Feminism and Families — Advice to Men
So, you want to have sex, and perhaps you want to be a father, perhaps you even want to be a married father.
The risk of getting divorced before any of your children turn eighteen is in the order of 50%, but you want to be a father anyway. There are a lot of risks involved. You know that. However, do you know all of the risks? Do you know more than one or two of the risks?
O.K., there is the risk of getting divorced. You'll have no choice in that. If she decides to leave for greener pastures — and in three or more out of four cases it will be the woman who walks out (when children are present in the marriage, without children the chances are two out of three) — you don't have the option to agree, you MUST oblige! In that case, you say, it isn't that much of a problem if there are no children, because you may both be independent and equally capable of pursuing a job. Well, sorry, the fact is that if she says she isn't capable of working, regardless of whether she is telling the truth, you'll wind up supporting her — after all of your marital property has been split so that at the very most you get to keep half.
However, what if there are children? What if the children aren't yours? What if you just think that they are yours but they aren't? You think that's not possible or that it is extremely unlikely to happen? Well, think again.
First of all, think of the children. Whether you wanted them or not, whether you or your wife walks out of your marriage, whether you are even married or not, chances are that you won't be in the children's lives anymore before they become adults. That won't do your children any good. There is enough written about the consequences of fatherlessness elsewhere on this web site and on the Net. It doesn't need to be covered in more detail here. However, what about you? How will having sex affect you. It may last from a few seconds to a few hours, if you can and know how. Some say the fun is in the chase, and that can last anywhere from a glance to a few days or weeks, maybe even months or years.
It all isn't a big deal anymore, now that we have sexual freedom, right? Is it free, and does it bring freedom? If you think that it is and does, then you better read all of the rest of this page. (It's a big file, purposely, to make it easier to print out all of it, so that you can pass it on to anyone that has an honest interest in the welfare of men and children.)
Table of Contents
Do you take this woman? No Way!
Alberta Report, Jan 18, 1999, page 32 - 35
After two decades of persecution in family courts, men are rebelling against marriage
By Candis McLean
Imagine a sequel to the popular romantic comedy Sleepless in Seattle. It turns out that Meg Ryan was a rapacious barracuda who tracked Tom Hanks down only to take him for everything he had.
That is the scenario many men today are living; the result, they say, is a growing male mutiny against marriage—indeed against romantic involvement of any kind. (Full Story)
Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.
—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Love is like an onion,
You taste it with delight,
And when it is all gone,
You wonder, what made you bite.
— One of my wife's favorites, Author Unknown
Because where austerity and tenderness,
Where strength and mildness paired,
There'll always be appealing timbre.
Therefore test, who wants to bind himself forever,
Whether heart will find right heart.
The elation is short, the remorse is long.
—Schiller, in The Song of the Bell,
while commenting on finding the right ingredients for
the casting of the bell and for a good marriage
It is tradition that brides wear white at their weddings. That signifies purity and joy. Why is it that tradition also calls for the grooms to wear black?
— Joke of the day, 1999 05 19, CFCW
Country & Western Radio, Camrose, Alberta, Canada
|From Grainews, April 11, 2001, p.2|
Most dangerous food
A dietician addressed a large audience in Regina [capital of Saskatchewan, Canada]:
"The material we put into our stomach is enough to have killed most of us sitting here, years ago. Soft drinks erode your stomach lining. Red meat is awful. Chinese food is loaded with MSG. Vegetables can be disastrous, and none of us realizes the long-term harm caused by germs in our drinking water.
But there is one thing that is the most dangerous of all and we all have eaten it or will eat it.
Can anyone here tell me what food it is that causes the most grief and suffering for years after eating it?"
A 75-year-old man in the front row stood up and said: "Wedding cake."
Feminism has had, and still has, a great impact on our society. Because many women claim that all that men do is think about sex, let's have a look at that aspect of the relationships between the sexes—from the point of view of social, economic and legal consequences.
