Mr. Mens Rights

Talking about a man's role in the world today.

Mandatory Paternity Testing

		Saturday, 08 March 08 - 07:51 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

Here’s a great news story.  (Read it here.)  This politician simply makes sense.  We  have discussed on this blog before how damaging cases of paternity fraud can be, and a law such as this would certainly reduce the incidence of paternity fraud.  (If you haven’t read the article, State Rep G.A. Hardaway is promoting a bill that would require a paternity test for all fathers before their name is placed on the birth certificate.)  In my eyes, a bill such as this makes good sense, and could end what I see as a significant issue.

            But there is dissent.   "I think it's a real affront to women to say that every baby born has to have a paternity test." says  State Rep Sherry Jones.  I submit that the affront to women is much less than the affront to a man who learns that he is financially responsible for another man’s child for the next couple of decades.  While I can appreciate that this type of legislation is an affront to a woman’s right to privacy, the right to privacy must be weighed against the rights of others who may suffer as you exercise your own personal privacy.  Yes, it is true that forcing all women to prove whom the father of their child is seems to call into question the character of the woman.  However, there are too many incidents to be ignored that suggest that for at least some women, that character needs to be questioned.  The reason that I like this law is that it applies the same standard to everyone-so no one’s character is being questioned, it is just a part of getting the document you want.  If a law like this were passed, it would eventually be like taking an eye exam to receive your driver’s license-a little intrusive, but the safety gained by having only people who can see drive far outweighs the intrusiveness of the state testing you.  The same would be true here.  The benefit of protecting fathers and children would far outweigh the intrusiveness of requiring a paternity test.  (I recognize that this is not a perfect parallel, but you get my point.)

          I will follow this story with interest, and look forward to your comments.

Parental Alienation

		Saturday, 23 February 08 - 09:03 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

So today I want to talk about parental alienation.  Parental alienation is when one of the parents, either intentionally or unintentionally, turns a child against the other parent.  Since this is a men’s rights blog, I will focus on how this can be detrimental to a father’s relationship with his child(ren).

            Whether we like it or not, it is a reality of life that it is much more likely that the mother be made the primary residential parent than the father.  There are a number of reasons for this, some that make sense, some that don’t.  While there has historically been a bias towards mothers in custody issues, this has been reduced in recent years, although there may still be some residual bias.  In many cases, the mother was a stay at home mother, and is better situated to take care of the children full time.  It is a bit of a Catch-22 for fathers in this regard-you should work hard to provide for your family, but because you work a lot, you are deemed the parent less able to care for the children.  In this sense, gender roles play a major role in who raises the children after divorce.  The good news is that as two-earner households become more prevalent, this issue becomes less of a deciding factor, and levels the playing field for men somewhat. 

            So what happens when a mother who has been given primary custody (an outdated term, but one that we all understand), tries to turn the children against their father?  The reality is that either party can feel hurt after a divorce or split, and when a person feels wronged, it is human nature to try and harm the person you perceive as hurting you.  Sometimes, this will turn into a mother putting the wrong ideas into a childs head.

            You may have heard about the Bridget Marks case on Dr. Phil, or one of the other shows that she did.  This is the former Playboy model who accused her former boyfriend of molesting the children they had together in order to gain custody.  You can view a transcript of a very good interview about this case, conducted by Glenn Sacks, here.  In the case, the mother had coached the children to accuse the father of sexually inappropriate behavior.  A family court judge made the determination that the allegations were false, and awarded custody to the father.  On appeal, the court held that although the mother did coach the children to make false allegations against their father, she should still have custody.  In part, the judges felt that the father traveled too much (he had agreed to relocate from California to New York when he was awarded custody initially), and that the children had bonded with the mother, and that should not be disturbed (even though she was poisoning them against their father.)  This type of activity should be dealth with harshly.  I for one would support incarceration for some period for those women (or men) who are found to have tried to effectuate more “favorable” custody rulings by coaching their children.  (Making false reports is already a crime, as is perjury, but rarely are these types of cases prosecuted-it is very difficult to prove that someone had no belief in these types of claims, and the perpetrators will often be very sympathetic.)  In the meantime, I would caution anyone who is in litigation regarding the parental rights they have towards their children to document everything, especially if the split with your partner was especially contentious.  It is important to protect yourself from false allegations or your partner coloring your child’s perception of you.

False Claims of Rape

		Monday, 28 January 08 - 06:26 AM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

            False rape claims.  Let me start this conversation by stating that I know that some claims of rape are true.  If someone has actually raped another, then there should be severe consequences.  But that is not the focus of what I want to talk about today.  Today, I want to talk about claims of rape that are false. 

            There are any number of motivations to make a false rape claim.  To hide a consensual sexual encounter from a spouse or mate, to try and extort money, to try and harm a person you are mad at, or for many other reasons.  There are commentators that would have us believe that there are very few cases where the claims of rape are false.  This article by Wendy McElroy-See it here-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html-takes what little concrete data there is and hypothesizes that as many as 1 in 4 rape accusations are false-that is, the wrong person is accused.

            McElroy comes to this conclusion by reviewing FBI testing data.  Out of 10,000 tests (where a suspect was named, and biological material was present and testable), 2000 were inconclusive, 2000 were not the suspect, and 6000 confirmed the accusation.  These are chilling numbers.  While there are no doubt some of these accusations that are truly mistakes where there was a rape, but the victim misidentifies the perpetrator.  However, some of these accusations are acts of vengeance or hate or greed, or any number of other possibilities.  One need not look far to find these cases.  The Duke “rape” case may be the most well known of these false rape allegations.  And while that case eventually had a positive result for the accused, let us not forget what the mere accusation cost them.  The Duke lacrosse season was cancelled.  All the Duke lacrosse players lost their ability to plat the sport, and most were rejected even when they attempted to go to other schools.  And these are young men that were not even accused.  For the actual accused, they were forced out of school, had to spend huge sums of money on their legal defense, lost job opportunities, had to deal with hatred being directed towards them from much of the community, and untold other indignities.  And even now, after it has become clear that these young men did not commit the crime of which they were accused, and the attorney general of North Carolina declared them innocent, some still believe that they probably committed the crime.

            This is why the false allegation of rape is such a terrible act.  Even if exonerated, the reality is that even being accused of rape can and often does ruin the life of the accused.  And what to do about those who cannot afford to bring significant legal talent to bear on the bogus prosecution, or who are unable to prove their innocence for other reasons.  Rape is a crime that once an accusation is made, it really is more a situation of guilty until proven innocent than presumed innocent. 

            When false claims are discovered, there should be a rigorous investigation about the motivation for the false identification.  If the mistaken ID was truly an error, then no further action is needed.  I do not support the punishment of those who have been truly victimized and make a mistake.  But in those cases where it can be shown that the accusation was made for nefarious reasons-for the possibility of a settlement in a civil suit, to harm someone the accuser is mad at, to simply gain attention, then there should be severe penalties.  While making a false report remains a crime, it is the rare instance where an accuser is charged after making a false allegation.

            Tell me what you think.  If you have a story of a false rape accusation, please post it in the comments section, or contact me and I will post it for you.  This is an important issue, and I look forward to your input.

Britney Spears vs. Kevin Federline--I Never Thought It Would Come to This

		Monday, 14 January 08 - 07:23 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

    This causes me great pain.  I was hoping to go my entire life without ever having to have a serious discussion about this subject.  However, the subject has wandered into the area of men’s rights, and I find myself with the unenviable task at hand.  That’s right, I am going to write about Britney Spears and her ex husband, Kevin Federline.  While it is fairly common knowledge that Britney Spears has been traveling the Anna Nicole, Dana Plato, Danny Bonaduce, Todd Bridges, and all the other child stars who were unable to deal with the fame achieved as children.  Now, arguably, she has reached adulthood, and has remained famous.  But I digress.  The reason I am writing about this is in regards to the recent custody problem that Mr. Federline faced in retrieving his children from Ms. Spears. 

            As this AP story shows, she would not give the children back, despite a court order requiring her to do so.  See the article here.  Here is the part that I found amazing.  A police spokesperson said that no actual crime was involved, so Spears was not charged.  I think that this is a blatantly false statement.  There is clearly a case to be made for parental kidnapping.  From PARENTAL KIDNAPPING:  PREVENTION AND REMEDIES by Patricia M. Hoff, the definition of parental kidnapping is “the taking, retention or concealment of a child by a parent, other family member, or their agent, in derogation of the custody rights, including visitation rights, of another parent or family member.”  See the entire document on parental kidnapping here.  The incident involving Ms. Spears seems to fall directly into the category of retention of children in derogation of custody rights.  My point isn’t so much that Ms. Spears should be charged.  My point is that had this situation been reversed, I have no doubt that Mr. Federline would be charged with parental kidnapping, obstruction of a peace officer, domestic violence, false imprisonment, and any number of other crimes.  The only difference I can see is that Mr. Federline is male, while Ms. Spears is a female.  (At some point, it could have been argued that Ms. Spears had all the talent in the relationship, but at this point her capacity to do stupid things has spent all the talent capital she had.)

