Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

It was in July 2007 when Mike L. asked the Pennsylvania courts to declare that he was no longer the father of his daughter. For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, "his." The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife -- but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl's biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man's child suddenly became unbearable.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Hagbard_Celine

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Terribly sad stories.

Not posted to antagonize member.

Nice the court forces men to pay child support then when DNA test say they are not the court uses the fact that they paid child support as proof of paternity.

I feel bad for this guy. I feel bad for the kid too. And us men are supposed to be the pigs! Woman can be much worse.

And I'll bet that bitch votes Democrat.

I feel bad for this guy. I feel bad for the kid too.

I do too. I think he should sue for joint custody. Surely the courts can't say no as that would be a blatant double standard. I admire the man for sticking with his daughter even after he found out the biological truth. But the biological father is a real dick for allowing this to happen.

The real father obviously lacks character. He's most likely worthless. Two people living non productive lives milking off someone with morals...they definitely vote Democrat.

Some people are just sad, man.

The system is rigged and this non-biological father cannot escape child support. The only way out would require taking the case to the Supreme Court and the ACLU won't touch a family law case, because they're too fucked up, violating the constitution, favoring women over men, and lawyers and judges over the best interests of children.

Gays have no idea what it is they're asking to get entangled in.

I think the non-biological father should get custody and the biological parents pay him child support, and only see the daughter under supervised visits.
I'm willing to bet he can drop child support if she indeed does marry the biological father and still keep visitation rights. It'll cost though.

"Woman can be much worse."

Only with the full support of our court system.

I can't read the article for some reason,so forgive me if I say something in contradiction to the story....I'm taking a stab in the dark here.

I have zero respect for any woman who allows a man to believe the child he is raising is his..when it isn't.

She has severally damaged not one life but two.

It is well beyond my wildest imagination how that woman could sleep and find any happiness or peace while keeping a lie like that much less being so selfish with no regard for her husband or child.

"And yet basing paternity decisions solely on genetics places the nonbiological father's welfare above the child's."

BULLSHIT!!

Basing paternity decisions solely on genetics holds the mother accountable for her actions.

"And yet basing paternity decisions solely on genetics places the nonbiological father's welfare above the child's."

BULLSHIT!!

Basing paternity decisions solely on genetics holds the mother accountable for her actions.
#12 | Posted by fresno500

Fresno, I get your frustration, but you have to admit its not as simple as that. The courts make this judgment when someone has assumed paternity for an extended period and is why they say that the sooner you question paternity the better. Its definitely not an easy situation for the legal father or the child.

Nice the court forces men to pay child support then when DNA test say they are not the court uses the fact that they paid child support as proof of paternity.

Yes I agree that's total bullshit.

Imagine you were exonerated of murder from DNA evidence, but the courts said well you're already on Death Row so you have to die anyway.

In this case though he still sees the daughter and acts as a parent to her. I can see why he is bound by paternity obligations. I don't agree with it but I can see it.

I think it's commendable he chooses to continue to treat the kid as his own and I assume will continue to even if the courts rightfully afford him an out on child support if it can be definitively proven who the real biological father is and force that individual to pay

Murky water.

Apparently, DNA or not, the courts still rely on the English law making men responsible for all children (whether their own or the offspring of an unfaithful wife) who are born during their marriage.

...In most states, paternity decisions are governed by centuries-old English common law, the presumptions of which hold sway, whether or not they're codified: a child born in a marriage is presumed the product of that union unless the husband was impotent, sterile or beyond "the four seas" when his wife conceived. The aim was to avoid "bastardy" and to preserve family stability or at least the appearance of it....

The former husband does seem to have a genuine love for the little girl although she is not his biological daughter. I give him a lot of credit for continuing his relationship with her and I can understand his outrage at having to continue to pay for the child's support when the man who actually is her biological father doesn't have the decency to pay for the child's support himself.

I guess a man's feeling of paternal love for a child who is not his own biological child can actually be as strong as maternal love is for women. This is apparently one of those instances.

