The “Wife as Personal Prostitute” Model

Every once in a while a discussion will wind its way through the local blogosphere that is so ridiculous to me, I hardly know how to begin to comment on it.  Right now, folks are again debating a series of legislation designed to make sure that women don’t run around stealing men’s money by lying about who the father of their children is.

See here, here, here, and here for starters.  But fair warning, the vitriol expressed towards women in some of the comments is pretty sick.

See, here’s the thing.  Women, being human, lie.  And some women will lie to you about being pregnant with your baby in order to get you to marry us.  There are long, complicated reasons for that, but the short form is that we’re taught from the time that we’re very young that getting married is ‘winning’ at this thing called femininity and some women will do whatever it takes to win.

This is one reason y’all should date feminists, who are less inclined to believe in that kind of bullshit, but that is neither here nor there.

My point is, though, that, if someone claims you have knocked them up and you have the slightest doubt about whether that’s true, go get you a paternity test asap.  There’s no law against it.  If you are such a lazy coward that you want the law to force women to submit our children to paternity tests, when you could just go have it done, you are an idiot and I kind of wish you ill.

And, yes, I do feel bad for guys who think a kid is theirs and then find out that, biologically, it isn’t.  And, I might even argue that, if the mother and the guy who thought he was the father, but isn’t, aren’t married, he should not be able to be forced to pay to support a child that isn’t biologically his.

But the time to do this is when the baby is born, before you sign your name to the birth certificate.  Once you willingly put your name on the birth certificate, tough shit.

But here’s the thing I see going on in these posts and these comments that I can’t let slide–your wife is not your personal prostitute.  You did not buy her and you do not have a legal, binding agreement in which you arrange for the care and well-being of your children based on her conceding to only fuck you.  A marriage is not about purchasing sole access to a cooter.

If you don’t challenge paternity before you put your name on the birth certificate, again, tough shit.  If some guy were out there saying “My wife and I were open to having a car.  I told her I wanted a car.  I wanted a Camry, but she went out and bought a Dodge Stratus.  I signed the loan papers, but now I don’t want to have to pay for the car, because I wanted a Camry.” we would see him for the dumb jackass he is.

But for some reason, when a guy says “My wife and I were open to having kids.  I told her I wanted kids.  I wanted to provide the biological material for that kid, but she found someone else.  I signed the birth certificate, but now I don’t want to take care of my kid.” we’re all like “Oh, well, maybe it’s not fair that he has to support that child.”

Why not?

A person is not free from the debts their spouse incurs while they are married, even if the person in question didn’t have anything to do with incurring those debts.  Why should a person be free of paying child support for a child brought into the marriage just because the person didn’t have anything to do with incurring that child?

To me, it seems like these men are pissed because, in their minds, they’re giving money to their wives and kids in order to purchase their wives’ sexual fidelity and the assurance that those kids share genetic material with him.  So, on the one hand, they believe their wife and children to be their property.

On the other hand, if you ask why this kind of “property” should be treated differently than other kinds of property incurred during the marriage, they get to argue that it’s different because women and children aren’t property.

To me, though, what it looks like is that they want the ability to punish their wives for being unfaithful by cutting off funds to their kids.

So, color me not surprised that it’s Campfield who’s leading the charge to protect these jackasses.

About these ads

92 thoughts on “The “Wife as Personal Prostitute” Model

  1. Pingback: Music City Bloggers » Blog Archive » Quote of the Day

  2. If I understand the bill correctly, it doesn’t say anything about being married. I agree that marriage and the emotional relationship to the children that implies cause some problems with how this bill approaches things.

    But it seems more aimed at babydaddies, not married (and now divorced) men. Which made this post’s exclusive focus on married couples confusing for me. Did I miss something?

  3. The only question I have about this whole kerfuffle is why should the guy who actually DID father the kid get away with not having to support the child?

    By making the guy who DID NOT father the child pay child support you are allowing the one who is responsible to get away with it.

    And that is just ridiculous.

  4. Lyrl, the bill doesn’t make any distinction about married or unmarried and clearly the people who are talking about the bill are concerned not about the men who have a fleeting relationship with the mother, but about men who have had some kind of ongoing relationship with the mother–being marriage or some other kind of long term relationship.

    Brooks: “We’re talking about instances when mom wasn’t faithful and kept it a secret from dad…for financial gain.” Clearly, folks just messing around are not unfaithful to each other when they mess around with others.

    Briley and Campfield: “‘Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation,’ said Briley. ‘You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent’s conduct.’ ‘Children never have to pay the child support,’ said Campfield.”

  5. Tman, get away with what? What exactly is “it”? He gets away with it because the other dude, when he signed the birth certificate, agreed that he was the baby’s father.

    If this is so hard for you men to understand–that when you put your name on a kid’s birth certificate, you are saying that you are the kid’s dad–maybe we need a law like in Georgia, but applying to married men as well, where no man goes on the birth certificate without a legal process of recognizing paternity–that, at some point, the man has to stand before some kind of officer of the law and say “I understand that, by putting my name here, I am the baby’s legal father. Period.” because, apparently, y’all are idiots on this point.

  6. “Tman, get away with what? What exactly is “it”?”

    Paying child support. I know of several occasions wherein the husband thought he was the father, found out he wasn’t several months AFTER the birth certificate was signed. Then he divorced said cheating-wife because she was lying and unfaithful. The courts then wanted him to pay child support, NOT THE GUY WHO SIRED THE CHILD.

    How is this fair at all? The guy who cheated with the wife gets off without having to pay for the child HE is responsible for, and the guy who got CHEATED ON AND LIED TO has to pay for it?

    This makes sense, how?

  7. Pingback: Well Propertied Men : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

  8. I blame Maury Povich.

    The part of this that I have a hard time with is that a victim of fraud, which is what we are talking about, are told “tough shit” they shouldn’t have signed the legal document attesting to their fatherhood, though they signed it under false pretenses.

    In contract law, and the lawyers will correct me, this is an open and shut case. Fraud equals null and void contract.

    p.s. All you folks about to lose your home because some unscrupulous subprime mortgage weasel told you that you loan was 3% fixed, tough shit. You shouldn’t have signed the contract.

  9. The exchange between Campfield and Briley was frightening to see two people so unwilling to attempt to communicate successfully. Why couldn’t Briley explain that he thinks that assisting men in abandoning children with whom they’ve established meaningful bonds even though based on falsehoods between themselves and the mothers of the children IS about using children as weapons in relationship wars and thus IS anti-child. I know the state can only legislate financial support for children, but that’s the problem with this stuff. This is supposed to be about the children and it effectively reduces the parent-child relation to an economic one when economics barely brushes the surface of what children need from parents. No one is trying to defend women who lie or cheat or trick men (which does make Briley’s question about adultery weird), but some people are trying to prevent men from punishing those women in ways that will so clearly harm the children.