            I bring this up because of some talk I have heard on various “news” shows.  Particularly, Nancy Grace seemed upset that Federline would get access to the children while Spears lost custody (at least temporarily.)  Now, I am not a Nancy Grace fan.  (I do admit to watching her show occasionally, but as a person dedicated to the legal system, some of the things she says and advocates are simply to much for me to take-while lots are guilty, some are not, and as a lawyer she should at least give this concept lip service-but again, I digress.)  Nancy was horrified that Britney Spears would lose all even visitation rights to her children.  While she was involuntarily committed.  A strange stance to take.  I have no doubts that if it were Kevin Federline who refused to return his children after a visit, Nancy Grace would be calling for the firing squad. 

            Now, all this being said, I want to be clear that I am no Kevin Federline fan.  I frankly think that both people in that relationship are clearly two of the more ridiculous characters out there.  And if the allegations that he does not care for his other children is true, I certainly can’t support that.  However, in the case making headlines, I have seen nothing from him that would make me think he is incapable of caring for the children, and lots of evidence that Ms. Spears should perhaps have limited contact at this point.  Refusal to follow a court order, barricading oneself inside the home, refusing lawfully given police orders, are all indications of mental instability, or a total disregard for all authority.  In either instance, the underlying problem should be cured before unfettered access to children is given.

            Now, I hope that is the last time I ever have to write about those two.  I am going to go wash my hands as they feel oddly sticky after writing this post.

Abraham Article on Paternity Fraud

		Wednesday, 26 December 07 - 10:51 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

            I hope that everyone reading this had a great holiday, and got the chance to spend some time with their family.  Thanks to everyone who reads this blog, and please keep coming back, I expect 2008 to be a great year for this blog.

            There is a great article from about five years ago talking about paternity fraud, and how often it may occur.  The article was written Carolyn Abraham, and you can read it here.  There are a number of great quotes in this article, and more importantly, the articles does explore paternity fraud, and what some of the practical implications of paternity fraud are.

I took particular interest in the discussion about whether or not to notify the father.  “If the case involves an expectant mother, Ms. Shuman explained, the hospital's legal obligation is clear: The developing baby is considered part of the mother and the results of the tests therefore belong to her.

After birth, the course of action is less clear, she said, but lawyers advise that the child is to be considered the patient, whose needs trump those of the parents. Since telling the father could trigger a breakup and leave the child without proper support, the hospital keeps the secret.”  One of my frequently discussed themes is that when it is found that the “father” is not the biological father, the courts will usually continue to enforce support obligations against him.  Apparently, the  health care system has taken a similar view, deciding that providing a means for support is more important than letting a duped man know that he is not the father of his child.  Worse, since the baby is considered part of the mother prior to birth, then the mother owns the information, with no responsibility to inform the man she is claiming as the father.  This allows some women to actively dupe men, and essentially claim a large portion of their assets for the next couple of decades.

I also was intrigued by the discussion about research that dispels the myth that women are normally monogamous, and it is the men that cause all of these problems.  According to the article, between 30 to 50 percent of women cheat on their partners.  This is a huge number.  Worse, the article states that experts think that between 5-15 percent of men tested falsely believe that they are the father of a child.  This is a truly frightening statistic, and one that needs to be lowered. 

The best quote of the article comes from sexual-behavior expert Judith Lipton.  “"Reproductive deception is morally similar to rape," Dr. Lipton said. "If you trick someone into raising a baby not his own, and he puts 20 years of his life into an endeavour based on a falsehood, that is appalling.”  This is a fantastically accurate and succinct description of the problem, and I thank Dr. Lipton for stating her view so emphatically.

Let me know what you think, I look forward to your comments.

Funny video

		Wednesday, 19 December 07 - 05:47 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

Okay, so this video is not directly about men's rights.  But still worth watching.  Enjoy!

Troubling sentence for murder conviction

		Wednesday, 19 December 07 - 04:14 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

            This is an interesting case that shows the difference in how men can be treated quite differently, not only in the family law system, but also in the criminal justice system.  Traci Rhode was convicted of 1^st degree murder (the worst kind, premeditated, bad stuff.)  She was sentenced to probation.  That’s right, probation.  I know of shoplifters that have trouble getting probation, but murder in the first? 

