You're not the dad? To bad, pay anyway

[Decade]

I was reading this months Maxim today and saw they had an article about an ex-navy guy who told his story about how a woman and her child essentially ruined his life.

To summarize, he went out with a girl a couple of weeks before he was about to serve (I believe in the Gulf War?).

When he began serving, he was contacted by her saying she was pregnant and he was the father.

The man claims that the baby was born one year later and that he was named the father (he found out when his license was suspended for not paying child support). He tried to fight it, but he was already named father and didnt try to file for a paternity test or documents or whatever fast enough in the extremely narrow window of time he had (I believe it's 2 weeks?).

Anyway, he finally got the mother to agree to a private DNA testing that proved he was not the father, but the courts ignored the evidence. The reason being was that they want to try to avoid and possibility of the government having to pay for the kid, and that "by taking away an already established father figure, how is that good for the child?"

In short, the money sucked out of his paychecks every month prevented him from getting a college education and the potential to start a real family of his own, and the payments only ended back in 2004 when the mother finally agreed to sign documents to release him from the "obligation."



While this is only one kind of "horror" story in paternity cases, its incredibly frightening how the government will make a man obligated by law to care for a child who isn't his, all so that the government wont have to pay through welfare instead.

At the same time though, you have to look at the other side of things. While it's not fair to the man, what about the child? Anyone could watch their standard daytime talk show and see an ep of paternity issues where men find out children they've taken care of arnt theres anyway. Most shows try to show the already established father figure as the real father anyway and convince them to continue to be a father to these children.


But is it right for a man to totally abandon a child they've been taking care of for years already? Its a dilemma. Why should a man have to pay for someone elses mistake? But what about the child?

Your thoughts, op9.

[Black fist]

if your not the father it's up to you if you want to take care of it not the god damn goverment.

[ParryDat]

Wow,that's pretty fucked up.

As much money as our government blow annually they couldn't pay for ONE extra child?

What's more screwed up was that she signed the "release"forms after she sucked him dry,so essentially he wasn't in the future plans of the child,and in that period all his money was taken away.

[Beowulf]

And if he had any brains at all he'd file a lawsuit claiming that his civil right to happiness was violated by this woman lying. The judge maybe relegates it as a tort violation case. He gets a good lawyer, goes in front of the jury, tells his sob story, gets whatever he wants.

[Soli]

Wow, that's bad.

If he's not the father, he shouldn't have to do anything for them- at least not forced to by the government. And it's not like kids haven't grown up without a father before. That sounds like a lame excuse to me. =/

[ParryDat]

Wow, that's bad.

If he's not the father, he shouldn't have to do anything for them- at least not forced to by the government. And it's not like kids haven't grown up without a father before. That sounds like a lame excuse to me. =/

Our government has the magical ability to randomly show compassion.

[Black fist]

wait you're reading maxim. Lol.

[ParryDat]

Swimsuit Models...

Plus sometimes there are some pretty interesting stories in the magazine.

[Decade]

Yea

...even though I keep going back to the photoshoot of Megan Fox.

BUT THATS NOT THE POINT OF THIS!

[PopCulturePooka]

It's a similar situation in Australia actually.

[Decade]

Its the toughest position to be put in. I cant imagine having to be put into that kind of situation myself

[Kfisher]

The government would rather spend money on missiles and sending troops to the Middle East than paying a child's welfare, amirite?

Pretty easy to see who's the irresponsible one here.

I'd also say the mother is partially responsible, since her promiscuity partially helped cause this dilemma.

[Angelyne]

Not as fucked up as this story:

Man paid $20,000 in support for nonexistent child

The Associated Press
December 13, 2004
ALBUQUERQUE — Steve Barreras’ attorney said he had never seen anything like it.

After Barreras was hauled into court, peppered with threats and demands for money for a child he adamantly denied fathering five years ago and even paid out $20,000 to support, his ex-wife was under a judge’s order to produce the child.

So last week, Viola Trevino picked up a 2-year-old girl and her grandmother off the street, promised them a trip to see Santa Claus and $50 and took the girl to court, alleging it was her daughter.