  10. “To me, though, what it looks like is that they want the ability to punish their wives for being unfaithful by cutting off funds to their kids.”

    To put things bluntly, the bold items above are why your opinion is worthless on this matter.

    If you are not able to actually grasp that the child in question is NOT the offspring of the male that was DECEIVED into claiming paternity responsibility than you should do yourself a favor and keep silent.

    What is being discussed and what the bill was addressing was FRAUD. Do you think fraud should be allowed, legal and supported just because a female is the one committing it?

    Are you seriously suggesting that males should never trust females, that females are by default dishonest? Is that really the way you want females to be viewed? Stating that the male in question should not believe the woman he is with, that it is his fault for not demanding a DNA test, and actually trusting the female to be HONEST with him was a mistake does not do the female gender any favors.

    Putting the blame on the victim of a crime used to be something that females railed against. Or maybe females only cared when it was rape and they were the victim that “blaming the victim” was wrong. When it is financial rape done by a female to a male I guess the victim is at fault. Maybe he was “asking” for it when she lied to him, right?

    Any female that actually defends the state-enforced, fraudulent theft of property by deceiving females of their partners should be ashamed of herself. Stop blaming the victim, stop seeing this through your self-centered gender vision and get a clue.

  11. My self-centered gendered vision says that you’re arguing a bunch of bullshit. Do Tennessee’s men have the right to go out and pay for a test to determine paternity? Yes, sirreee. Does a man who discovers through DNA testing that he’s not the babydaddy then, having established probable cause that he;s had a fraud perpetrated on him, have the right to hire a lawyer to make his case in court? Damn skippy. Go to it. Does he stand an excellent chance of recovering his custody payments and court costs based on genetic evidence? Yep.

    If you have doubts, you have the means in hand to figure it out. Just don’t ask Tennessee citizens to pay for it, ‘kay?

  12. “Does he stand an excellent chance of recovering his custody payments and court costs based on genetic evidence?”

    The reason for Campfields bill was that this is not true in a lot of cases. The non-father was still beingforced to pay for the child support.

    Did you read any of this post at all?

  13. By the logic of this topic, the man paying child support for a child that is not his is to be considered a target for legal extortion and fraud. Typical.

  14. How about this scenario then Aunt B –

    A young wife is unfaithful and becomes pregnant with another man’s child. Rather than tell the truth she allows husband to believe child is his and he signs birth certificate.

    A few years later, the marriage has gone bad and ended in divorce and, lo and behold, babys biological father is now super wealthy, while ex- husband is destitute.

    Does she have a right to then pursue the biological father? or has she given up that right by allowing another man (husband) to accept responsibility?

    No, I dont view marriage in the “wife as personal prostitute” model, but I do believe each party goes into the relationship vowing to be faithful. And should they break those vows it is not fair to allow the husband to bear the burden of the wife’s indescretions because she has lied.

  15. Sorry, but you are dead wrong here. A marriage contract is just that, a contract to be faithful to each other. If my wife has a child, I DO INDEED expect it to be mine, and I should not have to get a paternity test to be sure. If my wife were to decieve me, and I signed the birth certificate, then the child becomes mine legally. If she later wants a divorce and takes the child, why should I be forced to pay child support? She engaged in deceit to get me to sign the birth certificate. I would hope that if much time had passed, I would have enough love for the child to pay anyway, but no one should be forced to do so.

    If I deceive some old woman into signing over her house over to me, should I get to keep it when she realizes I deceived her?

    I have sadly come to the realization that the rational thing for men to do is NEVER get married, and to get a vasectomy at the earliest possilbe opportunity.

  16. Yes, I did. I found the arguments made in favor of the bill stupid or unsupported by anything more concrete than someone pissing his pants because he heard about this guy who had this problem once. I really cannot fucking believe that any of you believe that the Tennessee government needs to spend taxpayer money because Junior can’t figure out whether Luann’s baby is his or not. That sounds like a personal problem to me, bud.

  17. lyrl:

    Because the author of this post is using this as an opportunity to attack marriage as well as men in general. While I readily acknowledge that men victimize women a lot more than women victimize men, feminists are exceedingly hostile to the notion that a woman (or society) can be hostile to a man in any way. The hilarious thing is that a true feminist would oppose the notion of compulsory child support anyway, because a woman should be just as able to support herself and her children just as males are.

    The really sad thing is that it is difficult to take the guy’s side in paternity issues because the real problem is that so many men act like total jerks: refusing to keep their paternity obligations AND have anything to do with their kids in any way, shape, or form. So many of them pull such evil tactics as using visitation rights as a bargaining chip to lower their child support payments, or taking the mother to court falsely claiming that the woman is not allowing him to see the child and demanding that his child support payments be reduced or terminated as a result. The biggest victims in charades like this are honest men are legitimately in bad situations (which do exist, but it is anti – feminist to admit so). Nah, I cannot lie like that. The biggest victims in charades like this are ALWAYS the kids.

    I hate to say it, but even though I am pro – male and anti – feminist, if I were a family court judge, I would have no choice but harm treat the 5% to 15% of honest fellows that are legitimate victims of either women of low character or bad laws just to make sure that I am getting the 95% to 85% of fellows that are of low character and could care less about their kids. To those fellows, I have no choice but saying “Man up and suck it up, life is unfair.” It would be tough to hear, but it is a lot better than hearing this pseudo – feminist caterwaul against the notion that men are merely complaining that they can no longer assert ownership over female sexuality. When I see one of these feminists encourage men to go around and cheat on their spouses, procreate 2 or 3 kids with their adultery, bring his wife home a nasty little venereal disease in the process, and then get off scot free with no legal or financial sanction while denouncing his very ill – treated and completely innocent wife when she protests his evil harmful behavior for “trying to inhibit male sexual freedom” then MAYBE I will believe that feminists actually support social and legal equality. Then again, where would desiring both sexes to be selfish immoral destructive jerks get us?

