Legally sanctioned fraud: again

[Nice Guy EddieParticipant 527]

This one is just too egregious to pass on:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3714674/Colorado-man-forced-pay-730-month-child-support-ex-wife-despite-DNA-test-proving-NOT-father-child.html

They have proved the child isn’t his.

They know who the biological father is.

And this poor bloke is *still* on the hook for child support.

But wait, there’s more:

He’s been denied access to “his” child for the past 4 years, whom he clearly has a loving relationship with…AND:

She has said she will relinquish child support only if he gives up his access rights!

Lesson: do not sign a birth certificate until you have DNA evidence demonstrating you are the child’s father.

NGE

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Funny how the slut ex-wife is still playing the victim to the last minute, so she gets pregnant by man #1 then Marry man #2 and make him believe he is the father, then divorce him and get a slice of his pay check, then wants him to stop being the father because there is a man #3 who she will marry and wants him to be the new father but wait man #1 is seeing the child and is allowed visitations since he is the real father but man #2 is not allowed visitations for 4 years, yet he is paying child support. Meanwhile Man #3 is being introduced to the child’s life as a new daddy. Typical BS story because some f~~~ed up judge is playing god and enabling yet another slut to get away with murder.

And who is the s~~~tiest person in this story? The judge. Until they stop handing out pussy passes without a thought about what women are doing with them, these stories will continue to happen. This should have been the easiest case for the man to win, but he didn’t. I blame the woman, but I blame the judge more for not throwing her out of the court.

Order the good wine

[HitmanParticipant]

Even though the legal system allows someone to ruin another’s life,
Doesn’t mean that it’s okay to do.
Feral cats are better behaved than these women.

[Nice Guy EddieParticipant 527]

TaxGuy wrote:

Monk Mode wrote:

Funny how the slut ex-wife is still playing the victim to the last minute, so she gets pregnant by man #1 then Marry man #2 and make him believe he is the father, then divorce him and get a slice of his pay check, then wants him to stop being the father because there is a man #3 who she will marry and wants him to be the new father but wait man #1 is seeing the child and is allowed visitations since he is the real father but man #2 is not allowed visitations for 4 years, yet he is paying child support. Meanwhile Man #3 is being introduced to the child’s life as a new daddy. Typical BS story because some f~~~ed up judge is playing god and enabling yet another slut to get away with murder.

And who is the s~~~tiest person in this story? The judge. Until they stop handing out pussy passes without a thought about what women are doing with them, these stories will continue to happen. This should have been the easiest case for the man to win, but he didn’t. I blame the woman, but I blame the judge more for not throwing her out of the court.

I can understand the slut’s behaviour: typical female functioning at the brainstem level.

The judge, however, is meant to have the critical faculties and experience to deal with this absurdity.

The ‘father’ probably doesn’t have the resources to pursue an appeal.

I would gladly contribute to a ‘fighting fund’ to help guys like this get some justice.

NGE

[RoyDalParticipant]

This can happen to any man!

I escaped getting caught in the paternity trap, but it is no credit to me. My long term relationship tried to sperm jack me by going off the pill without telling me. Only blind luck left us childless.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[narwhalParticipant]

I don’t blame the judge, at least not without knowing more of the facts. The judge shouldn’t be going against the law, and the law states that the man listed on the birth certificate is the father. The law is the problem.

What I don’t get is, why is this denied access to what the law says is his child? The article doesn’t say exactly, although it implies there is no legal reason he can’t see his daughter, just that mom won’t let it happen. Yes, she’s a bitch for that, but if he is not using the law to get access to the child, that’s his own fault. If the law says he can’t see the child, then there is a reason for that…something not mentioned in the article.

Honestly, he should not have a legal right to visit the girl AND be exempt for paying support payments. You can’t have it bot ways. If the mother gave a s~~~ about her daughter, she would let the two see each other, but I would not want there to be a legal requirement to do so…I think.

[Aside, if a legal guardian through marriage retained visitation rights after divorce, for the sake of the child, regardless of child support payments, then that would have a positive impact on divorce and re-marriages. Something to think about]

Anyway, I see this as a case where the law has not kept up with modern reality. It’s a simple fix. Any court order for someone to pay child support must be accompanied by a DNA test. No exceptions. If that someone is not a biological parent, they now have the option of accepting a child support/visitation rights offer from the biological parent who wants the child support, or refusing. Any woman who is not 100% certain of the biological father, but tells a man that he is…is guilty of fraud. No exceptions.

I can’t think of a decent reason why this shouldn’t happen.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 25]

He should argue fraud against the state, because they are producing a false document i.e. birth certificate. That false document caused a loss to him. That’s fraud.
It’s the same as if the government knowingly produces a false passport. If the government puts into circulation a passport that makes false representations and allows it to be used to, for example, obtain credit then the government is committing fraud as it made a false representation as to identity that caused loss to another.

that’s a better argument as it puts the government on the hook.

watch those in power squeal as they find themselves in the firing line for a criminal offence

[narwhalParticipant]

The birth certificate isn’t a government created false document. The man signed the document, taking responsibility for the child. The government, hospital, or whatever didn’t put his name

I could be wrong, but I would bet the laws are written to specify that the person on the birth certificate is responsible. If the law states the biological parent is responsible, and the state assumes the birth certificate is correct, then you would have a point. As it stands, I believe the problem is the law, not how the law is being executed.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 25]

it’s a good legal argument. the reason I know is that the government tried to prosecute a man who relied on a passport as proof of age for a female who posed for nude photographs. the passport had been falsified by the female who was in fact underage.
When they brought a prosecution against the man, his lawyers argued that the state was responsible for the false document i.e. the passport and therefore it was the state who had committed the crime.
The charges against the man were quickly dropped, which speaks volumes as to how the court would likely rule. same argument applies to a birth certificate

[AttonParticipant]

Paternity tests should be mandatory.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[Author]

Posts