            Now, to be fair, according to the articles I have read, there very well may have been reasonable doubt in this case.  See http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/No_prison_120707.But that should go to the verdict, not the sentence.  So if the jury (who determined the sentence in this case, a relatively strange procedure) thought that she wasn’t proven guilty, then not guilty is the appropriate choice.  But to offer probation for the most serious crime one can commit is bordering on the ridiculous.  And the fine.  She has to pay $10,000 in fines by 2016.  Less than many used cars. 

            So why post about this in a men’s rights blog.  I actually struggled with this.  As a defense attorney, I certainly appreciate that with the limited info I have available, it seems that this was not the greatest prosecution ever, and that there may have been reasonable doubt.  If there is reasonable doubt, then I expect juries to acquit.  On the other hand, I thought about the likely result if a man had been found guilty of murdering the mother of his two children.  I suspect the sentence would be significantly different.

            In the case of Zakaria Oweiss, there was also some doubt, possibly reasonable doubt.  Dr. Oweiss’ wife was murdered, allegedly by him.  The evidence was sketchy, and there was doubt about who actually committed the crime.  The jury argued about whether Dr. Oweiss, or one of his grown sons, had killed Dr. Oweiss’s wife.  Eventually, the jury covicted Dr. Oweiss of the lesser offense of 2^nd degree murder.  Dr. Oweiss was sentenced to 30 years in prison.  See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49922-2003Mar18?language=printer .

            I will try to keep my eye out for additional information on this case to see if there are any juror interviews so that we can further understand why the chose the sentence they did.

Putative Father's Registry

		Sunday, 16 December 07 - 11:57 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

Virginia has recently created the putative father registry.  On a website explaining the registry, the goal is said to be to protect father’s rights.  See the website here http://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/ap/putative_brochure.pdf .  But if we think through the registry, I think that we will find that the real goal of the registry is to make it harder for biological fathers to assert their rights when the mother decides to give a child up for adoption, have a new partner adopt the child, or when the mother will in some other way terminate parental rights. 

            The registry works like this:  By putting your name on the registry, you “protect” your rights as a father.  From the registry brochure-“Timely registration entitles you to notification of termination of parental rights or adoption proceedings for a child

You may have fathered.”  So, register every time you have sexual congress with a woman.  Again, from the brochure-“You may register as many times as you would like for each potential pregnancy or different child. If you have multiple relationships with the same person or more than one female that you are involved with you need to register for each.

If you have multiple relationships with the same person you can indicate the time period on the registration from in the space provided in the dates of possible conception.”  So, register for any time period in which you have sexual relations with any female.  “If you have multiple relationships with the same person…you need to register for each.”  Does this mean what it says?  Register every time that you have sex. 

            So what does this tell us about the state’s goal?  While the stated goal is to protect father’s rights, what is the reality of this goal?  If every time an (unmarried) man had sex with a woman he registered with the state, what would this mean in administrative costs?  The 2006 population estimate is a little of 7.6 million people, 50.8% of these people being female (making 49.2% male.)  35.5% of people are either over 65 years old or under 18 years old.  This means that roughly 2,460,000 men would be eligible for this registry.  See the numbers here http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html .  31% of men were unmarried in 2000-see the numbers here http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=347051 .  So that means 762,000 or so men might find a need for this registry.  (This number excludes those that are married and having affairs, who also would arguably need to register.) 

            So why the exercise in math?  While there are not a lot of trustworthy statistics on how many men are sexually active outside of marriage, it is probably safe to assume that it is more rather than less.  So being conservative, let’s say half of these men have a non-marital sexual encounter 2 times a year.  (This makes the math easy for me, I do not endorse that this figure is reasonable, I tend to believe that it is rather low.)  So every year, 762,000 thousand individual registrations would be required.  This is a staggering number, and probably a very low estimate of the numbers really involved.  Does Virginia really think that every year 762,000 men will register whom they had sex with?  Or is it more likely that Virginia thinks that every year 762,000 men WONT register?  If the men don’t register, time and expense can be saved when woman want to have their children adopted or otherwise terminate parental rights.