    Again, this is a tough issue that requires more sensitivity to BOTH SIDES than the writer of this blog is capable of mustering. But then again, I guess being sensitive to BOTH SIDES requires actually caring about people and wanting them to be treated fairly. Which is why I actually wonder about feminists who are the mothers of male children. Do they indoctrinate them that any unfairness, no matter how grotesque, that they receive is, well, ok, because men have oppressed women, minorities, etc. Nah. I bet that such women are TOTAL HYPOCRITES who do everything to make sure that THEIR BOYS turn out OK, and then go on to blame the ills of the world on everyone else’s males. It was funny, there was once this movie on Lifetime that dealt with teen pregnancy from the MALE’S view. Why? Because the son of a prominent feminist impregnated this girl, and she was upset that there was more support, services, etc. available for the girl than for her own son. She basically admitted that had it not happened to her own son, she would have opposed the media dealing with cases like her son’s as “anti – feminist.” I also read a column in a women’s magazine who acknowledged only being concerned about the lack of recourse that the family court system often gives men when the ex – wife of her own husband turned out to be a real manipulator (again, there is a reason why the family court system favors women, most of the men act like real jerks, so even when it harms decent fellows like her husband hey what can you do) and she was gripped with guilt over betraying “sisterhood” by being forced to admit that, yes feminists, some women do possess and exhibit poor character. Now had it happened to any other man other than her dear hubby? Nope!

    But like I said, the conduct of men forces me to back feminists on MOST legal and public policy issues as much as it pains me to do so.

  18. Thanks for the informative post. I made both of my late teen sons read it. It only reinforces what I keep telling them.

    Never get married.

  19. I think (Aunt B, correct me if I’m wrong) a lot of folks are misreading Aunt B’s point.

    If you raise a kid, and then on down the line you find out this kid isn’t your biological offspring, it irritates some of us out here that you could so easily turn off any commitment to that child (whom thinks of you as Daddy) just because Mommy cheated on you.

    Yeah, it sucks. It sucks on so many levels. It sucks that your wife (or girlfriend) cheated on you and lead you to believe it could only be your child. It sucks that you’ve made a financial commitment that—had you known the truth—you may not have made. It sucks that you were cheated on. It’s all sucky.

    But for the love of all that is good, what sucks the most is for a kid to have his or her Daddy—the only Daddy this kid knows—to suddenly up and say, “Well, you aren’t my biological kid, so I write you off.” The only one that this really sucks for is the kid.

    So I guess what I want to know is: Who are these men that just want to walk away from children? Did they not bond with these kids? Or is it that they resented fatherhood from day one? Because that’s the impression we all are getting–that these are pretty heartless, cold men. Do they have a right to be peeved at the mothers? Yes. But what to turn their backs on the innocents?

    It turns my stomach to read some of you He-Man-Woman Hater Club members griping like you all have the potential of being wronged. Because no matter how bad it could possibly suck for you, it will never compare to how bad it’s going to suck for that child.

  20. I think part of the problem is that we tend to generalize and stereotype both the mother and the father here. I can’t help but feel the kids are the last ones to be considered.

  21. Instead of ” Wife as Personal Prostitute” I see this as Male as personal cash machine because this is what it is about , money. If I had been so stupid to get some conniving witch knocked-up, tough. Pay the bills and shut up. If I were married and raised my child for many years I would fight like hell to be able to keep doing it with all the rights of a parent intact. even if I found out that the child wasn’t mine. I would also go after the real father to make him pay me additional child support. That way my parental bonds would stay intact and he would not get off scot-free.

  22. Just one more topic where many men are responding to the arguments and positions they think the woman must be making so as to continue to disagree rather than hear that Aunt B is trying to suggest that maybe you are actually worth more than even you seem to be holding yourselves to be.

    Who is a father? What makes one a father? What kind of responsibilities do fathers have to children?

    Job, for the record, Aunt B does not believe in compulsory child support. Quite of few of the commenters here do not. We are not idiots but clear and consistent thinkers. We are exactly concerned about the same bad fathers you are and wonder what social and legal practices best work to educate and compel us to do right, and we are concerned about when the law is and is not the right place to set our values and practices.

    No one, especially not Aunt B, is defending the fraud or is saying that the fraud should be allowed and protected. She’s calling bullshit on that really being what this legislation is all about and exposing the anti-woman and anti-child crap that is still running through the framers of this bill and so many commenters here and elsewhere on this issue.

    Job, why do you get to say that many men are “total jerks” but when B is more careful and fair in her concerns she’s attacking men? How come you get to be “anti-feminist” but B is supposedly the one who is inconsiderate of others? Why do you think you get to demand care from people when the only reason there is any apparent fight here is because you couldn’t check your assumptions at the door and be fair to Aunt B? All your arguments are based on mistaken assumptions, and at the heart of things this is little disagreement between you two, except for your having come in here like a blustering asshole, performing the sort of male privilege at the bottom of B’s challenge to this legislation.

  23. I don’t exactly like that I’m agreeing with the woman haters here … but a stopped watch is right twice a day.

    I have a hard time mustering up pity for women who break their promise to be faithful. And faithfulness is part of the marriage contract. It’s also her purchasing sole access to his genitals and gametes, too.

    Who would expect me to pay child support if I divorced my husband for bringing home a baby he’d fathered with someone else? Why, if we flip these hypothetical roles, does anyone think it fair for me receive child support from him just because I am able to deceive him?

    And while I do feel sorry for the children caught up in the middle, isn’t choosing to stay involved in the life of a child you did not father, but have been a father to, a moral issue? A personal choice? One of those things that those of us who call ourselves progressive try not to legislate?

    Perhaps in these cases, the courts should make custody 50/50, with no payments going either way, and terminating the rights of the biological father if the “adoptive” father wishes to step up, do the right thing, and be a dad. I suspect that’s ultimately what’s so upsetting: not unwanted fatherhood, but the idea that the wrong man is locked into providing a steady stream of cash for 18 years, and potentially without access or custody to boot.

  24. Aunt B,

    Your lunacy is impressive. Some other posters, the usual suspects, do come close though.

    Why do you care about the kids? Can’t we expand abortion to include post-birth abortion? We can just expand “choice” and clean up this mess altogether.

  25. Aunt B: I want to make clear that I don’t think you support the fraud or believe it should be protected. Mostly, I thought aloud in your comments, based on the discussion that preceded my $0.02.

  26. This is what happens when an open and shut case is complicated by folks who spent too much time getting their Masters degrees on Grievance than living in the real world.

    To boil down to its basics…

    Person A lies to Person B.
    Person A has Person B sign contract under false pretenses.
    Person B discovers fraud, wants to nullify contract that compels him to pay Person A.

    Normally open and shut, but…

    Feminists say tough shit to Person B because Person A (the person who lied and defrauded) is in actuality the victim, but of some sort of abstract “heteronomative partriarchy,” and Person B should have known better anyway than to trust anything with a cooter.

  27. Martin, serious, fuck you, you hostile jackass. You can spout in one thread shit about being kind and open minded and gentle and turn around in another thread and spout this shit. And you accuse me of lunacy. Clean your own house, and then we’ll talk about mine.

    Many of the rest of you, your argument is basically reducable to “I entered into the second most binding legal relationship I can (fathering a child) and sometimes the most binding legal relationship I can (a marriage) and I didn’t bother to consider that it was a legally binding relationship, therefore, I didn’t bother to read the law, nor consider how it might apply to me and now I’m whining and complaining as if the feminists have tricked me and stolen my manhood.” You really should be embarrassed.

    Frankly, I have to ask this: Considering that there are a whole series of laws pertaining to marriage and paternity and considering that any jackass with an internet connection can peruse those laws at his leisure and thus determine if and how they are applicable to him, and considering that you whiny fuckers are basically arguing “I’m too lazy to read the law and consider how it might apply to me before I begin just fuck, fuck, fucking my life away willy-nilly, even though I at any moment could read the law and consider how it applies to my life,” how the hell is making yet another law–which you probably won’t read and won’t consider–going to help you?

    You know who I have sympathy for? The kids you fuckers want the right to ditch.

    You can’t read the law before you enter into a FUCKING LEGAL CONTRACT? And I’m supposed to feel sorry for you? I feel sorry that you’re a dumbass. I feel sorry that you trusted someone you shouldn’t have. I don’t feel sorry that you didn’t read and consider the law before you entered into a relationship with another person governed by those laws.

    It’s not the same as rape. It’s not fraud under the law. The law does not give you the right to father children who are only your biological children. The rules are right there for everyone to read. YOU CAN READ THEM.

    And I’m supposed to feel sorry for you because you didn’t bother before you started fucking around and making these legally binding ties with people?

    Sorry. No, I don’t.

  28. I think what disturbs me here in the comments is some people’s apparent definition of “father.” Fathers are more than sperm donors people.

    I can’t possibly understand how a man could raise a child, and then upon simply finding out that the child doesn’t share his DNA, simply say “Not mine,” and have nothing to do with the child from that point on. On the other hand, if a man is the type to do such a thing, the child is probably better off because that man was certainly no father to begin with.

    The problem is, this kind of thinking directly effects me as a gay man. If fathers are nothing more than sperm donors, then what are adoptive gay dads?

  29. I would agree that, especially if the child has been raised by this man for so long, that it would be a shitty thing for the man to just drop out of the child’s life.

    But a man can still be a de facto father to this child, while not being compelled by the state to pay $500 a month, every month, to the woman who deceived him, until this child reached 18.

    Fatherhood is more than a check. And just because the lying woman isn’t getting a check, doesn’t mean that the man can’t still be a father figure to this child.

    (But then this raises the point: if this type of woman isn’t getting her check, why should she have to allow the man to even be a father to this child.)

    And B, seriously…

    You can’t read the law before you enter into a FUCKING LEGAL CONTRACT? And I’m supposed to feel sorry for you? I feel sorry that you’re a dumbass. I feel sorry that you trusted someone you shouldn’t have. I don’t feel sorry that you didn’t read and consider the law before you entered into a relationship with another person governed by those laws.

    I dont ever want to hear you bitch about people who signed contracts on a sub prime mortgage again.

    I dont ever want to hear you bitch about people who signed contracts with payday loan folks, or other mercenary loan predators.

    I dont ever want to hear you bitch about people who signed contracts on their student loans, and are struggling to pay them back.

    As you said, “You can’t read the law before you enter into a FUCKING LEGAL CONTRACT? And I’m supposed to feel sorry for you?

  30. I once dated a guy who was pretty sure he was paying child support to a kid that didn’t share his genetic material. This was his father’s advice, “You know, if you feed them long enough, they all start to look like you.”

    The ex couldn’t stand the thought of breaking the boys up (the younger one was definitely his biological child) and he believed that being a father was more important than confirming genetic paternity. He was a shitty boyfriend but a very good parent to those two.

    My oldest son was raised by my husband. Although they share neither genetic material nor race, my son calls my husband “Dad” since that’s who has always fed him and gone to parent teacher conferences and tucked him in at night. My husband’s family is Son’s “real family.”

    Parenting is about emotional bonds, people, not chromosomal ownership.

  31. B,

    I don’t have a hostile bone in my body.

    Go beyond the fine print of marriage contracts for a moment (I don’t know precisely what this law calls for) and you, in the original post were making a large point… “what it looks like is that they want the ability to punish their wives for being unfaithful by cutting off funds to their kids.” Get real. Some poor bastard, and let’s assume he is an upstanding guy who wants to provide the best for his children, gets duped by a conniving witch. And your response… he’s trying to punish his wife… like she is some innocent, weak creature.

    Yea, the lunatic angle was employed to see if it would get a rise out of you. I wondered if you would respond to a less than charitable characterization when aimed at you. I know you won’t come running when someone attacks me out of nowhere.

  32. Well you do get a little snarky here:

    USBank (motto: Us bank, you customer): $120 in overdraft charges, due, in part, to my own inability to read my own fucking handwriting. You’re welcome.

    Citibank (motto: Hook ‘em when they’re broke in college and keep ‘em paying that shit off forever): $200 in interest a month, roughly.

    Other credit card (motto: We’re here for you when your employer tells you after you’ve moved to take the job that the pay is actually $5,000 a year less than you were told.): $200 in interest a month, roughly.

    I mean we could add…

    Woman, subspecies golddigger, (motto: I’m here to take your money while lying to you about the nature of your, heh heh, offspring.) $400 a month, for 18 years.

    It’s like paying a student loan bill for a university you didn’t even enroll in.

  33. Yes, but Lee, I’m paying those bills. Sure, I’m complaining about them, but I’m paying them off. Why? Because I signed up for them and paying them off is my responsibility. I have a legal obligation to pay them off, even if I gripe about it.

    Tennessee men, even men who are paying for children who aren’t their biological children have, under the law, a legal obligation to pay for those children. The law is clear. Clearer than most credit card agreements. I quote it here for the lazy:

    (a) A man is rebuttably presumed to be the father of a child if:
    (1) The man and the child’s mother are married or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage or within three hundred (300) days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;
    (2) Before the child’s birth, the man and the mother have attempted to marry each other in compliance with the law, although the attempted marriage is or could be declared illegal, void and voidable;
    (3) After the child’s birth, the man and the mother have married or attempted to marry each other in compliance with the law although such marriage is or could be declared illegal, void, or voidable; and:
    (A) The man has acknowledged his paternity of the child in a writing filed under the putative father registry established by the department of children services, pursuant to § 36-2-318; or
    (B) The man has consented in writing to be named the child’s father on the birth certificate; or
    (C) The man is obligated to support the child under a written voluntary promise or by court order;
    (4) While the child is under the age of majority, the man receives the child into the man’s home and openly holds the child out as the man’s natural child; or
    (5) Genetic tests have been administered as provided in § 24-7-112, an exclusion has not occurred, and the test results show a statistical probability of parentage of ninety-five percent (95%) or greater.

    How much more straightforward can you get?

  34. Whatever, Sarcastro. I’m arguing for a change in law, when it comes to illegal immigration, because I have read the law and found it stupid. In this case, this whole thread is about folks whining that they are too damn lazy to read the law and thus need to be protected from their own idiocy.

    There’s a world of difference between trying to do your best to follow the law and not being able to, because the deck is stacked against you, and trying to do your best to get out of following the law because your feelings are hurt.

  35. Well, this law is also stupid. And this is more about hurt feelings.

    This is about a victim of fraud being told it is his fault for being a victim of fraud.

    And are there laws more clear than the drug laws on the books? Yet here you are complaining that people are actually having to deal with the consequences of breaking those rather clear laws.

  36. Nobody wins when you reduce emotions and responsibility down to money. Nobody. Legislating personal responsibility doesn’t work much better for either side. But maybe that’s just the Libertarian in me.

    Go Maude Lebowski.

  37. Nobody wins…

    Agreed, but the reality is that a substantial portion of the population – I think this blogger – views marriage as merely a contract. Strong, stable families are the best education policy, anti-drug policy, anti-poverty policy, mental health policy etc. So much of the stuff we spend public money on goes for “band-aids” that address the symptoms associated with familial fragmentation. In truth I am quite sympathetic to the argument that a husband is responsible for the children that his wife brings into the world, but given the realites…

    a. marriage is one of the easiest contracts to break
    b. many scoff at notions of fidelity and committment
    c. many want to re-define marriage
    d. reproductive technology, and the lack of regulation, enables nearly anyone to get pregnant

    … I am amazed at some who insist that a guy should be responsible for a child that is not his, in the bioligical sense.

  38. Aunt B,

    You are all about the legal contract signed when two become one through marriage, yet you seem to want to avoid discussing the legal contract created biologically when two people procreate.

    “til death do we part” when it comes to marriage, but “whoever signed the piece of paper” when it comes to an actual human being? Seriously?

    This is the fundamental issue you should be pinpointing in your crusade. If you are really just “concerned about the welfare of the child” which I have no reason to believe you are not, then you should be all about enforcing the laws which pertain to those who are the biological owners of said child.

    Instead you are arguing that men should read the fine print in the contract with their marriage license/birth certificate.

    It’s tough to square the circle between “it’s really about these poor kids” and “you should’ve never trusted her to begin with stupid”. Which one is more important?

    I’ve taken an unscientific poll tonight with several single moms I know about this issue, and not a single one defended your argument. All of them without question stated that the BIOLOGICAL FATHER should be the one LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.

    There’s a world of difference between trying to do your best to follow the law and not being able to, because the deck is stacked against you, and trying to do your best to get out of following the law because your feelings are hurt.

    What you neglected to include in this analogy is that the deck IS in fact stacked against both parties in this example, regardless of how much one’s feelings are hurt. This is precisely what Campfields legislation was trying to address.

    I think this makes you a hypocrite.

  39. B, I think the law as you stated is a carry over from common law that presumed a married man is the father hecause at the time there was no definitive way to prove otherwise. Technology has changed so today we do have the ability to prove who is or isnt the biological father. Changing the law to reflect this change in technology – and trying to be fair – is what Campfield and others are trying to accomplish.

    There is nothing in the law that would prevent someone from continuing voluntarily to provide for the child, but what you seek to do is require this involvement. You also frame the argument solely as if there is always a long term relationship between the man and the child. That may not always be the case so there may not in fact be any emotional bond between the two.

  40. Pingback: Who Dat Is? It’s Not My Baby, Daddy. « Dork Nation

  41. this whole thread is about folks whining that they are too damn lazy to read the law and thus need to be protected from their own idiocy.

    I’ll have to bookmark that comment for every other little commie jihad B goes on.

    and by the way, Miss Law and Order, I don’t recall you being in favor of the current immigration raids, even though that currently IS THE LAW.

    Back on this topic, nobody has mentioned that making the father continue to pay child support to a kid that isn’t his, is a monthly reminder (to some) of the betrayal and pain caused by the mother. Kind of reminds me of the feminists saying that we MUST allow abortion at least in the cases of rape and incest, otherwise that child would be a daily reminder to the mother of the pain of the assault.

  42. Pingback: On that babydaddy question… : KnoxvilleTalks.com

  43. Anonymous, here’s the thing. There are two matters here–the man and woman’s legal relationship and the man and child’s legal relationship. And those two overlap in ways that are unfair.

    A man takes a risk when he has sex with a woman that, if she becomes pregnant, she may tell him he’s the biological father of that child, even if he’s not. That is wrong of the woman. And, even to me, it seems like fraud.

    However, the law is clear that, if you put your name on that child’s birth certificate, you are that child’s legal father. Period. Now you have a legal relationship with that child and you are responsible for supporting that child.

    No matter how pissed you are at the mother, you cannot and should not be able to get back at her, by hurting the child.

    And yet, clearly, you’ve been deceived. But may I repeat–by the woman.

    If Campfield and friends wanted to remedy this situation, what they ought to do is propose legislation that would make it easy for men in this situation to sue the women to recoup the cost of child support.

    I just want to make this as clear as I can, because apparently many of you do not know this: The law is concerned with who is the legal father of the child, not who is the biological father of the child. Those are not the same thing. WHEN YOU PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU ARE SAYING ‘I AM THE LEGAL FATHER OF THIS CHILD.’ PERIOD.

    If it is important to you that you are the legal father only of your biological children, then you should not sign the birth certificate of any child who might be yours until you have the tests done to say for sure.

    I think what you guys think is that there’s something in the law–which there is not–that says “biology trumps all” and that, if a person can prove he’s not a kid’s biological father, he doesn’t have to be his legal father. This is not the case.

    I repeat. This is not the case.

    Even if Campfield’s law were to pass, somehow, in some nightmare world, there’s nothing in his legislation (because he doesn’t think this shit through) that terminates a man’s legal fatherhood upon the discovery that a man is not the biological father.

    So, his legislation, which, may I repeat, is stupid, would create a situation where a man–who is still legally the child’s father and thus still has all the legal rights and privileges of being the legal father–doesn’t have to support that child. He’d have all the legal say of a dad, but none of the financial burden.

    Does that seem right to you?

    So, let me repeat again, if you want to only be the legal father of children that are biologically yours, if that is important to you, do not sign the birth certificate of that kid until you have the proof you need to know for certain.

  44. You must be kidding.

    Him: “Excuse me Honey, but before i sign that birth certificate, I’ll need take a paternity test.”

    Her: ” No problem, please send the results to my divorce attorney.”

    Even if the above scenario is extreme, the relationship would forever be altered by the insinuation that she hadn’t been faithful.

    Love you much, B, but this is a HUGE stretch.

  45. being deliberately childless, i don’t really have a dog in this race myself. but, B, i think i may be seeing a miscommunication going on, on your behalf; maybe you could clarify.

    you keep pounding on the birth certificate being the legal contract of fatherhood, and that men with any doubts should have a paternity test before signing that. and it just strikes me, birth certificates in general aren’t treated like legal contracts, they’re treated like formalities; paternity tests, now, they’re no formality.

    demanding a paternity test as if it were a simple formality before you’ll sign a birth certificate of a child presumably yours seems to me like no small insult to the mother of the child. could be the sort of thing that might seriously injure a relationship, possibly even end it. do we want to make such demands into the new, expected, standard of behavior?

  46. Well, what are you going to do? Because adult men want something y’all seem to refuse to ask for from another adult, that should give you the right to dick over a kid later?

    That’s appalling to me.

    You know what?

    Fuck it. I change my mind. I’m now in favor of manditory paternity tests at birth. Fucking a. Clearly, y’all do need to be protected from yourselves.

  47. Okay, I skipped the comments to get here, so this might have already been discussed.

    B, did you seriously just compare buying a car to having a baby? That staggers me a little bit. To put it lightly, there are a few differences. Fiscally, emotionally, physically, and every other way conceivable. (Ohhh, inadvertant pun.)

    it seems like these men are pissed because, in their minds, they’re giving money to their wives and kids in order to purchase their wives’ sexual fidelity
    Or their pissed because the person they committed themselves to has betrayed them. And they are pissed that this little person they thought was their flesh and blood isn’t.

    I dunno, maybe the bill is about punishing the woman. Personally, I’ve got no problem with that in this case. A woman that would tell that particular lie deserves to be punished. She can fuck someone else if she wants, I’d have trouble with ‘punishing’ someone for that. But you just don’t tell a guy he has a kid when he doesn’t really. That’s a whole new level of betrayal and emotional manipulation.

    I don’t agree with mandatory paternity testing, but this argument you are making is just nasty. You’re looking at this as being about marriage and infidelity, it’s more important to look at this as finding out you aren’t the babies’ daddy.

  48. But W., as I’ve said repeatedly: If you put your name on the birth certificate YOU ARE THE BABY’S LEGAL FATHER. That’s how Tennessee law works.

    No matter how pissed you are at the legal mother for lying to you about the biological status of your fatherhood, establishing your legal fatherhood of that child is about making a legal commitment to that child.

    If it is important to you that your legal children are your biological children, you need to take measures to ensure that you know that child is biologically yours before you sign on to being that child’s legal father.

  49. Sure that’s how the law works, I’m aware of that and I suspect most of the guys that got caught in situations like this were aware of that, or at least assumed it. But they believed what they were told, and it turned out that was a lie. A legal relationship predicated on a lie shouldn’t be binding.

    Correct me if I’m getting the wrong impression here, but your basic argument seems to boil down to ‘screw him for believing the woman he loved/liked/fucked’. It just doesn’t sit well with me.

    I’d agree that anyone that actually did cut off the kids for something like this would be pretty low. But it’s his right to do it if thats what he wants.

  50. > you need to take measures to ensure that you know that child is biologically yours before you sign

    “No dear, I don’t think that you’re a liar who’s been cheating on me, but I’m not going to sign the birth certificate until the test comes back from the lab in 14 days.” Yeah, that would go over really well.

    Mandatory testing, with results available before the father is allowed to sign the birth certificate, means that the man is aware of the paternity before he signs. If he chooses to sign for another man’s child, then he did so with his eyes open, and he should bear responsibility. Why shouldn’t we insist that all parties have all practical information before signing their rights away?

  51. Fuck it. I change my mind. I’m now in favor of manditory paternity tests at birth. Fucking a. Clearly, y’all do need to be protected from yourselves.

    I’m 100% behind you on this, B. In fact, let me take a different tack on this: with all the problems the state of Tennessee has right now, some of you are so afraid that the woman you married (or might marry) is going to cuckold you and trick you into raising another man’s genetic ego boost unit– er, child; sorry– that you want your state legislature to spend time and tax dollars drafting a law to protect you from that?

    Okay, with our nation’s founding issues of melanin-phobia, I can see how why some of you guys are so eager to sign your civil liberties away for fear of the Foreign Brown Menace. But this particular package of daddy state chickenshit has me stumped. What the fuck? Do you think your ability to form solid, trusting relationships is so poor that you need a law to protect you? (I don’t supposed there’s a little insecurity, and maybe even a smidge of projection going on there.) Also, if you loathe and despise women that much, why not start fucking each other? That way, you won’t have to trust the evil lying bitches, and there sure as hell won’t be any paternity surprises down the line.

  52. Kids get dicked over all the time. It sucks, yes, but welcome to the world. Most guys though, after spending time with a child, theirs or not, will bond for life and legal responsibility or not, will care for that child. making someone legally bound to do so after a fraud is committed is completely unfair and unwise.

    Part of the push-back you are getting here may be because many of us know guys that try to do the right thing, but the current scorched earth approach to child support collection never allows for life changes or outright inability to pay.

    I had many guys working for me whose support amounts were set when they were making big money in the car business. Commissioned sales is feast or famine, and there is no real mechanism that allows for adjustment without incurring ridiculous costs, which, if you could afford, means you could afford the support amount. The penalty for failing to keep up? JAIL. Thats serious shit, locking up a guy who has a bad run of luck. Sure, there are deadbeats aplenty, that won’t change regardless of how many laws we pass.

  53. Typical B. People bring up good and valid points and you obfuscate and reveal your animosity toward all men. Some of the points…

    a. yea, that is the law but it was written long ago before paternity could be determined scientifically

    b. The guy who signs the birth cert. is signing with incomplete, even asymetric, information. He doesn’t know the truth. You see fit to blame the poor guy.

    c. Is it a good law? You don’t think unjust laws should be left unchanged, do you?

    d. Is it plausible for a guy to request a paternity test and thereby, implicitly, challenge the character of his wife?

  54. Martin, you’re a hostile fuck who doesn’t know when to shut up in a public forum. I doubt you have the experience with B to know what she thinks about *all men*. If she thinks you’re an ass, however, you’ve given her abundant reason.