“I have seen hundreds of jury trials and I have never seen anything like this,” said Rob Perry, Barreras’ attorney.

It was the latest chapter in a bizarre case that has prompted Gov. Bill Richardson’s office to call for a full investigation.

The elaborate ruse stretched over five years and involved fake DNA evidence, a forged Social Security number and birth and baptismal certificates, court records show.

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/7878.html

In Michigan, a law was passed sometime within the last few years that a pregnant woman had the right to sue her rommates for child support during the pregnancy even if they never had sex. The rationale is that if they moved out, the pregnant woman would lose financial stability.

[japanat]

an article about an ex-navy guy who told his story about how a woman and her child essentially ruined his life.

To summarize, he went out with a girl a couple of weeks before he was about to serve (I believe in the Gulf War?).

When he began serving, he was contacted by her saying she was pregnant and he was the father.

The man claims that the baby was born one year later and that he was named the father (he found out when his license was suspended for not paying child support). He tried to fight it, but he was already named father and didnt try to file for a paternity test or documents or whatever fast enough in the extremely narrow window of time he had (I believe it's 2 weeks?).

Anyway, he finally got the mother to agree to a private DNA testing that proved he was not the father, but the courts ignored the evidence.

Your thoughts, op9.

My thoughts? This woman committed fraud.

The baby was born 12 months after he shipped out, right? She can't be that stupid, or she wouldn't know what a court or paternity case were, hence fraud.

[MNJetter]

I wonder if he's tried to bring her up on fraud charges.

[Roxie]

I was reading this months Maxim
Lies.

Oh..Oh I meant, that's crap. He's not the dad. If doesn't want to be involved, let him go...

[Decade]

:eyepop:...dont hate :box:

[雨]

photoshop of Megan Fox.fixercized.

[Decade]

:gloomy: If I start talkin about Megan Fox we take away from the subject about how men get screwed with child support in these cases.

...but it's Megan Fox :gloomy:

[Roxie]

:eyepop:...dont hate :box:
i'm not hating, I'm truthing...

[Jetsetlemming]

i'm not hating, I'm truthing...
Reading Maxim is an acceptable thing to do. It's not exactly a Playboy. :O

[geesehoward4life]

This is a lose-lose situation for men. Let's also look at the thread and how as soon as Megan Fox is mentioned the men in this thread caused a three car pile-up to talk about Maxim and Megan Fox, who may well be the next woman to bilk one of the male thread posters here out of money! LOL!

So you wanted your answer on why the Child Support and Domestic Court is prone for making bizarre if not absurd decisions... this thread has already shown you why. Men see ass and tits and the wrong head starts making the decisions until they realize that their "dream girl" has just pilfered them of every last cent they had! LOL!

[Anders]

It certainly is an interesting story, but I don't know if I would trust Maxim to be a reputable source for anything besides the occasional hard-on. I don't think we're hearing the full story, but from what I've read it doesn't seem reasonable or legal for any judge to order the man to continue the child support payments when he is proven not to be the father. If some judge did, the man would have his pick of the top lawyers in his area who would probably jump at the opportunity to represent him in a lawsuit.

Again, I wouldn't trust any article in Maxim or Playboy to be worth anything more than an entertaining "read".

[Decade]

[B]It certainly is an interesting story, but I don't know if I would trust Maxim to be a reputable source for anything besides the occasional hard-on.
Oh I trust them full on for getting complete and satisfying hard ons, I just dont trust their choice in women ranking (STILL bitter as hell for having Lindsy Lohan being the sexiest woman of the year. Hope those editors got fired :bang:)


But, if you research around a bit, you'll see thats the typical kind of case in these situations.


Gotta love the gender equality in this one. Mom not only gets custody of the child in question, but gets a guy whose not even the father to pay for it too.

What was the researcher in Maxim's best advice for avoiding this problem? Get a Vasectomy :bored:

These laws obviously need to be redone

[Anders]

The article does make you wonder though- If I were named by lets say someone I worked with (and never hooked up with) as the father of her baby, would I be able to recover the child support payments I would have to pay to her until the paternity test proves my innocence? What about damages for ruining my marriage? As I said, that was an interesting article.

[Radiance]

This thread reminds me of the court case in Atlanta where a dude got a vasectomy cause he had decided he didn't want to be a father, ever. Got it in his late 20s-early 30s. He starts seeing a woman, they hit things off but she isn't the one for him in his mind. In her mind, she has found the guy she is going to live off for the rest of her life... so she starts talking to him about wanting a baby. He doesn't want to marry her but she can't accept that.

Now she doesn't know he had a vasectomy, he always uses a condom, looks like any other guy out there. So their talks continue on for a few months when she decides she has had it, she is going to get what she wants regardless of if he wants it or not. She goes out and screws around with some random guy and gets pregnant. Goes back to the guy telling him its his child, the condom must have broke, something happened and now she is pregnant. He accuses her of cheating and she makes a big scene, eventually the cops are called and a restraining order is filed.

So eventually she takes him to court for child support, he goes into court and tells the judge she cheated on him and its not his child. The judge orders him to pay child support and he tells the judge he will not pay any child support what so ever. The judge threatens him and tells him they will garnish his wages at which point he tells the judge he will not pay any child support what so ever because he is sterile, his sperm count is zero, he produces two certificates from two different doctors stating the results of his sperm test and a certificate from the doctor that preformed the vasectomy. At this point she explodes and physically assaults him, gets six months in jail.

I vote hillarious. :o

[erbiumfiber]

Contesting Paternity

http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/cpcs5Paternity.html?area_id=15

"Child Support Survival Guide: Disputing Paternity
Paternity is an issue when parents are unmarried to each other.
Paternity cases, increasing in frequency, are potentially at issue if the parents of a child were not married to each other when the child was conceived. Paternity is only infrequently an issue for a child born when the mother and named father were married to each other at the time of the child's conception, based on the presumed fidelity of married couples. This presumption, however, sometimes conflicts with the reality that married couples do not always remain faithful to one another.

When the parties were married to each other at the time of conception and the custodial mother names her husband as the father, paternity is not normally questioned. A man who believes that a child is the result of his wife's extramarital affair must file an Answer disputing paternity and request blood tests in order to determine whether he is the biological father.

If the parents were not married to each other at the time a child was conceived, a paternity interview is commonly necessary. Paternity interviews ask the custodial parent personal and sensitive questions regarding the conception of the child. A custodial mother who wants to avoid this interview should carefully complete and return all of the paternity forms given to her by the agency.

There have been instances in which a child support order was entered against a father who, at the time of the order, believed he was the true biological father. He later learned that the mother had an affair and he may not be the biological father of the child for whom he has been paying support. When this situation occurs, the legal father must choose whether to attempt to change the court order. This usually requires that the man hire an attorney, request blood tests, and explain to the court why paternity is being disputed.

If blood tests confirm that he is not the biological father, the court should be able to set aside the judgment of paternity and the child support order, particularly if the man had been intentionally misled.

Even if he is relieved of duty to provide child support, a man who was once the legal father of a child might not be able to recover the support he already paid. Some states however, limit the time for a legal father to initiate an action to reverse a paternity judgment. Because states have different time restrictions and rules for resolving paternity issues, noncustodial parents who intend to dispute paternity after the fact should contact an attorney for legal advice.

An occasional court has denied a request to set aside a judgment of paternity and the accompanying child support order on the grounds that the adjudicated father has developed and maintained a long-term relationship with the child, and overturning the judgment is not in the best interests of the child. The whole subject has provoked bitter legal controversy. Its final resolution is not clear.

Repayment of years of child support to a wrongly named father is usually an impossible task for the custodial mother. A judge faced with this situation might simply terminate ongoing child support payments and decline to order repayment of support already paid to the mother. A wrongly named father who has paid child support under a court order might file a civil lawsuit against the mother for repayment of the support payments. The advice of an attorney is usually essential.

