 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / October 2004CA: Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- SAN FRANCISCO Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, October 23, 2004 a.. Printable Version b.. Email This Article A man who helped his lover raise a child from birth to age 2 1/2 before learning that the girl wasn't his biological daughter can't recover the money he spent on her, a state appeals court has ruled. "A child does not come with a money-back guarantee of paternity,'' the Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Thursday. The case raised the question of whether an unmarried man, who said he was misled into believing he was the child's father, can sue the mother for the money she allegedly obtained under false pretenses. The court -- the first in California to address the issue - - said such a suit would violate "fundamental public policies of this state'' on child support and children's interest in a stable family. The plaintiff, Richard McBride, said in his suit that Garianne Boughton told him in December 1996 that she was pregnant with his child. McBride, who was been living abroad when he received the news, returned to the Los Angeles area and took a teaching job to support them. He continued working for a year after the girl was born in May 1997, then stayed at home to care for her while Boughton returned to work. Eventually, the couple split up and Boughton attempted to limit McBride's contacts with the girl to two weekends a month, McBride said. In October 1999, he filed a paternity suit requesting custody. Two months later, genetic tests showed he was not the biological father. He then dropped all claims for custody or fatherhood and sued Boughton and her partner, who McBride said was the girl's father, for reimbursement of money he had spent during the time he believed he was the girl's father. The court did not specify the amount of money he was seeking. Thursday's ruling upheld a previous dismissal by a judge in Humboldt County, where the woman, her partner and the girl now live. Even if McBride could prove he was deceived into supporting the child, allowing him to recover the money from the couple now responsible for her support would potentially harm the child, said Justice Ignazio Ruvolo in the 3- 0 ruling. He said dismissal of the suit would encourage unmarried men in McBride's position to undergo early testing if they are uncertain about paternity - an incentive that already exists for married men, whose fatherhood is conclusively established by law after two years. It would also discourage them from forming emotional ties that they were ready to drop based on genetic tests, Ruvolo said. "The potential emotional and psychic costs to the child of such a rupture are far more significant than any financial injury a grown man might suffer from mistakenly supporting another man's child for a temporary period,'' he said. Russell Gans, a lawyer for the mother and her partner, said they denied making any intentional misrepresentations to McBride and were pleased at the dismissal of a suit that was "very intrusive upon their family.'' McBride's lawyer could not be reached for comment. ------------------------------------------------------------ Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle --- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > the > dismissal of a suit that was "very intrusive upon their family.'' Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it is very intrusive for you to demand it back!" What a winner that fool woman is. <gag> > McBride's lawyer could not be reached for comment. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle --- "teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote... > Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it > is very intrusive for you to demand it back!" What a winner that > fool woman is. His failure to determine paternity before handing over a dime was his his own misjudgment. Anyone who gives their money away, voluntarily, without due diligence, are not entitled to get it back. Caveat emptor. [R] > "teachrmama" <teachrmama@iwon.com> wrote... >> Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > voluntarily, without due diligence, are not entitled to get it back. > Caveat emptor. [R] Nonsense!! She NEVER had a right to cheat and lie to him. She committed fraud. Then, when he attempted to deal with the issue, she told him "Go away! You're bothering me!" like the spoiled, self centered brat she seems to be. > Roger B. wrote: > > Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > voluntarily, without due diligence, are not entitled to get it back. > Caveat emptor. [R] I have to disagree. By that logic, any company that defrauds us out of money with phony products ro services is entitled to keep it simply because we, as the consumer, didn't check them out thoroughly enough. I also look disfavorably upon women who name men as the fathers even when they themselves know that it could be someone else, if they have slept with other people in the same time period. Maybe birth certificates should have a perjury statement for all (mother and father) to sign. I'm not picking on you in particular, Roger, it probably just seems that way.  SignatureQ. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather? A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily. ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares >> Roger B. wrote: >> > Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > money with phony products ro services is entitled to keep it simply > because we, as the consumer, didn't check them out thoroughly enough. <shrug> Family law ain't tort law. > I also look disfavorably upon women who name men as the fathers even > when they themselves know that it could be someone else, if they have > slept with other people in the same time period. Maybe birth > certificates should have a perjury statement for all (mother and > father) to sign. So lets say hypothetically that I'm married and we separate for some reason, a year, lets say. After that year, we reconcile. After we reconcile, we discover she is pregnant. We continue on "happily" raising our child. We subsequently divorce 18 years later. After the divorce, I discover that she was *actually* pregnant before I returned home. A person she confided in spills the beans. The child that I have raised as my own, is not my son. What, if anything am I owed? Thinking hypothetically, of course. >>> Roger B. wrote: >>> > Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Thinking hypothetically, of course. The man, who was never married to the woman, was denied reasonable visitation after the 2 split up. He sued for custody and, in the process, discovered that he had been treated fraudently for all the years of the child's life. The article also seems to indicate that mom left him to go back to kid's bio dad. I would say that the guy is, indeed, fortunate, because he could have been forced to support the child even though she was living with bio mom and dad. The scenario you put forward is different in that a) the child is no longer a minor, and, b) You and the mom were married for the entirety of the child's minority, and the child was born within the marriage, so the child is legally yours. > YooperBoyka wrote: > > I have to disagree. By that logic, any company that defrauds us [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <shrug> > Family law ain't tort law. Maybe it should be. > > I also look disfavorably upon women who name men as the fathers even > > when they themselves know that it could be someone else, if they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thinking hypothetically, of course. Of course. Anyway, I tend to think that getting any money back, while idealistically correct, is not pratical, so I don't think it should be expected. That's the kind of thing I call a "life experience". We learn from it and move on. However, for people who are currently paying CS, that should be stopped immediately if the child is proven to not be theirs. No such thing as a statute of limitation. I also believe that if a long time has gone by, and there is an honest bond between the father and the kid, the father should, out of moral obligation, suck it up and just do it, but that's an individual choice based on one's own conscience and should never be governed or mandated. My own humble opinion, if I were benevolent dictator. :-p SignatureThere are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. ~Author Unknown >> YooperBoyka wrote: >> > I have to disagree. By that logic, any company that defrauds us [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe it should be. Whaaat??? There ain't *enough* lawyers??? >> > I also look disfavorably upon women who name men as the fathers even >> > when they themselves know that it could be someone else, if they [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > My own humble opinion, if I were benevolent dictator. :-p Well, I'd vote for you for Chancellor if that would help. >>My own humble opinion, if I were benevolent dictator. :-p > > Well, I'd vote for you for Chancellor if that would help. That would be "Herr Chancellor" to you. Rambler > >> Roger B. wrote: > >> > Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Thinking hypothetically, of course. Almost certainly, you would be owed nothing. I know of at least one court case where this principle was decided -- and, as happens almost invariably in these matters, the person of the male persuasion lost. I am sure that there are other similar court cases. I don't have the details in front of me, but the case was in a western state, and the man involved was a doctor or dentist. His wife had been having an affair with his partner, and after the divorce the ex-wife married the partner. The two then moved to a midwest state (Michigan, I think) with the children of the first marriage. For years, the ex-husband had to pay "child support" to his adulterous ex-wife for children that he hardly ever saw. After some very considerable time, there was an argument between the exes on the phone, and the ex-wife blurted out the fact that the children had actually been fathered by her current husband. Thereafter, the ex-husband was unsuccessful in his attempts in court to get repayment of all the money he had paid his ex-wife. <snip> > > SAN FRANCISCO > > Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > > McBride's lawyer could not be reached for comment. I wonder if he can sue her again for palimony and/or lost wages since he supported her while she was knocked up with some other guy's child. Also, he was a SAHD to the child while the whore worked, which proves he was obviously deceived about paternity. What man is going to quit his job to care for some other man's child? Women stupidly do it all the time for their husbands' children from previous relationships and marriages. But men, never. Once again a woman gets away with it. I wonder... If a the situation were reversed and a man received money from a woman under false pretenses, if the man would be forced to repay??? >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---- [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] >` >end "cloaked" <cloakedrun2001@NOSPAM.yahoo.ca> wrote... > Once again a woman gets away with it. > I wonder... If a the situation were reversed and a man received > money from a woman under false pretenses, if the man would > be forced to repay??? No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift," which is not subject to recovery, even if he had relied on some misrepresentation. If someone were to give you money under the mistaken notion that you had something worthwhile to contribute to society, but found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R] > "cloaked" <cloakedrun2001@NOSPAM.yahoo.ca> wrote... >> Once again a woman gets away with it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to > return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R] I can only imagine how you make a living, considering how you defend those who cheat others on this thread. > "cloaked" <cloakedrun2001@NOSPAM.yahoo.ca> wrote... >> Once again a woman gets away with it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to > return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R] What if you could prove intent to commit the fraud... if somehow you could rule out any doubt on the part of the mother and prove she knowingly lead you to believe the child was yours? Would it be treated differently than other forms of fraud because a child was involved? John >> No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any >> contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift," >> which is not subject to recovery, even if he had relied on some >> misrepresentation. > What if you could prove intent to commit the fraud... if somehow > you could rule out any doubt on the part of the mother and prove > she knowingly lead you to believe the child was yours? > Would it be treated differently than other forms of fraud because > a child was involved? Good question! I think that there is a strong public policy behind protecting the care and interests of children that outweighed his private interest of recouping money. A mere warranty may not be actionable, but if he could show that she planned to commit a fraud, that she actively dissuaded him from examining the child's paternity, and knew that it was not his, then the fraud is harder to ignore. But here, I think, there is an aspect of "contributory negligence." [R] >>> No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any >>> contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift," [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >and knew that it was not his, then the fraud is harder to ignore. But >here, I think, there is an aspect of "contributory negligence." [R] I take it from the above that it is your position that any man who is charged by any woman with having made her pregnant under any circumstances should in all cases immediately demand a paternity test. Have I got that right? "Fred" <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote... >>I think that there is a strong public policy behind protecting the care >>and interests of children that outweighed his private interest of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>was not his, then the fraud is harder to ignore. But here, I think, >>there is an aspect of "contributory negligence." [R] > I take it from the above that it is your position that any man who is > charged by any woman with having made her pregnant under any > circumstances should in all cases immediately demand a paternity > test. Have I got that right? I insisted that my 17 yo stepson do so, even tho he said that he "knew" he was the father of a child by a former GF. For unmarried men, taking on the responsibility for a child is too big a thing to take it on faith. Married men are caught up in all sorts of "trust" issues, so probably not, unless they want to risk their marriage as well. [R] >"Fred" <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote... >>>I think that there is a strong public policy behind protecting the care [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >it on faith. Married men are caught up in all sorts of "trust" issues, >so probably not, unless they want to risk their marriage as well. [R] I agree with you regarding unmarried men. As to married men, that's tougher. Given that in many states, the law assumes Husband to be the father of any child born by Wife unless proven otherwise within a short period of time, and given that cheating seems to be the name of the game nowdays, a paternity test might be in order, married or not. > Fred wrote: > I agree with you regarding unmarried men. As to married men, that's > tougher. Given that in many states, the law assumes Husband to be the > father of any child born by Wife unless proven otherwise within a > short period of time, and given that cheating seems to be the name of > the game nowdays, a paternity test might be in order, married or not. It is my opinion that, at birth, DNA tests should be mandatory for married and unmarried alike, kids and adults. This goes against my usual "less government interfereance in our lives" approach of mine, but in this case it's to protect us from the government. Also, no CS award should ever be awarded with out confirming both the child and the father's DNA. SignatureThere are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. ~Author Unknown > > Fred wrote: > > I agree with you regarding unmarried men. As to married men, that's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is my opinion that, at birth, DNA tests should be mandatory for > married and unmarried alike, kids and adults. Who pays? >>> Fred wrote: >>> I agree with you regarding unmarried men. As to married men, that's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who pays? Montel Williams? ;-) John (who watches way too much US documentaries) > Joy wrote: > > It is my opinion that, at birth, DNA tests should be mandatory for > > married and unmarried alike, kids and adults. > > Who pays? Who pays for any new proceedure that is mandated? SignatureThere are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. ~Author Unknown > > Joy wrote: > > > It is my opinion that, at birth, DNA tests should be mandatory for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who pays for any new proceedure that is mandated? Who pays is a consideration in whether or not a procedure *should* be mandated. You can't have unfunded mandates. So