    The civil court is the appropriate remedy for acts of fraud — and Tennessee has a perfectly functional civil court system. That’s why the Judiciary committee shot this down as a piece of unnecessary legislation. Your kid carries your DNA or he/she doesn’t. You don’t need to ask your wife or girlfriend for a DNA sample, dimwits.

  55. Hmm B. I’m concerned that people bring up good and valid points and you’re dismissing them out of hand. Some of the points I wish you’d address more clearly…

    a. yea, that is the law but it was written long ago before paternity could be determined scientifically

    b. The guy who signs the birth cert. is signing with incomplete, even asymetric, information. He doesn’t know the truth. You see fit to blame the poor guy.

    c. Is it a good law? You don’t think unjust laws should be left unchanged, do you?

    d. Is it plausible for a guy to request a paternity test and thereby, implicitly, challenge the character of his wife?

  56. Your kid carries your DNA or he/she doesn’t. You don’t need to ask your wife or girlfriend for a DNA sample, dimwits.

    no, but you do need to ask an infant child’s mother for permission to take a DNA sample from said child in order to have a paternity test performed. what’s this got to do with the price of tea in China?

  57. Bridgett,

    Thanks for the lesson in hostility restraint. It really resonates coming from you.

  58. Perhaps there is a third way here? Please correct me if I’m wrong (I’m more familiar with practice in Missouri and New York; I’m happy to say that no one I know in Tennessee has gone through a divorce since I’ve been here), but custody, child support, and the like are set by a judge, aren’t they? And the judge determines these things after a hearing, right? Well, shouldn’t the evidence of non-paternity be brought up at the hearing, as part of the gestalt of the relationship being dissolved? Along with stuff like the kid in question has all been calling the guy Daddy for X years, with all the appropriate feelings involved, and how, when, and why the discovery of non-paternity was made, and all that. That means that someone with the authority to set the rules can take it all into consideration. And if the discovery of non-paternity is made at a later date, can’t the judge be petitioned at that point to change the rules? This “Kid, I legally want to make sure that your name and mine are never on the same piece of paper” thing seems to be missing the practical and emotional forest for the vengeful trees.

  59. Just to clarify my own position in case anyone is interested….

    I think this particular bill was a poor way to go about doing something that should be done. Mandatory paternity testing is stupid, invasive, and expensive.

    There should be more flexibility in the realm of child support payments. If a man finds out that he was mislead about being the father, then he should be let out of any legal obligation to support the child. But I think he still has moral obligations.

    Bridget, just some thoughts from a nimwit….. Most times we actually trust our wives when they tell us something that important. You’re married so you should understand that. And occasionally we’re wrong. All us nimwits just feel like it’s wrong to be held legally responsible for being stupid enough to believe the woman we loved. What sort of reaction would you have if the man wanted a paternity test after you told him he was the daddy? Or if you found out he took the baby off for testing without telling you? That’s what most people call a dealbreaker.

    Also, I’m sure you do have to have the woman’s permission if you want to do the test before the baby is born. Practically speaking, that would be the best time to do it from the guys point of view.

  60. I’m happy to say that no one I know in Tennessee has gone through a divorce since I’ve been here), but custody, child support, and the like are set by a judge, aren’t they?

    I’m 5 years on from my divorce, and the amount of child support received was calculated from a set formula called the “Income Shares” Guidelines. It wasn’t chosen by the judge.

  61. Uggggh. Then I’d say that the consideration of paternity might well ought to be made part of a major overhaul of the system, but that there’s not all that much point tinkering with the system in little bits.

  62. whoa – what a news flash!!

    mingling personal and individual fluids can result in the creation of children which somebody may actually have to take care of! who knew??

    dang, this modern world is confusing. it’s as if my actions might have (gasp!!) consequences, whether i sign some paper or not, mingle fluids or not.

    let’s face it, at the rate that folks reproduce and also get hitched and unhitched, is it any wonder some legislative goobers jump in to sort it all out? and yep, when it comes to law and violations of, our current system insures that if you ply enough money into the right law firm, the law bends to your desires no matter what the law says.

    plotting out DNA realities AFTER you’ve mingled yer juices sort of makes me think you’ve walkedeyes wide open into a situation hoping to figure out the effects at some later date.

    oh, and that statement in the law you cite, that a ‘man is rebuttably presumed’ sort of takes care of those situations when someone is duped, doesn’t it?

  63. It’s amazing to me that this discussion seems to revolve around DNA matching only. So does this simply say piss off to all the adopted children out there? If I adopt a child,, they are my responsibility because I agreed to do it. They are not my children genetically speaking, but I went through a legal process. Same thing with the birth certificate. The sole difference exists in the mother’s lie. Despite that lie, the person who thinks he’s the father will invest time and love upon that child. Suddenly, he get to walk? That seems callous to me.

  64. Hey B, how about this. Instead of testing every child born, test children whose parents are going through a divorce and seeking child support. Hell this might even lower the divorce rate if mama knew her secret would be out.

  65. Here’s my feeling. I have long believed that, just as a woman has a set amount of time (at least for now) in which she can decide that she doesn’t want to be a mother and terminate her pregnancy and just as a woman can give her child up for adoption and terminate her parental rights, that avenue should be available to men.

    There should be some set amount of time in which a man, upon learning that he is or is going to be a biological father, can decide “Hey, you know what? It’s not for me.” and he can then opt out and decide to terminate his parental rights. And, if at some point in his child’s life, he decides he no longer wants to be a father, he should have a way of terminating his parental rights. Whatever the reason–not his biological kid, he can’t afford the child support–I don’t care.

    But once he, or the mom, too, no need to confine it just to fathers, makes that determination–that he doesn’t want to be that kid’s parent–there should be a restraining order placed against the man on behalf of the kid and, if he violates it, he’s then back on the hook to support the kid financially.

    If you don’t want to be the kid’s legal parent, it should mean completely losing access to the kid.

    But it doesn’t matter how angry y’all get and how much you want to say that this means I hate men, you’re never going to convince me that you should have the right to stop financially supporting a kid you have legal parenthood of, no matter how pissed you are at the other parent.

  66. Aren’t these directly two statements directly contradicting each other? What am I missing?

    he decides he no longer wants to be a father, he should have a way of terminating his parental rights. Whatever the reason.

    And

    you’re never going to convince me that you should have the right to stop financially supporting a kid you have legal parenthood of, no matter how pissed you are at the other parent.

    What is legal parenthood? In a lot of cases it consists solely of your name on the birth certificate and a check every month.