The Welfare Reform Act and some state laws no longer allow the custodial parent to name the noncustodial parent on the birth certificate without an acknowledgment of paternity by the noncustodial parent. Before a man becomes liable to pay child support his paternity must be judicially established.

Many parents falsely believe that listing the father's name on their child's birth certificate establishes the paternity of that claimed father. Naming the noncustodial father's name on the birth certificate does not legally establish paternity. As a result of the many court challenges brought by defendants who were wrongly named on the birth certificate, the Welfare Reform Act requires all states to enact programs with hospitals in which a noncustodial father can sign a voluntary declaration adjudicating his paternity at the time of the child's birth. (In California, this program is called the Paternity Opportunity Program (POP).) This program should assist states in meeting the federal mandate that all state agencies establish paternity on all children born out of wedlock. If the noncustodial father declines to sign a voluntary acknowledgment, the custodial parent is not to be allowed to list the alleged father's name on the child's birth certificate. This paternity declaration form is also available through many prenatal clinics.

Noncustodial fathers are allowed 60 days to rescind a voluntary paternity declaration if a mistake has been made, and an extra two years if fraud, a material error, or duress is established. A paternity declaration signed by a minor-father will not become a paternity judgment until 60 days after he has emancipated.

Establishing a child's paternity has a benefit to the child that is independent of the ongoing financial support that a judgment of paternity produces. A legal judgment of paternity can entitle a child to receive a portion of the father's estate, titles, or inheritance. The adjudication of paternity can help protect a child from the efforts of members of the father's family to exclude the child from a portion of the father's inheritance on the ground that the child was born out of wedlock and has not been acknowledged by the father.

The child of a deceased father has rights to survivor's benefits and Social Security benefits paid by the federal and state governments. These potential benefits for a child that can result from an adjudication of paternity are considered so important that adjudication of paternity has been made a mandatory function of CSE agencies.

Several years ago, our agency handled a case in which an unwed custodial mother on welfare had four children by the same noncustodial father. When questioned by CSE staff over a five-year period, this parent denied knowing where the noncustodial father lived or worked. The mother provided enough data to our agency to prevent her from being penalized for withholding information, but she did not give us enough to enable the agency to pursue the noncustodial parent to adjudicate the paternity of their four children. Our staff did not believe this mother was being truthful. Even after we explained the need to protect the children's rights by adjudicating paternity, the mother continued to claim that she had no knowledge of the father's whereabouts. She claimed that each of the four conceptions of her children by this man were the result of casual and unplanned sex with him.

About one year after our last conversation with the mother we learned that the noncustodial parent had been killed. The custodial mother went to the Social Security office to apply for death benefits for her four children. Because there was no court order adjudicating paternity and no other documentation substantiating the mother's claim that the children had been fathered by the deceased man, the custodial mother's claim for benefits was denied.

When the custodial mother demanded that our agency contact the Social Security Administration to substantiate her claim, we reminded her about our interviews in which we had advised her to adjudicate the paternity of her children. The mother realized that by inaction and cover-up she had caused her children to face a lifetime of poverty, and had deprived them of their claims to their father's inheritance and Social Security death benefits. All of this was the result of a misguided attempt to protect the noncustodial father from paying child support.

We hope this discussion will give you a better idea of the importance of paternity adjudication in protecting potential financial resources.


Blood tests

If a man named as a father of a child questions whether he is the biological father, he should give serious consideration to paternity blood testing. The average cost ranges from $200 to $400 for a test that compares genetic markers in the mother's, the child's, and the alleged father's blood. If the custodial parent is currently receiving AFDC, the tests can usually be without a down payment of fees. Payment will not usually be requested unless the results establish paternity of the named father. If the results of the testing establish that the named father is not the biological father, he is usually relieved of any obligation to pay the costs of the blood testing and that man is excluded as the biological father on AFDC cases. Blood tests are paid for by the noncustodial parent only when the test proves his paternity.

In paternity cases involving multiple sexual partners, in order to establish which person on the list of a mother's sexual partners is the true biological father of a child, the CSE agency usually begins its search with the man deemed to be the most likely possibility. Paternity is established by process of elimination and the CSE agency commonly waives payment of blood test costs until the father has been identified by the testing.

The level of certainty of the identification can usually be stated as such a high percentage that virtually no other man in the world would be biologically capable of being the father. Thus, it is readily accepted that most courtroom challenges to the process are unsuccessful.

Blood testing was challenged in a case recently handled by our agency, which identified a father for whom we had searched for 17 years. When this man was located he laughed about the length of time it took to find and identify him and remarked about how fortunate he was that he would only have to pay child support for six months before the child turned 18.

When he learned that he would have to pay back child support to reimburse the government for AFDC the child had received, he decided to contest. He hired an attorney and submitted to genetic blood tests, which identified him as the father. He then challenged the method of testing and lost that fight, too. The father's next argument was that he shouldn't have to pay welfare reimbursement costs, because the custodial mother had concealed the child from him; he lost that argument also. After five years contesting in court, when the child was 22, he was ordered to pay $20,000 for reimbursement of welfare costs paid by the taxpayers to support the child.

By waging a legal war over a biological issue that can be readily determined, the man probably doubled the financial cost."




I think this bit is quite important The Welfare Reform Act and some state laws no longer allow the custodial parent to name the noncustodial parent on the birth certificate without an acknowledgment of paternity by the noncustodial parent. Before a man becomes liable to pay child support his paternity must be judicially established

So you can't be named as a parent and then forced to pay simply because the mother named you. However, the case cited by Decade apparently occurred before this time and the mother was allowed to name the man as a parent even though he believed he was not the father.

This is also quite a serious bit and is likely what happened in this case:
In any situation in which the named noncustodial parent is unsure of his paternity of the child or child support is an issue, the noncustodial parent makes a serious mistake by allowing a default judgment to be entered against him.

People ignore legal papers (my brother does all the time and ends up in quite a bit of trouble) hoping the problem will go away. Unfortunately, the court will just rule against you without hearing your side of the story.

There were web sites that showed me laws (too much legalese to reproduce here) that if the man was defrauded into believing he was the father, the determination of paternity would not be "res judicata" against him (that is, it wouldn't be considered as already decided since he didn't know of the fraud and therefore couldn't present an adequate defense).


This website also points out that you can sue the mother in civil court for previously paid child support. It also points out the situation that the judge in Decade's articlet apparently referred to- a longstanding relationship with the child. Now, the child in Decade's article does not appear to have had any contact with the "father" so the judge made a serious error. I still don't believe that a man should have to pay once it has been proven he is not the biological father. And he should still be allowed access to that child due to the emotional bonds that have been forged.

Sorry for the long post. I thought the above description was very good and easy to read for non-lawyers.

[Radiance]

Actually, come to think of it she shouldn't have even been able to name him father while he was stationed abroad, even a spouse (unless previously given power of attorney) can not sign documents of that nature without a high ranking military attorney signing a "special" form of power of attorney above and beyond that of a standard civilian power of attorney. (A good friend stationed in Iraq had to send a written letter, call via satalite phone, and provide extremely detailed personal information so that his wife could buy a house in both of their names.)

[Shishio]

I would never stand for this.

[Beowulf]

erbiumfiber is right, this sort of thing only happens to guys who are stupid enough to allow themselves to fall into these situations. Swift legal action cuts these women off at the knees.

[Roxie]

The Continuing Crisis: On one fateful day in 2003 in Sikeston, Mo., according to Holly Adams, she had sex at different times with Raymon and Richard Miller, who are identical twins and who did not know about each other's encounter. Adams became pregnant, but both Millers deny paternity despite, of course, an identical DNA match for each brother (with both claiming that it must have been the other). Adams has named Raymon the father, and a court must decide paternity and child support just like courts did before DNA testing was developed.