            This article has some interesting quotes- http://hamptonroads.com/node/301231 .  “Frankly, I think we're being too kind to these men. Guys who don't stick around long enough to find out whether they've caused a pregnancy have terminated their paternal rights.”  This overly simplifies a complicated issue.  One, this statement ignores the fact that the ONLY person who knows that a pregnancy has occurred that also KNOWS who the father may be is the woman.  Why aren’t we worried about being too kind to women that don’t notify the potential father?  Why do we need a registry to make it easier for women to avoid notification?  The answer is we don’t.  A registry commanding men to release the most intimate details of their life in order to protect what the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right (the right to procreate) is a gross overstep of governmental power, and is wrongheaded in its application.  Simply stating that men who don’t know that they have fathered a child don’t deserve the child is unfair.  Men don’t always know.  Example:  A man has a five year relationship with a woman.  He loves her, and never abuses her or does anything untoward towards her.  The man and woman live together, and have sexual relations regularly, but have never married.  One day, the man comes home to find a “dear john” letter, telling him that his girlfriend has left, does not want him to find her, and that she does not love him.  So the man goes about his life.  He follows her wishes and does not seek her out.  Unknown to him, she left after she had become pregnant.  She gives birth, and decides to put the child up for adoption.  So, if this man did not register his five year relationship, then he is out of luck.  And when should he have registered?  What if he registered the first two years of the relationship, and then stopped because he felt like he was in a committed relationship?  What if he never registered because he believed (Rightly, if you ask me) that the frequency and number of his sexual encounters are NONE OF THE STATES BUSINESS.  But if he didn’t register, he could lose all rights to his child BY DEFAULT. 

            And 35 other states have done this.  This policy brief explains the “logic” behind these rules.  http://web.missouri.edu/~umchescfprwww/punativefatherpolbrf.pdf .  These quotes from the brief blew me away.  “Notice of pending adoptions is not required for unwed fathers who have not filed or not filed in a timely manner with the Putative Father Registry or otherwise established paternity legally” and “Sexual intercourse serves as notice of possible conception. A lack of knowledge of a pregnancy or birth does not constitute an acceptable reason for failing to register.”  Again, the mother knows who the father may be, yet the responsibility falls completely on the potential father.

            I understand that establishing paternity is an important state goal, and I even understand the need for some final point where adoptions can occur.  But to remove any responsibility for notification from the mothers, and to place an unduly burdensome requirement on men in order to protect a most basic of rights is not the answer.  To give a counterpoint to this registry, what if the state enacted a rule where all women had to name all potential fathers of children they have had, and if it is found that they left the actual biological father off of the list, then the mother would lose all parental rights.  I believe that we would hear much more about this type of rule, and the outcry would be tremendous.  Being unfair to women is not the answer, just as being unfair to men is not the answer.  The easy solution to a problem is not always the right solution.  Here’s to hoping that at some point those in power choose to adopt reasonable solutions, not the easy to sell solutions.

Unbelievable

		Sunday, 09 December 07 - 11:21 AM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

Ok, so first, read this- http://msbreadwinner.com/ . 

 

So, lets think this through.  Ms. Breadwinner worked hard, and her husband supposedly did nothing, so she should not have to pay support.  Ms. Breadwinner thinks that this is a unique position to be in-although, by her quote “That’s equality for you”, we know that she recognizes that this really isn’t a unique position, it is only unique if you are a woman who is ordered to pay support.  Men have been forced to pay spousal support for years, and frankly, in many cases, it is the right decision.  If a woman has been a homemaker (or not), and is suddenly without her primary source of support, then it would be unfair, unsafe, and unethical to leave her with no recourse to provide for herself.  Support is supposed to allow the spouse to get in a position to take care of themselves.  In many cases, the support has a defined beginning and ending point, and in virtually all cases, the support would end if the spouse remarried, etc…  So why is Ms. Breadwinner so upset that she might be forced to pay support?  Because she does not feel that her husband did enough to contribute to her income?  Let’s look at a few cases that Ms. Breadwinner did not discuss. 

            Paul McCartney (Of Beetles fame) married Heather Mills in 2002.  At this point, McCartney was already VERY rich, and Ms. Mills has done nothing to add to this vast fortune (at least nothing of consequence-all of the money making work was done 3 or 4 decades ago).  Yet she reportedly asked for $20,000 A DAY!!!  So, times 365 days in a year-that is $7,300,000 yearly.  In support.  The divorce finally settled for over 60 million dollars.  See http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2007/01/heather-mills-paul-mccartney-divorce-settled-gold-dug/ .  That is a tremendous settlement for a short term marriage.  Any claims that Heather Mills had anything to do with the amassing of this fortune are laughable (I choose not to comment on any claims of abuse, as those claims are not relevant to this conversation.)  So there is one case of a woman seeking support where she did nothing to “deserve” it.

            Jeff Gordon, a famous NASCAR driver, was divorced from his wife Brooke in 2003. 