Society usually credits women with being able to have maternal feelings for all children -- whether or not the children are their own. However, society usually does not see men as feeling the same way and seems to think men can only have strong paternal feelings if a child is biologically their own.

However, at least in this case, apparently a man's paternal feelings for a child not biologically his can equal, or even surpass, the maternal feelings usually attributed only to women.

My, my, my, what a big world it is.

true love gets one past these shocking situations...

The first story in the article talks about a guy who is forced to pay child support for a child that is definitively not his while the mother lives with the biological father.

Now, this guy is in a bind. He can continue a relationship with the child while he is still on the hook for child support, but who wants to bet that if he wins his case, the first thing the mother will do is force the estrangement between this man and her daughter.

In a way, the mom is getting what's coming to her. She only thinks she wants to be married to a guy who impregnated her knowing she was married and then let her poor schnook of a husband support a kid that was really his.

Repeat after me: Relationships that begin in infidelity are trouble. Every time.

I feel for the child, who's routine has changed because of her parent's divorce. Like so many other children, she now has to split her time between two households. She's also now aware that she has a dad and a biological father, and perhaps when she is older, will become aware of her mother's infidelity. I don't understand why men and women cheat on each other. It's the lowest form of a lie.

...the Supreme Court and the ACLU won't touch a family law case...

Why should they? It's a states rights issue. Marriage is a civil matter. It's not even mentioned in the constitution and the ACLU is primarily interested in constitutional rights, something the republicans can't stand the the thought of. That damned constitution is always getting in the way of corporate profits, yea nutcase?

Genetic test on the birth of any child and results shown to both parents before the certificate is signed. That ought to do the trick.

And yet basing paternity decisions solely on genetics places the nonbiological father's welfare above the child's."


BULLSHIT!!


Basing paternity decisions solely on genetics holds the mother accountable for her actions.
#12 | Posted by fresno500


Fresno, I get your frustration, but you have to admit its not as simple as that. The courts make this judgment when someone has assumed paternity for an extended period and is why they say that the sooner you question paternity the better. Its definitely not an easy situation for the legal father or the child.



You still have to do what is right. How can anybody justify mandatory payments for somehting you did not do. This is BASIC justice. Yes, it hurts and parties will be hurt BUT the sooner females start being held acountable for their actions, the sooner this will stop. Keep giving them a pass, it will continue. The truth is always better reguardless.

That damned constitution is always getting in the way of corporate profits, yea nutcase?
#22 | Posted by RingMaster

You really must not understand much about nutcase.

You still have to do what is right. How can anybody justify mandatory payments for somehting you did not do. This is BASIC justice. Yes, it hurts and parties will be hurt BUT the sooner females start being held acountable for their actions, the sooner this will stop. Keep giving them a pass, it will continue. The truth is always better reguardless.
#24 | Posted by fresno500

I don't disagree necessarily, but a lot of children are going to be hurt in the short term if we're going to address this issue. And since all politics is about the short term fall out, i.e. will doing the right thing affect a pols incumbency, I'm not exactly expecting things to change any time soon.

The pendulum has swung so far in the females favor that now they are holding innocent people accountable for a females actions.

Everyone is accountable for their own actions and for the state to willfully prop up a lie is dispicable.

It is just a matter of time before men see this situation as something to avoid at all cost, if not already.

the courts said well you're already on Death Row so you have to die anyway.

Justice Scalia has said essentially that.

thinkprogress.org

The pendulum has swung so far in the females favor that now they are holding innocent people accountable for a females actions....
#27 | Posted by fresno500

I don't disagree there.

It is just a matter of time before men see this situation as something to avoid at all cost, if not already.
#27 | Posted by fresno500

I guess I'd wonder too if my daughter didn't look exactly like me when she was born.

look exactly like me when she was born

Aren't all babies born bald and wrinkly?

This situation is both sad and offensive. It is a reminder that when it's comes to the issue of child support, the court's are first and last about the money, and justice be damned.

Aren't all babies born bald and wrinkly?
#30 | Posted by silver_ironist

Mine was plump with a full head of hair.

My dad used to say "The best thing about your friends is that you get to pick them."

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable