|Although it is generally unheard of, there are rare cases when restitution for paternity fraud is ordered by the courts. Sadly, most of the few such cases that were ever heard in court were appealed by the party that committed paternity fraud, and the cuckolded man and falsely-fingered "father" was almost invariably left to hold the bag. The only winners in such cases
are the criminal who is being rewarded for her crime and the parties in the legal industry that make a living of fighting either to make such criminal fraud legal or
to seek to obtain compensation for their defrauded clients.|
There are only a few such cases, no more than can be counted on the fingers of one hand in the whole world, that have been published and came to the attention of Fathers for Life. A more in-depth search by an Australian lawyer who won a court decision in favour of her client, a man that had been duped into assuming paternity and paid dearly for the crime of being a father, proved to her that her victory is a landmark decision in Australia, and perhaps for the whole world. That brings
the total of such and similar "victories" in the world to three.
There is another case, one that predates by a few years those reported recently in the news. But that case, although it assigned in the end the responsibility to make child support payments to the right father, did not allow that restitution be made to the wronged father. The "father" who had to pay all along got nothing to compensate him for his troubles. That story,
Paternity Fraud "Corrected", is shown at the end of this page.
First have a look at the news reports concerning restitution in cases of paternity fraud.
|The Age (Australia)|
November 23 2002
By Ian Munro
A man who successfully sued his former wife for damages because she told him he was the father of her lover's children had set an Australian legal precedent, the man's lawyer said yesterday.
Judge John Hanlon awarded Liam Magill $70,000 for general damages and economic loss, and ordered his former wife, Meredith Magill, to pay costs....
You would think that to be a fairly generous settlement, but it is not enough to compensate the wronged man. After he receives his compensation, he'll have to pay his lawyer's bill. Although the lawyer in that landmark case offered her services pro-bono, now that the case is over and the mother has been judged to be a fraud artist, the mother appealed. That will cost more money,
and Liam Magill hasn't got any left. For one thing, he's not been paid yet by the mother of the children (don't forget that she, or more correctly her lawyer, appealed the decision), and Liam Magill's lawyer can't carry on indefinitely without having a bit of money to fight the appeal and is therefore asking for donations.
|DONATIONS TO THE LIAM MAGILL FIGHTING FUND CAN BE SENT TO|
Vivien Mavropoulos & Associates in Trust for Liam Magill
Commonwealth Bank of Australia- East Bentleigh Branch, Victoria, Australia
Account no/ 06-3126-10216004
A page for on-line donations to help funding this appeal has now been set up. Success with the appeal would help all men that can potentially be or are in similar circumstances. Even if you give only a dollar, that will help.
Maybe you can figure out what there is to appeal and to object to; I can't. The cheating mother took her husband for a ride. She cheated on him and defrauded him while she was married to him. She defrauded him after they had broken up. She defrauded even the government (the taxpayers, that is) by sicking Child Maintenance Enforcement (paid for by the taxpayers) on him, and she tries to use the government's court system (paid for by the taxpayers) as a proxy for making her fraud work. Why not? It usually works for such a super-gold-digger. If she can't afford a lawyer, the government (the taxpayers, that is) will even supply her with one to fight for her right to exercise paternity fraud. That way the poor victim of the paternity fraud will be forced to fight against an opponent with virtually unlimited resources.
Update 2006 09 05:
Dads lost in cloud cuckold land by
Babette Francis -
September 5th 2006
FATHER'S Day was happy for most fathers, but a day of
anguish for those whose children had died because of illness
And fathers who do not have contact with their children
because of divorce.
In this group there is a sub-section, whose grief is
compounded by paternity fraud.
These fathers have been cuckolded, deceived by their wives
into believing the children were theirs when they were
fathered by other men.
The word cuckold is derived from the cuckoo, which places
its eggs in the nests of other birds.
The plight of one such father is being considered by the
Australian High Court.
Liam Magill married Meredith McClelland in April 1988.
Their first child was born in April 1989, their second in
July 1990 and their third in November 199l.
In November 1992, Meredith left the family home taking the
three children with her. She said she was not happy.
Two days later, she applied for child support for all three
children. Liam and Meredith were divorced in February 1998.
Liam paid 32 per cent of his gross salary from November 24,
1992 until September 1999, when he could no longer work
because of depression.
At one stage, the Child Support Agency left Liam $132 a week
on which to survive. This increased later to $200 a week. On
this meagre amount, he had to cover living expenses and
weekend access visits of the three children.
Financially crippled, Liam could not cope and that is where
Liam's story might have ended, another victim of "no-fault"
divorce and a pawn of the CSA.
However, in February 1999 Liam met Cheryl King, who has been
his tenacious friend and adviser since.
Like me, Cheryl loathes injustice. She urged Liam to get the
children DNA tested. This process took almost a year.
In March 2000, the tests showed the two younger children
were not his.
Meredith then told her children that her friend, Derek R,
was their father, even though he was not tested for another
In 2002, Liam sued his ex-wife for damages caused by deceit
and in November 2002 Judge Hanlon in the Victorian County
Court awarded Liam $70,000 in damages, excluding child
support payments he had made.
In December 2002, Meredith's legal team, funded by the
Victorian Women's Legal Service (ie, the taxpayer) appealed
against Judge Hanlon's decision.
The appeal was heard in November 2004 and, in March last
year, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal allowed Meredith
to win on a technicality.
In mid-2004, before the hearing of Meredith's appeal, Derek
R and his wife moved to Southport, Queensland.
Liam's friend Cheryl considers the CSA has not done enough
to make Derek R pay for his two children, or to refund the
payments made for years by Liam Magill.
In November last year, permission was given for Liam's
appeal against the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal to be
heard by the High Court.
The High Court Appeal was heard in April this year but the
decision has not been handed down.
Some issues remain unresolved. Why has the CSA not refunded
the money extracted from Liam Magill for children he did not
Why has the CSA not obtained these arrears from the
biological father [that is: natural fathers] ?
And why are we taxpayers, through the feminist Victorian
Women's Legal Service, involved in helping an unfaithful
wife defraud her husband?
Paternity fraud is not merely financial, but goes to the
heart of relationships between husband, wife and children.
The feminist attitude seems to be that which is described in
Helen Garner's book, The First Stone, about a case of sexual
harassment: "He may not be guilty, but other men are so he
has to pay."
I hope Premier Bracks, Attorney-General Hulls and federal
Minister Hockey, who oversees the CSA, had a happy Father's
Day and will end the victimisation of Liam Magill.
Perhaps by establishing a men's legal service for victims of
Update 2006 10 31: Liam Magill
had his day in court, and the final judgment is in. Liam does
not deserve to be compensated for having overpaid on child support
because to pay him compensation would inconvenience the criminal
mother who defrauded Liam Magill. You find that hard to
believe? You better believe it. Here is
the full court decision.
I would be grateful for any valid explanation offered by
anyone that tells why men go along with being duped not only by
women but by the legal system to boot.
Does any of that make sense? Maybe the complaint described in the following article, a complaint by a man who got defrauded of his sperm and who then got sued for child support will make better sense.
A Czech man has been awarded more than £20,000 compensation after his ex-girlfriend tricked him into giving her his sperm.
Jitka Bouchalova used Tomas Kaspar's sperm to become pregnant and then demanded child-support from him.
In an unprecedented case in the Czech Republic, a Prague court ruled that the sperm of Kaspar, 36, was "misused" by Bouchalova, who in 2002 gave birth to twins.
Bouchalova was ordered to pay Kaspar £1,070 while the Gest fertility clinic was told to pay him £21,400 over the incident.
The court ruled in favour of Kaspar after he claimed that in 1999 Bouchalova got him to give her a sample of his sperm after she told him doctors at the clinic needed it to determine what contraception was best for her.
The clinic, which has appealed against the verdict, said Kaspar had approved the use of his sperm for artificial conception.
Bouchalova insisted that Kaspar had been aware exactly what the sperm would be used for.
Story filed: 13:04 Thursday 11th September 2003
Check for more on:
We don't know, and the article doesn't say, whether the "compensation" received in that case will be sufficient to cover all of the lawyers' fees for the efforts by the lawyers to earn that money.
However, it is quite clear that in the following case the compensation paid for child support paid over the years to the mother by the falsely alleged "father" of the child is not sufficient to compensate anyone much for anything. Nevertheless, who is to argue with the victim who received the compensation?
"I'm just ecstatic. It's been more than 15 years of turmoil in my life," said Sims Friday, after being informed by his attorney John Petit, that a check for $10,144.44 had been received. "Justice did prevail."
Maybe he was just a little hasty, and perhaps he should have waited until he found out 1.) how much the total bill of his lawyer came to, and 2.) how much would be left to himself after his lawyer was through making all the deductions he thought were due to him.
But what the heck, why begrudge Jonathan Sims his elation. Is he not entitled to a moment of ecstasy, even if that is hardly sufficient by itself for the more than 20 years of hell the mother of the child that wasn't his put him through?
|The Times Recorder|
Sunday, September 7, 2003
Man receives child support payback after 20-plus years
by BRIAN GADD, Staff Writer
ZANESVILLE -- A saga that has stretched for more than 20 years came to an end for a Zanesville man.
Money that Jonathan Sims paid for child support -- for a child that was determined through DNA testing not to be his daughter -- was finally returned to him last week by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services through the Muskingum County Child Support Enforcement Agency.
"I'm just ecstatic. It's been more than 15 years of turmoil in my life," said Sims Friday, after being informed by his attorney John Petit, that a check for $10,144.44 had been received. "Justice did prevail."
Sims married the child's mother in 1982 -- not long after the baby was born. But he left the relationship a few months later. The couple divorced in 1984. At the time, Sims submitted the results of the blood test to his attorney, the prosecutor's office, the welfare department and the county's child support enforcement agency.
Sims and the mother are white, and the child is black.
"I talked her into it (the DNA testing), took copies to everyone, and I was told everything would be taken care of," he said.
But his ordeal was just beginning.
He said his attorney did not file the paperwork in court. And when the child's mother moved to another county, officials there decided to collect support from him.
The state had toughened its child support laws by then, and agencies were targeting non-paying parents. The motion for support was granted.
Sims appealed to the 5th District Court of Appeals, but he lost, and support was deducted from his paycheck.
Sims was also charged with back payments from the time of his divorce in 1984 until the motion was granted in 1988 -- even though everyone acknowledged he was not the biological father
[that is: natural fathers] of the child.
Copyright ©2003 Times Recorder. All rights reserved.
Times Recorder Home: http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/index.html
Too bad that the article didn't provide the sum total of all of the financial devastation that particular false allegation of paternity cost the victim at the butt-end of it. Let's hope that all involved in pulling that fraud off will be able to live with their conscience and happily ever after.
Actually, once it has been established that a given child is not the biological offspring of the alleged father, it is really no longer a case of fraud when the government continues to enforce child support payments by a man who has been defrauded of his money, perhaps his love and care for the child. It then becomes a case of tort by the government that is usually justified by rationalizing that it is in the best interest of the child that the wrong man pays child support.
The difference between the level of success of Jonathan Sims and that of any of the millions of falsely fingered "dads" (have no illusions, they all are deadbeat dads in the eyes of the law, mothers and feminists alike) who don't win their fights or who don't bother fighting one is small. The costs to all of them are much the same. The lawyer fees paid in those cases where objections are raised are about the same that Jonathan Sims paid for his fleeting moment of "ecstasy".
Here is another story, where the State feels that it is powerless to correct the wrongs it wrought. Is that now "in the interest of the children" or in the interest of the State?
26 May 2002, Page 11
Nowadays the vow is not to tie the knot
By Gerard McManus
Australian men are avoiding marriage because of the financial ruin marital break-ups bring.
....The Full Bench of the Family Court recently ruled that it had no power to force the Child Support Agency to refund $4290 in overpayments to a Victorian man who discovered by DNA tests that he was not the father of his wife's child.
In another case currently before the Family Court, also in Victoria, a man is seeking repayment of about $40,000 in child support payments after he also discovered that two of the three children he had been supporting for 8 1/2 years turned out through DNA testing not to be his.
The Child Support Agency insists it has no power to refund the money, and Children and Youth Affairs Minister Larry Anthony says he is seeking advice on the matter....
Well, why does Children and Youth Affairs Minister Larry Anthony not just ask the duped and falsely-fingered men who coughed up all of that money for children that weren't theirs for the advice he seeks? They and their families will have absolutely no problem in describing the impact
the state-sponsored paternity fraud has on its victims.
The emotional roller-coaster ride is just as nerve-wrecking for "winners" and losers alike, except that for the losers in the game, the "dads" with whom the State raised cuckoldry by women to a virtue and turned it into an all-powerful system of state-sponsored fraud enforced and safe-guarded with the full power of the State, there is nothing ever on the positive side of the balance sheet.
|Thanks to Jim and Maria McGee for sending us the following.|
This article appeared in The Sunday Oklahoman on 8/5/01.
This issue is of a lot of interest to many these days with legislation pending in several states.
Thank you for all your information that you provide.
Jim and Maria McGee
Citizens Against Paternity Fraud (CAPF)
Some dads wronged by paternity laws, critics say
By Penny Owen
First come the stories.
Like the one from Fairview, where a man learned he had a son eight years after the boy was born. After $15,000 in legal bills and another $20,000 paid in a child support settlement, the father and his current wife say they have yet to meet the boy, now 22.
Or the case in Anadarko, where an Army retiree learned that he wasn't the father of the girl he had raised for 10 years. The news didn't come until the girl turned 17. But that didn't exempt him from owing $23,000 in back child support.
Nor has child support been stopped for a man in Atlanta, who said he learned he wasn't the father of the daughter he had raised. Fed up with the system and realizing he wasn't alone, Carnell Smith started a Web-based support group, Citizens for Paternity Fraud (www.paternityfraud.com).
The site is geared for fathers who feel wronged when it comes to support for a child they either thought was theirs and learned otherwise or who never knew the child existed.
Interestingly, some of the biggest advocates of changing child support laws are the current wives of the fathers they say are victimized. These women say their pocketbooks, livelihood and own children suffer because of unfair or antiquated laws that favor mothers who, as one put it, connive to "change fathers in midstream," depending on who can pay.
In Oklahoma, a bill pending in the House of Representatives proposes new, more father-friendly legislation that would help both men who learn they are fathers years after the fact and those who learn they are not.
House Bill 1077 is authored by state Rep. Lloyd Fields, D-McAlester, who personally was ordered in 1997 to pay $26,000 in back child support after a messy and drawn-out battle involving a daughter and divorce.
The bill, in essence, would allow any man to challenge paying child support if a paternity test proved he wasn't the biological father
[that is: natural fathers] . As the law stands now, a husband who has served as father to a child in a marriage for two or more years is liable for child support, even if the parents divorce and a paternity test proves he isn't the father.
That part was inspired by state Rep. Jim Glover, D-Elgin, who said he was contacted by a man in his district who was being forced to pay child support on two children, even though paternity tests proved he wasn't the father.
The reason he remained obligated, Glover said, was because he was married to the mother and put his name on the birth certificates. Unless the law changes, he will pay child support until the children turn 18, Glover said. The mother is now living with the biological father
[that is: natural fathers] .
"If you're not the father, why should you pay child support? There's just nothing fair about it," said Glover, who added that HB 1077 passed in the House twice, but was killed in Senate committee.
The bill also would not force a man to pay back child support for a child he never knew existed. As it is now, said Ray Weaver, the director of child support enforcement for the state Department of Human Services, anyone found to be the father of a child, even if he didn't know it, can be liable for child support up to five years before the discovery.
The whole issue of child support, paternity and liability is a mess at best, and each case has its differences and complications. One side, loaded with women as well as men, complain of mothers who trick men into fatherhood while knowing they aren't the fathers. The other side argues that families come first and scientific findings shouldn't destroy a child 's understanding of who its parents are.
Paternity testing is now highly accurate - and 28 percent of the men tested for fatherhood in 1999 and 2000 were proven not to be the father, according to the American Association of Blood Banks and Oklahoma's human services department.
Some, like Norvell Gattison, didn't learn until years after the fact - 17, to be exact.
Gattison's wife said her husband married the mother of a 2-year-old girl because he was told he was the father. They divorced when the girl turned 12, and the relationship with his ex-wife deteriorated further. In the end, Gattison owed $23,000 in back child support, which is being garnished from his Army retirement check.
More painful, however, was learning the truth.
Gattison's wife, Marilyn, said the mother blurted out the truth when the daughter was 17, prompting Gattison to take a paternity test. Both father and daughter were there when the letter arrived with the results.
"I opened the letter and looked at him and said 'You're not the father,'" Marilyn Gattison said. "And they both started crying. It really hurt both of them."
The father-daughter relationship has since been damaged because of subsequent fights over child support between Gattison and his ex-wife.
At least Gattison had some relationship with his daughter - unlike the husband of Pat Conrady of Fairview, who learned he had a son after an old girlfriend's husband was arrested for child molestation and thrown in prison.
Conrady said when the mother applied for social assistance, she named her husband as the father. He then got a bill for back child support. When he said he wanted to meet the son he never knew, Conrady said the mother disappeared, only to reappear years later, again wanting back support.
They nearly went bankrupt fighting the case and finally gave in by agreeing to a $20,000 settlement - which, with legal bills and all, ate up their own children's college fund and put them in debt.
To say Conrady is bitter is an understatement, and she knows she's not alone.
"They write him off with this other child as a deadbeat father and it's not like that. He never had a chance to be a father," said Conrady, who described her husband as a devoted husband and provider with the same job for 22 years, who always supported the children he knew he had.
She says her husband willingly would have supported the new-found son as well, had he been able to develop a relationship with him.
"They're destroying other kids and other marriages just to get money for these women whose marriages didn't work out and who want to change fathers in midstream," Pat Conrady said. "Our kids are all out of the house now, and we should be at the point where we can travel and enjoy life a little bit, and we can't because we have this debt to pay off."
On the other side of the argument are those who say the past is simply catching up with men who knowingly took a risk, however long ago.
"That part, 'I didn't have any idea I was the father' bothers me a little bit," said Weaver of DHS. "Everyone knows how children are conceived.
And if you don't remember conceiving a child, I don't think it's harmful to society to have a genetic test to remind you that you did conceive a child."
Weaver also pointed out that recent legislation has tried to get absentee fathers more involved in their children's lives by such things as providing work retraining for those who can't afford child support.
Studies have shown that the more fathers are involved in their children's lives, the more likely they are to pay support.
Some, however, say legislation is too little too late. Gattison, the Army retiree, lost his commercial driver's license, private investigator license and fishing license because he owes back child support. No doubt laws have cracked down on so-called deadbeat parents.
More than just the fathers are affected, too.
Strapped for cash because her husband couldn't work, Marilyn Gattison said she applied for food stamps - and was turned down because of the back support owed.
"I said, 'You're telling me I have to tell my husband to leave the home in order for me and my child to eat?'" Marilyn Gattison said. "I'm just having a hard time. I don't know what law can make a man pay for a child that's not his. And if DHS has all these resources, why can't they go after the real father?
"The sad part about it was, when me and him got married, we decide to adopt a child - and now we can barely afford it."
In 2000, Oklahoma had:
- 47,226 recorded births.
- 66 percent were born to married couples; 34 percent to unmarried couples.
- Of the unwed births, 60 percent of the fathers signed admissions to being the parent.
- Of the remaining 40 percent, 13 percent of those involved paternity testing by DHS.
- About 72 percent of the paternity tests proved the man to be the father.
- Altogether, 700 of 2,100 men tested through DHS proved negative.
SOURCE: State Department of Human Services
On the Web
Citizens for Paternity Fraud: www.paternityfraud.com
All content copyrighted 2001 The Oklahoma Publishing Co.
Oklahoman Home: http://www.oklahoman.com/
Children Need BOTH Parents!
The American Coalition for Fathers and Children
For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS or see ACFC's homepages at: http://www.acfc.org
To subscribe send a message to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Message in subject line: subscribe acfc
The ACFC List Serve provides timely information to fathers, second wives, and others seeking restoration of fatherhood in America and the world. ACFC does not endorse or approve the views or opinions expressed by contributors, which have been provided only as a service to our list serve subscribers.
It is bad enough that fathers who fight overseas find that they can't get a reduction in child support because they earn less than they did on the jobs they had to leave to join the Armed Forces . It is worse yet that when they return, they will be forced to fight serious and expensive court battles to try to keep themselves out of jail on account of the child-support arrears that fighting for home and country caused them to accrue. That happened to many men during and after the Gulf War. It is happening to many of them again now during the Iraq War and will continue to happen even if the USA should pull out of that war.
(Update 2008 05 10: "This year we passed the milestone of 3,000
deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women." --
There Anything Good About Men?
By Roy F. Baumeister
|Below is a transcript of my radio commentary recorded Friday for the Free Congress Foundation, available for listening and downloading at|
2003 04 04
Soldiers Risking Their Lives in Iraq Might Face Prison Over Child Support Upon Return
By Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Soldiers Risking Their Lives in Iraq Might Face Prison Over Child Support Upon Return
As America's servicemen risk their lives to protect their families and ours, the federal government is preparing to put them in jail.
That's right; you heard correctly. Most societies honor their returning heroes. In America we punish them.
Soldiers who ship off to Iraq risk not only their lives but arrest and jail when they return. Those who accept a pay cut to defend their country can be incarcerated when they are unable to pay the impossible child support burdens imposed on them by the federal government's divorce machinery.
It is mind-boggling that servicemen who risk their lives to protect us will face arrest as they step off the plane. Yet this is precisely what happened after Desert Storm, and it will happen again this time.
The federal government has issued the usual PR smokescreen, urging soldiers to contact their local child support agents to request a modification. But such requests are almost never granted. Child support fills government coffers with federal taxpayers' money. Governments have no incentive to give these soldiers a break and plenty of incentive not to.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that a soldier whose domestic job pays $31,000 must pay $900 a month in child support. His reserve pay will reduce his income to $27,000. The Monitor neglects to point out that even at the higher pay, this is about half the man's take-home pay, and that he is likely to be living on less than $1,000 a month. Another father's child support comprises 73% of his income, leaving him $200 a month to live on.
Do we really believe that these heroes are "deadbeat dads" who went to Iraq to avoid paying child support? If not, perhaps it is time we began to examine whether the entire child support system is anything other than a fraud. If these men are not "deadbeats," then who is? If these arrests are an abuse of government power, why are not all the others?
Attempts to protect our civilization from external threats will be pointless if we allow it to be undermined from within. How long do we expect men to sacrifice their lives and livelihoods for their country when their government steals their children and uses those children to extort huge sums of money from their fathers?
What kind of morale can we expect in our armed forces when the same brave men who risk their lives to protect their families from invasion by terrorists are powerless to protect their families from invasion by their own government.
For FCF News on Demand, this is Stephen Baskerville.
An archive of my previous commentaries, also available for listening and downloading, can be found by going to http://www.fcfnewsondemand.org/search.asp and searching under my name on the drop-down menu (to get them all , you must search under both "Stephen" and "Steven").
These commentaries are now being carried by the USA Radio Network with some 1200 stations and the Information Radio Network with 400 stations. If you have local stations that are part of this network, please urge them to pick it up.
For more then 30 articles from over 4 years, see my website:
It is far worse yet that many of those men face that terrible bind on account of children that they know aren't theirs because they know that their wives or girlfriends cheated on them.
2003 11 12
Former Army Paratrooper Faces Paternity Fraud On Nov. 18, 2003
By Jane Spies of the National Family Justice Association, 330-534-3510, info@NFJA.org
The Association of American Blood Banks found that of 310,000 DNA tests for paternity performed in the year 2001 by accredited labs, 29.06 percent turned out to be negative.
Well, if you are a man and wish to have a thrill, find out whether a given child you are being alleged to have fathered is yours. Have DNA tests done to prove your paternity. If the tests turn out to be negative, and if you want to intensify the thrill, confront the mother of the child with the evidence of the DNA test results and try to get her to admit that the child she said you fathered with her wasn't fathered by you. If you want to heighten the excitement to be had from that to the max, try to get back the child support payments you will be forced to pay (after your marriage breaks up) for a child that is not yours, a child that is the result of you having been cuckolded and that you were either duped or are being forced to support.
I am sure that paying tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers in addition to child support for a child that isn't, or for children that aren't, yours, will give you all the thrills you ever hoped to get. But if you wish to have the ultimate thrill and win the big prize, the grand lottery, the jackpot called compensation for having been defrauded, you've got to go all the way, fight the injustice done to you for twenty years and perhaps longer, give the lawyers even more money, and then you have one chance in many millions to feel as elated as Jonathan Sims did when his lawyer phoned him to let him know that the government sent a ten-thousand-dollar cheque for compensation.