[Radiance]

Ouch, now thats a harsh case. I wonder how often something like that happens. :X

[Jetsetlemming]

The Continuing Crisis: On one fateful day in 2003 in Sikeston, Mo., according to Holly Adams, she had sex at different times with Raymon and Richard Miller, who are identical twins and who did not know about each other's encounter. Adams became pregnant, but both Millers deny paternity despite, of course, an identical DNA match for each brother (with both claiming that it must have been the other). Adams has named Raymon the father, and a court must decide paternity and child support just like courts did before DNA testing was developed.
One can only wonder... What the FUCK was up with Holly Adams? :boggled: Did she think the two guys were one, and somehow never mentioned a name during the encounters? But then typically if you know a set of identical twins for a while, you begin to tell the difference pretty easily (unless they wear the same clothes, hairstyle, and appearance and talk together to creep people out >_>). My little sister has a pair of identical twins as friends. So was was she, out of the blue, having multiple encounters with someone she didn't know?

[Plekto]

Easy. Slightly drunk people and the guys decide to play a trick. She probably told her boyfriend that she was taking birth control or something so they thought they could get away with it. And things went south from there.

Oops. If I was the judge, I'd make them split the payment 50/50 as there's no way to know which one did it, but both are obviously at fault. My ass they didn't know about each other's encounter on the same day - like she'd act as if nothing had happened previously for the second guy who was acting like the other(not to mention you'd need to dress the same to pull it off at least)

[erbiumfiber]

I don't think the woman was confused- she was having sex with two brothers on the same day/around the same time. I believe she could pull this off without the other brother knowing.

I love watching the "Maury" show when I go back to the States when it's "paternity testing day." Some of these chicks have tested 3 and 4 guys and none of them is the father. Man, if you're sleeping around that much you better have some fool-proof birth control.

Still, I agree, split the bill 50/50 with both getting visitation rights (Billy's "Two Daddies").

[Pierrot le Fou]

This thread reminds me of the court case in Atlanta where a dude got a vasectomy cause he had decided he didn't want to be a father, ever. Got it in his late 20s-early 30s. He starts seeing a woman, they hit things off but she isn't the one for him in his mind. In her mind, she has found the guy she is going to live off for the rest of her life... so she starts talking to him about wanting a baby. He doesn't want to marry her but she can't accept that.

Now she doesn't know he had a vasectomy, he always uses a condom, looks like any other guy out there. So their talks continue on for a few months when she decides she has had it, she is going to get what she wants regardless of if he wants it or not. She goes out and screws around with some random guy and gets pregnant. Goes back to the guy telling him its his child, the condom must have broke, something happened and now she is pregnant. He accuses her of cheating and she makes a big scene, eventually the cops are called and a restraining order is filed.

So eventually she takes him to court for child support, he goes into court and tells the judge she cheated on him and its not his child. The judge orders him to pay child support and he tells the judge he will not pay any child support what so ever. The judge threatens him and tells him they will garnish his wages at which point he tells the judge he will not pay any child support what so ever because he is sterile, his sperm count is zero, he produces two certificates from two different doctors stating the results of his sperm test and a certificate from the doctor that preformed the vasectomy. At this point she explodes and physically assaults him, gets six months in jail.

I vote hillarious. :o
It's from craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html):
I'll try to sum up a funny story that happened a few years ago:

I got a vasectomy.

I met a girl soon afterwards. She was nice and attractive but with a selfish streak that raised a big red flag. She was 32 at the time and I could practically HEAR her biological clock ticking. Regardless, she was a good lay, easy on the eyes, and reasonably good company.

I did NOT tell her about my vasectomy and I always used a condom with her to protect against STDs. She assumed, obviously, that the condom was only used for birth control. Silly girl.

We date for a few months. I never made any move towards commitment but she brought it up ocassionally. For me, this was a casual but pleasant relationship. For her - as I was to find out - it was part of life-changing series of events that she was planning very carefully.

Four months into dating, I get the "I'm pregnant" talk. She's going on and on about how the condom must have broke and now we really need to think about getting married "for the baby". She's positively giddy. She has a baby in her and she thinks she's gonna have a good meal ticket (me) to go along with her new 7lb annuity.

At this point, I'm just as giddy. I get to pull the reverse "oops" on her. I figured that she slept with some bad boy and got knocked up. Good thing I was using condoms! Better still that I have a serious mistrust of women who can't think beyond their own uteri.

So I wait a couple of days to "think about all this." I meet her again. I say I don't want kids and that she should have an abortion. I know where this is going and sure enough it goes there. She goes completely batshit insane on me. There were the usual insults about my manhood. There were threats of legal action. It was all very ugly and I was loving every minute of it.

Well, I let her stew for a few days. She leaves me nasty messages on my phone. She sends awful emails. I'm laughing hysterically.

It was time to drop the hammer. While she was stewing I was busy. First I get a notarized copy from the urologist who performed the vasectomy. Next I get a notarized copy of the TWO test results indicating a "negative test result for sperm" to show I'm sterile and shooting blanks. Finally, I get a letter from a shark attorney stating he has seen the other documents and is prepared to litigate against this woman if she continues to communicate with me in such an unpleasant manner. Also, the letter states that we will insist on DNA testing to show that the baby is not mine. I'm ready.

I meet with this woman at her place. I bring flowers and a small bit of jewelry to show I am willing to reconcile and assume my responsibilities as a new father. I also have stuck in my pocket the documents I have prepared.

She's all giddy again. Her plan is going perfectly - or so she thinks. We talk about our future. We have some pretty good sex. Then, as I am about to walk out the door, I ask her the $64,000 question. "Are you sure that this baby is mine?"

Well, she goes batshit insane again. Hell, she ought to. Her plan could completely unravel if there is ANY question about my paternity. Oh, she's really screaming now. How dare I question her morals. Do I think she's a slut. I'm just trying to weasel out of my responsibilities... blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'm not really mad. I'm kind of embarrassed for her. But since she won't shut up and the neighbors can hear all of this, I ask her to step back inside and sit down. She sits on the sofa and calms down a bit. She is glaring at me with all the moral self-righteousness that only a woman can muster up. She thinks she has me trapped. She is 100% convinced her plan has worked. Oh, the tangled web of lies and deceit she has wrought around herself and I am about to hack through them with a few pieces of paper.

I reach into my pocket slowly. I extract the three pieces of paper and unfold them slowly and deliberately.

I tell her simply, "You're screwed".

Her look doesn't change. There is no way she can fathom what I have prepared.

I continue. "I am sterile"

Her look changes just a bit. Something is beginning to sink in. Naturally, she reverts to women's logic. "You're full of shit. You're trapped and you know it."

I hold up the letter and the test results. "Three months before we met, I had a vasectomy. Here is a notarized letter from him stating what I had done. Here are two test results showing that I tested negative for the presence of sperm. Blanks. I am shooting blanks. That baby inside you is simply not mine."

This woman is not to be swayed by logic and clear documentation. "Bullshit, those are fakes."

I was ready for that. "No, they are real. This last piece of paper is from my attorney. It's a simple letter to you that states if you pursue any kind of legal action against me for child support that I will insist on a DNA test to prove paternity, that is, to prove that your baby is not mine."

I give the woman all the documents. She reads them slowly, deliberately. With each passing second she can feel in her soul that she has made a very bad mistake. With denial swept away, she started to cry. It's a small cry at first. Then it becomes deeper and more painful. By the time she gets to the letter from the lawyer she is sobbing.

I had no sympathy for her. I turned and walked out the door. Even after I closed the door I could still hear her sobbing.

Epilogue -

I never heard directly from this woman again. I did hear through my friends that she did indeed have the baby. I also heard that the real father was some guy in a band she had met. I assumed that after 30, women stopped going after musicians, bikers, criminals, and thugs. Silly me for thinking the best of American women.

The Moral of the Story -

Get a vasectomy but keep it a secret.

[Jetsetlemming]

She's horrible, but he's not exactly a saint either... I can't see any legitimate, honest reason to keep a vasectomy secret, except so women who plan on futures and kids won't turn you down for being sterile....

[Balain]

A friend of mine went through a bad divorce. Before everything was final his ex-sister-in-law told him he should have a paternity test for his 4 year old daughter.

He did and he was 100% not the father. The judge said he had a choice. He didn't have to pay child support cause he wasn't the father. But if he didn't the mother didn't have to give him visiting rights to the girl he raised as his own for 4 years.