if there are X tax dollars available, and we spend Y of them on DNA tests, then there are Y fewer dollars available for other programs, like schools and roads. Where are you taking the money from? Or are you proposing a new DNA tax? Personally, I see no reason why I should have to pay extra taxes for mandatory DNA tests. New taxes just aren't the way to right every wrong. > Joy wrote: > > > > It is my opinion that, at birth, DNA tests should be mandatory [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > mandatory DNA tests. New taxes just aren't the way to right every > wrong. Let me tell you how government funding *really* works... having "enough" money to spread around doesn't matter, if they think it's a good idea they'll spend it even if they don't have it. Taxes may not go up, we'll just go deeper in debt. See? Problem solved. Unfunded mandates are quite common, btw. Are you saying that you agree with the idea, but your only quibble is with the funding? SignatureThere are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. ~Author Unknown > Joy wrote: > > > > It is my opinion that, at birth, DNA tests should be mandatory [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > mandatory DNA tests. New taxes just aren't the way to right every > wrong. Oh, it could actually *SAVE* money. Far less contested cases jamming up the courts and DA's offices and costing money after the fact. If you're it, you're it, and the only thing left to determine is how much you'll pay. SignatureThere are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. ~Author Unknown > "The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message >>It is my opinion that, at birth, DNA tests should be mandatory for >>married and unmarried alike, kids and adults. > > Who pays? With a mandatory test, there would be so many such tests done, and like anything else, it would cause the cost of such a test to go down. It would also mean a birth certificate would be accurate on who the actual biological father is. Maybe a DNA test be done earlier on in the pregnancy? > Roger B. wrote: > Good question! I think that there is a strong public policy behind [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and knew that it was not his, then the fraud is harder to ignore. But > here, I think, there is an aspect of "contributory negligence." [R] We don't keep people in jail when we find out later on that they didn't murder that person just so the family of the victim can feel better. (In theory, at least) Why do we insist on taking, by force, someone's property or money simply because a wrong assumption has been made to this point? Even the IRS will pay back overpaid taxes if a person can prove they overpaid. If the temporary pain of a man, in terms of making him pay for a kid that is not his, is of such small consequence when compared to the well-being of a child, then why don't we just find a large group of financially well-off men, married or not, doesn't matter, and assign them a child at random and make them pay for that child's upbringing? Seriously, why not? The state has declared that the well-being of children is paramount, so why not? SignatureQ. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather? A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily. ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares > Roger B. wrote: > Good question! I think that there is a strong public policy behind [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and knew that it was not his, then the fraud is harder to ignore. But > here, I think, there is an aspect of "contributory negligence." [R] We don't keep people in jail when we find out later on that they didn't murder that person just so the family of the victim can feel better. (In theory, at least) Why do we insist on taking, by force, someone's property or money simply because a wrong assumption has been made to this point? Even the IRS will pay back overpaid taxes if a person can prove they overpaid. If the temporary pain of a man, in terms of making him pay for a kid that is not his, is of such small consequence when compared to the well-being of a child, then why don't we just find a large group of financially well-off men, married or not, doesn't matter, and assign them a child at random and make them pay for that child's upbringing? Seriously, why not? The state has declared that the well-being of children is paramount, so why not? SignatureQ. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather? A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily. ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares "Roger B." <rcblinn-xxx-@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any > contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift," [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to > return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R] No disrespect Rog, but I'm having trouble following your logic here. If you find out after paying a bill the mechanic overcharged you for work, do you just write it off as a gift? > "Roger B." <rcblinn-xxx-@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If you find out after paying a bill the mechanic overcharged you for > work, do you just write it off as a gift? Family law ain't tort law. Should it be? Youse guys argue that. > YooperBoyka wrote: > Family law ain't tort law. Is that a 'round-about way of saying that tort law is more based on right and wrong and family law is more based on emotion? SignatureQ. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather? A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily. ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares >> YooperBoyka wrote: >> Family law ain't tort law. > > Is that a 'round-about way of saying that tort law is more based on > right and wrong and family law is more based on emotion? <shrug> I'll buy that. Although,...have you ever *read* tort law? The implications of applying the same principles to family law are enormous. (Keep in mind "The Law of Unintended Consequences" ...and phrases like "Can o' Worms") > YooperBoyka wrote: > >> Family law ain't tort law. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (Keep in mind "The Law of Unintended Consequences" > ...and phrases like "Can o' Worms") You have a good point, but I still maintain that some things should be consistent, regardless of the subject matter. Penalizing an innocent person, or continuing to penalize an innocent person if the truth is found out later, is very basic and a concept that should never be accepted in any kind of law. There are two reason I advocate mandatory DNA testing at birth. First, so that the real father can be determined and we don't even have these disputes to begin with. And, second, so that men will not feel trapped into accepting a potentially wrong situation they could avoid because a teary-eyed woman said "Are you saying that you think I cheated on you?". If it's mandatory, the truth comes out, for good or for bad, and the truth is what the law is supposed to searching for. SignatureQ. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather? A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily. ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares >> YooperBoyka wrote: >> >> Family law ain't tort law. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > found out later, is very basic and a concept that should never be > accepted in any kind of law. <nods head> I understand. ...but tort law doesn't have to deal with "broken hearts". *That* is the fly in the ointment. > There are two reason I advocate mandatory DNA testing at birth. First, > so that the real father can be determined and we don't even have these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you?". If it's mandatory, the truth comes out, for good or for bad, > and the truth is what the law is supposed to searching for. I *so* wanna use Jack Nicholson's line "You can't HANDLE the truth!!!" ...but it don't really fit. I don't think society is ready for the truth. When you rip at the seams,...you better be ready to sew 'em up. T'ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. (It's *about* the kids) > YooperBoyka wrote: > > You have a good point, but I still maintain that some things should [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ...but tort law doesn't have to deal with "broken hearts". > *That* is the fly in the ointment. I don't intend to sound too harsh, but people are gonna feel what they feel, justified or not. I believe that, in the long run, we cause more problems by attempting to please everybody and make everything right according to what their individual feelings are. To me, that's the other side of unintended consequences. > > There are two reason I advocate mandatory DNA testing at birth. > > First, so that the real father can be determined and we don't even [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ...but it don't really fit. > I don't think society is ready for the truth. I think there's alot of truth to that. (no pun intended) > When you rip at the seams,...you better be ready to sew 'em up. > T'ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. Would cheating become less common if people knew they could be more easily caught in the event of a pregnancy? Would birth control be pursued more aggressively? Those aren't my motivations, but they are interesting side questions. > (It's about the kids) But, then, exactly what are we teaching the kids? That you can lie and cheat and steal and get away with it? That there really is no such things as fairness and justice and morals and ethics don't matter? That people can be arbitrarily picked to provide for others? I'm sorry, but just throwing money at a kid so they can have their video games and cool shoes and be just like other kids is not really doing them any favors. Besides, and I know this isn't popular, and it even goes against some of my principles, but that's what government and welfare are for... to ensure the basics, to provide the safety net, until a person can get back on their own feet. If the presumed father is found to not be the biological father, then the government should lean on the mother to help find the real father. I do not see arbitrarily forcing another innocent individual to be responsible for something they did not do as the answer. I'll ask the question again that no one wants to answer. If it's really about the kids, and that's so important, and the temporary pain of men is irrelevant in comparison, why not just assign kids to men at random, married or single, already fathers or not, and take a portion of their money every month? SignatureQ. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather? A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily. ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares > > YooperBoyka wrote: > > > You have a good point, but I still maintain that some things should [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > random, married or single, already fathers or not, and take a portion > of their money every month? ------------- You know, I've often wondered when it's going to come to this. When a judge tells a man who is not the father that it's in the childs best interest that the man continue to pay why is it not in the childs best interest for that judge to pay for it as well? They already take a portion of everybodys money as taxes to pay for welfare. What's to stop them from taking a portion of men's money, all men's money, and saying it's for child support? ~AZ~ > -- > Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather? > A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily. > ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares >> YooperBoyka wrote: >> > You have a good point, but I still maintain that some things should [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > random, married or single, already fathers or not, and take a portion > of their money every month? But the already do (sometimes), that's why this thread exists to begin with :) Still, your point is a good one and it fits nicely with feminist socialism. I do believe it might catch on if politicians and lawyers (redundant) can find a way to avoid being named. Phil #3 > Phil #3 wrote: > > I'll ask the question again that no one wants to answer. If it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > socialism. I do believe it might catch on if politicians and lawyers > (redundant) can find a way to avoid being named. I don't believe it would actually happen. If someone did try to push something like this through, the gross unfairness and absurdity would suddenly become obvious to all, even those who condone it now in a more subtle form, and it'd be shot down very quickly. Signature"If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They're trained for that." ---Milton Jones >> Phil #3 wrote: >> > I'll ask the question again that no one wants to answer. If it's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > suddenly become obvious to all, even those who condone it now in a more > subtle form, and it'd be shot down very quickly. Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American people. We already see cases where absurdity and unfairness are grossly obvious such as men being forced to support the lifestyle of children to which they are unrelated because they were lied to by the mother and in the face of DNA typing. Keep in mind, we don't get to choose which absurdities different agencies or bureaus will follow either. All they have to do is figure a way to make it sound like good reasoning, such as "it's in the children's best interest" and phase it in over a period of time without letting it become too apparent all at once, like taxes or the Patriot Act. Phil #3 > Phil #3 wrote: > > I don't believe it would actually happen. If someone did try to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > all at once, like taxes or the Patriot Act. > Phil #3 I believe that the vast majority of people honestly aren't aware of it. Or, at least it hasn't been shown to them in a way that would make them stand up and take notice. I think most people either believe "well, he must be the father, or else they wouldn't do that to him", or "if he's not the father, then he'll be off the hook" without personally knowing anyone who is having this done to them. We (as a society in general) are so naive about crap like that. We so want to believe that our society is somehow special and fair and that justice is equal and fair and we really don't want to be told or shown otherwise. SignatureBaseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~ Toby Harrah, 1983 >> Phil #3 wrote: >> > I don't believe it would actually happen. If someone did try to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I believe that the vast majority of people honestly aren't aware of it. You could be right; on the occasions where I have had the ability to inform, they look at me like I was sporting yellow and purple spots. For that matter, they don't believe C$ to be onerous. When the newspapers show dad to be $60,000 behind, it is taken as how 'bad' dad is, not how excessive the C$. > Or, at least it hasn't been shown to them in a way that would make them > stand up and take notice. I think most people either believe "well, he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > society is somehow special and fair and that justice is equal and fair > and we really don't want to be told or shown otherwise. So true. Most believe that anyone charged with a crime is automatically guilty. I can assure you that many who are charged AND found guilty are, in fact, innocent. The numbers of men released from prison due to DNA evidence proving their innocence is staggering to me, some having served decades behind bars for a crime that they didn't commit. I wonder how many we've killed who wee innocent. In light of the above, it seems obvious that something like forcing men at random, more or less, to support random children would actually fly but as I said, those who would make that decision would either have to find a way around it or, more likely, a way to make money off of it. At any rate, the public perception simply needs to be manipulated, just like abortion, divorce, welfare, poverty and C$ have been. Perhaps another huge tax on cigarettes and alcohol instead of random men. Phil #3 > "it's in the children's best interest" That's been the smoke hiding "national socialism" for over 3 generations. The childsupport is not based on "law", it's based on an agreement. What agreement? The parent's enrollment into national socialism (aka social security). The whole ncp program is abominable anti-American law based upon the respondent's status, as a consenting adult. In case you weren't informed about it, there is NO LAW requiring one to sign up for an account with the Social Security Administration, nor is there one law punishing one for NOT enrolling. It is 100% voluntary. He who consents cannot complain. Every participant surrendered his rights in exchange for access to entitlements. Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property rights. So every card carrying, ennumerated American can't object to the abuses foisted off as "for the children". Shucks, the state is the parent of the child, now. Can't spank the state's child, can't teach the child religious beliefs that contradict the surrogate parent's policy. Just say "NO" to socialism. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP http://groups.yahoo.com/group/I-AM-ANTI-SOCIALIST |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.