“Brooke Gordon filed for divorce in March, citing "marital misconduct." The racer has countersued, saying he should not have to equally split the couple's estate because he risked his life to collect it.

Jeff Gordon had to reveal his worth in an affidavit filed to comply with a Florida law that requires assets amassed during a marriage to be split evenly.

Brooke Gordon has asked for exclusive use of their Highland Beach, Fla., mansion, valued at $10.2 million, as well as alimony, two cars and periodic use of their boats and an airplane. She also wants her husband to continue to pay the salaries of their housekeepers, maintenance workers and chef.”  See http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2003/01/24/Sports/Gordon.Divorce.Sells.Out-351140.shtml . 

The Gordon case is especially instructive, as not only did Brooke not have to do much to help him amass his fortune (Brooke was Miss Winston when Gordon met her, in Victory lane, so she apparently did not teach him to drive the car!!!)  When she asks him to continue paying housekeepers, chef, maintenance workers, etc…one must wonder, what did she contribute to the marriage (That is worth millions in homes, airplanes, etc…)  But Ms. Breadwinner does not want to discuss these cases, because she thinks that men having to PAY support is ok, but no men should RECEIVE support.

I bring these cases up not as a shining example of men being abused, because neither man will suffer anything approaching financial ruin even with these exorbitant monetary requests.  I bring them up to illustrate the hypocrisy of Ms. Breadwinners assertion that real men would not ask for support.

In this day and age, many men have taken the role of primary caregiver for the children of the family.  These men give up employment opportunities, educational opportunities, essentially all of the opportunities that women cite giving up when asking for spousal support.  Why shouldn’t these men receive the help that the law provides for?  So men, don’t listen to the likes of Ms. Breadwinner.  Whether her husband deserved support or not is not the issue, the issue is the broad claim that real men don’t ask for support.  Let’s put that to rest, and determine what real men do.

1.  Real men take care of their family.  Period.

2.  Real men ask for help when they need it.  (Note that even John Elway had to    throw the ball to someone.)

3.  Real men read this blog.  (Ok, so this is shameless plugging on my part, but so what?)

4.  Real men protect themselves and those they care about.  If that means receiving spousal support while re-establishing oneself after divorce, then so be it.

5.  Most important, real men don’t define themselves by what Ms. Breadwinner, or Mr. Men’s Rights, or by what anyone else says.  Real men know that they are who they are, and can only work to improve themselves, but can never be what someone else wishes they were.

When shouldn't the biological father pay support?

		Tuesday, 04 December 07 - 07:28 PM (GMT) By Jeremy Eugene Reed in General

           Okay, so this is an interesting case.  Basically, the mayor of a city in Broward County fathered a child via his (or one of his) mistresses.  17 years go by, the woman has certified that her ex husband is the father, and all seems ok.  Then, when the child is now 20 and in college, the woman sues the mayor for child support. 

What I think is really important here is that the mayor did not know that he was the father of this child for the entire time from conception until 17 years later.  He never had an opportunity to develop a relationship with the child.  And now, when the chance to develop any meaningful parent child relationship has passed, the mother seeks child support.  It looks like she was seeking support because her ex husband never paid any of it. 

The court found that even though the mayor was the biological father, he did not have to pay any child support because there was an existing order for support in place.  While it does not sound like the mayor is an angel in any sense of the word, I must say that this ruling makes a lot of sense to me, at least when we look at how these cases normally go…  Woman tells man that he is the father, he isn’t, but he can’t ever escape his duty to pay for a child that isn’t his.  Here-the non-biological father never pays, so the mother seeks money from elsewhere-the biological father.  Treating men as a means for support only misses the point-a father/child relationship is important to both the father and the child. 

I will never defend fathers who neglect that relationship, especially if it has been previously developed.  However, when a father has been denied the right to this relationship by the unilateral acts of the mother, I cannot find fault with him when he doesn’t want to pay her a bunch of money to put “his” child through college.  It would be like telling any of you to send me many thousands of dollars-you don’t know me, and while I assure you I am really a deserving guy, you might want to know me personally before giving me tens of thousands of dollars.  Oh, by the way, the mayor did offer $17,000 to settle the case, but that amount was deemed insufficient by the mother.  I am glad to see that this court, however unintentionally, placed a premium on the father-child relationship, recognizing that fathers have a right to know their children, and are not simply an “ATM” for paying the mothers bills with no access to the child.

You can read the article here http://www.browardtimes.com/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=742&Itemid=1 .

... More items are available in our News Archive