He was really ticked at the ex but in the end he kept paying child support.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Why should he divulge it? He said himself he considered it a casual relationship -- it would be a different story if he viewed it as serious, was planning on marriage, and/or she had asked him and he lied about it.

[Jetsetlemming]

Why should he divulge it? He said himself he considered it a casual relationship -- it would be a different story if he viewed it as serious, was planning on marriage, and/or she had asked him and he lied about it.
I was speaking more about the recommendation at the end, but for this guy, why the hell wasn't "I've had a vasectomy, I'm sterile" the first thing out of his mouth when she said she was pregnant?

[MNJetter]

That's true. She was pretty sneaky and horrible in getting herself pregnant to trap him, but he lost my sympathy when he took his time in telling her why the baby couldn't be hers. We don't know the whole story, either - what if enough time had passed by the time he finally told her to where she couldn't legally get the abortion anymore?

[Kaji]

Eh, turnabout is fair play. If she was attempting to entrap him, then he'd be perfectly justified in getting his ducks in a row before dropping the bomb on her.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I was speaking more about the recommendation at the end, but for this guy, why the hell wasn't "I've had a vasectomy, I'm sterile" the first thing out of his mouth when she said she was pregnant?
Because she was being a manipulative she-beast.

[Kfisher]

This might sound like a stupid question, but can a guy still cum even after he gets vasectonomy? o.o

[Jetsetlemming]

I believe he just produces sperm-less semen. Vasectomy doesn't cut the sex drive any, afaik.

[Decade]

I love watching the "Maury" show when I go back to the States when it's "paternity testing day." Some of these chicks have tested 3 and 4 guys and none of them is the father. Man, if you're sleeping around that much you better have some fool-proof birth control.

Dude, that's nothing. Last summer before I started working I caught an ep here and there.

Most insane Maury Ep name ever

"34 Paternity tests later, will we find the father?"

:eek: Is my only reaction. At what point do you have enough shame to STOP going on tv and publically humiliate yourself?

I didnt feel sympathy for em either because its obvious they were only doing it for the attention, not so much their kids. :bang:

It also kind of angers me how shows like Maury try to show these women as the victims all the time and the men as demonic assholes. They spend 5-10 minutes per man trying to depict them as being horrible men who wont take care of their own kids, but the MOMENT they are NOT announced the father, they immediately pull them off stage and focus on the "victim" woman.

Yes, it's sad that those kids still dont have a father, but what about the men whose lives they've essentially ruined? While some of them may not have had the best track records, some of them have tried moving on to new relationships only to have them ruined by their ex, not to mention their reputations are shit now.

But no, they only focus on the "victim" in these cases, which is obviously only limited to the woman. :bored:

[Decade]

IRT the original story


I took another look at the article today during my lunchbreak.


Apparently, the story went as follows:

Since he was already deployed when the court hearing happened to claim paternity, he wasnt present (obviously). As such, the messed up judge honored the woman's claim because it became default (the case in which the man doesnt show up to a paternity case hearing. But he COULDNT, he was DEPLOYED).

When he came back to the states, he tried to set up a hearing for a paternity dispute but couldnt as his license was suspended for not paying child support as she had named him as father on a welfare application.

And that was it, she caught him perfectly. Once your names on paper or you sign any document, you're locked.

I only wish there was a real link to the article I could post on here to show the full story :gloomy:

[erbiumfiber]

OK, that's pretty much in line with what I posted earlier- this was a default judgment. Kills you every time. However, I'm willing to be that he just ignored the legal papers and didn't file whatever he needed to file to show that he could not appear in court. Or he didn't have an attorney show up to represent his interests (e.g., demand paternity testing).

Deployed or not, there are things you can do and it doesn't seem like he did them. He should have gone to his commanding officer, or to legal services in the Navy, SOMETHING. And, although I am too lazy to look it up, I am sure there are court rules in every jurisdiction that deal (fairly) with what to do when the other party is active duty military. But you need to file something with the court.