  67. You mentioned “signing the birth certificate” several times which raised a question. I checked both of my kids birth certificates which were issued here in Nashville about 18 and 20 years ago. Neither required a signature from the father, only a signature from the mother affirming all the information on the document was correct.

  68. W., legal parenthood gives you the right to petition the court for custody, to try to make different custody arrangements. It often means you can influence where the child lives. If the child gets sick or dies, there might be some financial implications for you (or benefits, if there’s some kind of settlement). Take a gander at the state statute. Being someone’s legal parent is a complex legal arrangement.

    I don’t believe you should be able to stop financially supporting a kid without also terminating your legal rights to that kid.

    Nothing in Campfield’s legislation allowed for that. It was only about making it easy for pissed off dads to hurt their cheating spouses through the kid. The legal father would still have been the legal father; he just would not have had to pay child support. Everything else, including, presumably, custody and visitation would have remained the same.

    Anonymous, if the statute reads that a man can protect himself by refusing to sign the birth certificate (which I believe is the implication) and yet there is no actual mechanism for him to refuse to sign the birth certificate, then that’s an enormous problem and one that should be rectified immediately.

    For sure one person should not be obliged to another person based solely on the signature of a third person.

  69. you’re never going to convince me that you should have the right to stop financially supporting a kid you have legal parenthood of, no matter how pissed you are at the other parent.

    And you’re argument will always allow the guy who actually is responsible for the kid in the first place to get away with not paying child support for the kid he sired. Fantastic.

  70. Dude, seriously, then change the law. Because under the law, the guy who sires the kid is not always legally the kid’s father.

    I mean, y’all can sit around all afternoon dogging on me for telling you that the law says something you don’t like and that Campfield’s legislation is idiotic, but that doesn’t change facts.

  71. y’all can sit around all afternoon dogging on me for telling you that the law says something you don’t like and that Campfield’s legislation is idiotic, but that doesn’t change facts.

    (face palm)……Ugh…….I believe this is part of what Campfields legislation was attempting to address. I am in fact SUPPORTING the idea that the law needs to be changed. SO DOES CAMPFIELDS BILL.

    http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/webbillinfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?BillNumber=HB1523

    Paternity – Provides that man proved by genetic testing not to be father of child is not liable for child support after receipt of such results. – Amends TCA Title 36, Chapter 2, Part 3 and Section 36-5-101.

  72. Yes, but you’re not hearing me. Campfield’s bill does not terminate the non-biological dad’s legal parenthood. That’s why it’s stupid.

    Campfield’s bill, as is usual with him, does not do what it needs to do in order to do what he wants it to do.

  73. Campfield’s bill does not terminate the non-biological dad’s legal parenthood.

    But it does absolve him of liability for child support for the kid that is not his. The only reason a guy is paying child support to begin with is if he is no longer living with the kid. Therefore, this absolves him of financial responsibility, and puts it where it belongs-with the biological father.

  74. Tman,
    YOU are missing B’s point.

    legal parenthood gives you the right to petition the court for custody, to try to make different custody arrangements. It often means you can influence where the child lives. If the child gets sick or dies, there might be some financial implications for you (or benefits, if there’s some kind of settlement). Take a gander at the state statute. Being someone’s legal parent is a complex legal arrangement.

    I don’t believe you should be able to stop financially supporting a kid without also terminating your legal rights to that kid.

    The bill does not address this. It means some vengeful ex can abdicate his financial responsibility yet claim things like visitation or custody because—although he’s not the biological father and has been let off the hook financially—he still has legal parentage of the child. Unless the bill addresses this point (and it doesn’t), it is seriously flawed.

  75. Actually, I think the bill DOES address this-

    “Upon application of either party, the court shall decree a termination of
    support when scientific tests to determine parentage of the child or children, or to
    establish paternity in another person, are performed and such tests exclude the obligor
    from parentage of such child or children.

    It means some vengeful ex can abdicate his financial responsibility yet claim things like visitation or custody because—although he’s not the biological father and has been let off the hook financially—he still has legal parentage of the child.

    I do not believe that custody could be established if the person is not financially obligated. In fact, from what little I know about this, I believe that custody can ONLY be established when the financial commitments are satisfied.

  76. …such tests exclude the obligor (sic) from parentage of such child or children.

    It says nothing about legal rights to the child! It merely states that the obliger isn’t the biological parent. That’s what that sentence says. What the bill does not say is if the tests show that the obliger is excluded from biological parentage of such child or children, and if the obliger then abdicates financial responsibility to such child or children, the obliger will then be denied all legal rights to such child or children.

    It needs to state it… clearly. And it doesn’t.

    As B has pointed out, there is a legal definition for being a parent. This bill does not address those legalities.

  77. I just read the TN statutes and I’m wrong, failure to pay child support is not grounds for termination of visitation or parenting time rights. Essentially it says that visitation or parenting time will not be prevented unless a court order says so.

    I agree with B that Campfield’s bill does not adequately address the fact that lack of child support will not equal lack of parental rights.

    So, I ‘m wrong in my argument that this bill would be a good thing for parents who get screwed over by lying deceitful whores, and I understand (part) of what Aunt B is getting at. The added bonus is that I can sleep better knowing that I don’t agree with Campfield.

    However, I still have a HUGE problem with the idea that just because the man believed the lying deceitful whore to begin with and then later found out that she was lying that he should still be liable for child support just because he signed a piece of paper.

    The birth certificate can be found to be fraudulent, and judges do have the ability to rule it null and void.

    So I’m still not buying that “men are pissed because, in their minds, they’re giving money to their wives and kids in order to purchase their wives’ sexual fidelity and the assurance that those kids share genetic material with him.” This is complete garbage.

  78. Tman, any person who can admit he was wrong after the contentious nature of this thread deserves to be king of Tiny Cat Pants, until he is either dethroned or someone comes along with proof that he is not the biological father of Tiny Cat Pants.

    Hee.

  79. Doesn’t matter what the DNA tests say B, I have apparently already signed the certificate.

    But I ain’t payin’ for the little bastard. :)

  80. I don’t believe you should be able to stop financially supporting a kid without also terminating your legal rights to that kid.
    That I agree with.

    We may have been arguing different things this entire time. I am a little brain addled due to lack of sleep these days.

  81. I think the solution that fits best here is manditory paternity testing for every child, regardless of situation. That should eliminate parental fraud, and establish rights at the time of birth.

  82. well things are clear as mud as usual in the blog world i will say that from what ive learned a marrage certificate isnt a binding contract but a birth certificate is so to be wise all men should refuse signing either ever period make them force you to have a dna test tough sell in court and then you wont have any worries a stray woman can cause of course you wont have any of the love a good woman can offer either

Comments are closed.