burden.

You're clearly a misogynist who also hates children.