In the unlikely event that your name should be the one on the line beginning with "Pay to the order of:" of such a cheque, be smart. Tell your lawyer to give you the bad news first and ask him, "Before you send the money to me, how much will that cost me, and how much of the amount on the cheque will be left for me?"
Duped and cuckolded fathers condemned to a life-time of indentured servitude to mothers of children by other men are not the only ones who have to foot the emotional and financial bills for children with whom they should by rights have nothing to do. What about the other members of the "father's" half of the extended family and the emotional and financial investment made in vain by them to a cuckoo's egg? Will any of them ever get compensated for the loss and the great void in their hearts, the confusion and emotional turmoil they feel when they find out the truth?
What about their children – including those that their fathers are paying for even though they are not biologically related? What will they learn from what is being done to the men who are supposedly their fathers but aren't? Will all that they learn be that honesty doesn't matter and that, if you are a woman and pregnant by a man she chose to impregnate her but whom she doesn't like for some reason to be the father of her child, just finger the wrong man to be the father – any convenient man, and the crime of lying pays so big that it is just as if she won the jackpot in the lottery?
If the law wishes that children should have respect for the law, let the law have respect for children, respect for the children's fathers and respect for men who are falsely alleged to be fathers.
Paternity Fraud "Corrected"
about ten years ago [in 1993] that a family in a small town in central Alberta found out that their son had fathered a child. Let's call that child Jimmy (not his real name). Jimmy's mother did not live with Jimmy's father. She lived with another man, while Jimmy's legal father paid child support to Jimmy's mother.
Jimmy's mother frequently took him to visit his grandparents, the parents of Jimmy's legal father. The grandparents were thrilled every time one of those visits took place. There was nothing in the world they loved more than that little boy. He was their first grandchild and became the centre of their life, all the much more so when Jimmy's hip got broken and Jimmy had to spend the better part of a year in a body cast. Jimmy's grandparents then provided full-term care for him, and Jimmy's mother only came occasionally to visit their home.
Jimmy's hip got broken, apparently on account of him having been thrown across the room; at least that is what his mother alleged the boyfriend she lived with at the time did to the child. The medical examination of Jimmy's condition had shown that his body bore the marks of frequent and serious abuse. The mother's boyfriend went on the lam; a warrant for his arrest had been issued. He eventually spent some time in jail for that crime he was alleged to have committed and for others he had committed. The time he spent in jail was about and not quite as long as the better part of a year the little boy spent in a body cast. Still, the only evidence presented at his trial was his and her say-so. He said he didn't do it, and she said that he did. Of course, the judges hold that because women don't lie, that woman didn't lie either. "Once a liar, always a liar" holds no water with judges protecting the interests of lying mommas.
Update 2008 08 03:
UK: 1 in 5 fathers wrongly identified as the father
Patrick Wintour, political editor, The Guardian, Friday
August 1 2008
Update 2011 11 22:
The modern re-engineering of humanity
managed to undo the regulating of human sexuality that it took 10,000
years to bring to reasonable levels, to the point where some groups of
civilized humans reverted back to and now exceed the extent of
promiscuity of primates in the wild.
Six in 10 who take DNA tests in Wales turn out not to be
Wales News - News - WalesOnline,
ALMOST six out of 10 Welsh men who take a paternity test turn out
not to be the biological father....(Full
Story — off-site)
All of that worried me. There was no proof that the cute little boy truly was their grandson, but the grandparents scoffed at having a DNA test done. They told me: "It would not make a bit of difference. We love that boy, and he needs not only a father but also grandparents. Besides, our son told us that he had sex with the mother, and it is quite likely that he is the father."
In a large town or a city, the trouble signs, mysteries and discrepancies of such cases hardly ever get noticed, let alone resolved. In small towns most people know one another well, and they try to see family resemblances in children. Neighbours and friends noticed that Jimmy bore no resemblance to anyone in the legal father's family, but rumours eventually came to the attention of another woman in town that Jimmy was a likeness of her and her son.
She looked and found that to be true. Jimmy looked like the grandson she had wanted and never had. She investigated and found out that about nine months prior to Jimmy's birth his mother had had sex with six different young men in town in the course of one night. Apparently Jimmy's mother had decided that her biological clock was ringing and had wanted to become pregnant; she needed sperm donations. The woman who suspected that she was Jimmy's biological paternal grandmother did not rest. She demanded that a paternity test be done. The DNA-test results confirmed her suspicions and hopes.
Jimmy's legal father was not the
natural father. The son of the woman who had seen her likeness in the face of Jimmy was the
natural father. Jimmy's mother had picked as the father the most reliable and most promising of the six she had sex with to become impregnated. He became the legal father, even though he had not fathered the boy.
The paternity issue got legally resolved. The real father began to pay child support, and the former "legal" father was off the hook.
However, Jimmy's mother did not suffer from any of that. She got a house out of the deal that the true biological grandmother paid for. Mind you, the house is in Jimmy's name, but the mother lives in it, and she is gainfully employed. End of story, crime pays and everybody lives happily ever after?
I have no idea how many more men, other than those three initial ones, played a role in the little boy's life as of now. According to reports I heard, there were quite a few of them so far, and there will without any doubt be a few more. Let's hope that none of them nor his mother will ever mistreat Jimmy the way he had been mistreated. Let's hope that his mother will never again expose him to the type of risk she exposed him to already, but I fear that is too much to hope for. Maybe I'll hear more about Jimmy as the years go by. He and his mother now live in the big city. She works as a masseuse in a massage parlour. Yeah, one of those that are at times exposed as bawdy houses.
About the legal father, did he ever get reimbursed for the trouble he got put through? Are you kidding? Not even his parents think that he deserves to be reimbursed. After all, they say, their son had sex with that woman, and he could have been the father. No compensation for paternity fraud was ever paid, and no charges of fraud were ever laid against the lying mother.
As long as there are even parents who see nothing much wrong with their sons being falsely fingered and wrongfully shackled to a financial chain and ball for the rest of their lives, why should anyone expect that our judges see things differently? Our judges don't just administer laws, they now also make the laws they capriciously administer; and they make sure that all of the laws that they twisted and turned over time — so that they could with impunity shaft fathers — become increasingly more oppressive and discriminatory of fathers and that our society becomes increasingly more totalitarian.
So, what will you do about it? Will you just switch to another channel, have another beer and open another bag of peanuts, or will you do something to fight all of what is being done to men? Okay, stick your head into the sand and take whatever is being dished out to you when it comes at you. The advantage of that will be that you never see it coming when you get your butt shot off.
Before you do, though, and if you still think these issues won't and will
never affect you, consider this article:
By Carey Roberts, NewsWithViews.com, 2006 04 07
Carey Roberts writes about paternity fraud, for example:
Consider the paternity scam. Here’s how it works:
Find any dim-witted man to get you pregnant. Then look up the name of
some unsuspecting Joe who’s got a steady job – it doesn’t matter that
you never met the poor bloke. Put his name on the baby’s birth
Now cross your fingers and hope the man is out of town when the sheriff
delivers the papers. In California, such default judgments account for
70% of paternity decisions, according to a 2003 study by the Urban
Back to Advice for Men - Paternity Issues
|The REPORT Newsmagazine, April 24, 2000 |
Pregnant on the sly
The practice of falsely attributing fatherhood is rising among women,
by Walter H. Schneider and Candis McLean
If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of
seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:
SUN — Seniors United Now
The up- and coming, rapidly-growing advocacy organization
for seniors (55 years and over) in Alberta
There are in the order of about half a million or more people of age 55 and
over in Alberta. If all of them were to join SUN, they would become the most
powerful advocacy organization in Alberta; and seniors would no longer be robbed
of their comforts and otherwise ignored.
At the price of one package of cigarettes seniors will be able to
gain a voice that will be heard by a government that otherwise can and will take
from seniors what they worked for all their life to enjoy in their old age.
If you are concerned about how seniors are affected by the
systematic destruction of our families and society, a search
at google.com (for elderly OR seniors OR grandparent OR grandfather OR
grandmother site:http://fathersforlife.org) will provide you with the links
to about 84 web pages at Fathers for Life that will be of interest to you.
Update 2008 05 08:
Men are more visually aroused than women? Fact or fiction?
Research Shows Men And Women Look At Sexual Photographs Differently
17 Apr 2007 - 8:00 PDT)
A study funded by the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral
Neuroscience (CBN) analyzed the viewing patterns of men and women
looking at sexual photographs, and the result was not what one
typically might expect. (Full
The White Rose
Thoughts are Free