See also related comments and information from the U.K. and the essay Why Men Shouldn't Marry, by Stuart Birks' (NZ).
Here is the introduction to Why Men Shouldn't Marry, by Stuart Birks, based on a presentation at "Real Time", 8 September 1998, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand:
"A large proportion of current research is "gendered". In other words, it takes a gender-based perspective for grouping data, determining objectives and identifying impacts. "Gender analysis" is now required as a part of the policy-making process. As defined in New Zealand in Ministry of Women’s Affairs (1996), this gender analysis takes a women’s perspective only and "aims to achieve positive change for women". Here I will take a gendered perspective focusing on men.
Why marry? ..." [Full text]
The impact of modern liberalism on many aspects of our lives has been enormous; most of all with respect to sexual relations. As the information at the links indicated above shows, the impact on sexual and marital relations that the changes in society's attitudes towards the social and economic circumstances of marriage brought about have almost exclusively affected men in negative and often devastating ways.
More than ever before, men are now relegated to be a secondary class of citizens that is deemed by the feminist-dominated bureaucracy to be suffered to exist for the sole purpose of being providers
(and sperm donors) for women.
Without any doubt, the impact on men was and is to an enormous extent detrimental.
That is also true for children conceived. The whole-sale removal of
fathers from children's lives has not been kind to our society's children.
Without any doubt, for women to be married to men or to conceive a child by men is seen by society as an economic asset that women are entitled to for life. That is true regardless of the marital status of the parents of a child, and largely regardless of marital status even if no child is conceived as the result of the sexual relations between a man and a woman. It should not surprise any man that many women see men in that light and will do all in their power to obtain a share of the assets that men's earning capacity represents, either through marriage, through conceiving a child or simply by the fact of being a woman.
Women will frequently, deliberately or subconsciously and with the support of the full power of the State, go to any extent to secure their own and "their" children's economic
well-being, by securing themselves the earnings of a man for life. They can't help doing it. The inexorable urge to do that is based in biological necessity, reinforced by social conditioning over thousands of years. It can be said that civilization itself largely came into existence on account of women wanting to be secure and to have men provide that security. If women can't or don't want to get that security through marriage or even only through cohabitation, they will attempt to gain it by fingering a man, any man, to be the father of their children. It doesn't matter whether that man is truly the father of the child or children that women wish that man to pay for — financial security is very often all they wish to get from the man they finger. Women have the full power of the State behind them to enforce their wish for financial support from any particular man. Not fair? Of course not! However, what are you doing about it and what can you do about it?
Even though to varying extents society's attitudes in creating these circumstances existed throughout history, during the last three decades and increasingly since the beginning of the last two, ever since the radical feminists usurped the women's liberation movement and neutralized more moderate proponents of the feminist ideology, a stream of increasingly oppressive, anti-male legislation has been created that by now has become a deluge
that inundates society.
It is now so that a man can't be sure that he is ever safe if he has sex with a woman. He cannot even be sure to be safe with a woman if he has no sex with her. Some men who were falsely accused of raping women were not even ever in touch with or in view of the woman making the accusation.
The traditional nuclear family is not thought to be important any longer, with the welfare of women and "their" children being of far superior importance, and the role of men being reduced to that of providers, whether through marriage or without. If that seems to be a harsh statement, think about the points brought up in the following.
....Another sow in a tuxedo is female promiscuity. The real reason human females are sexually active all year long is that they are biologically driven to expand the gene pool – have sex with men other than their workhorse husbands or boyfriends. Elk only have to watch over their women a month or so in fall to ensure their genes disseminate.[*] Human males have to watch over their women all year long. We can't do it. Women are not naturally faithful creatures and it is a travesty to acculturate men with the notion that if they are good to their wives their wives will be faithful to them. That's extremely unlikely. A DNA study done in a block of English row houses revealed that one out of three children could NOT have been the biological issue of their alleged fathers. Face it men. Women screw around. Even if you treat them right they screw around. [**] It's not your fault. You don't have to bear the shame in silence and isolation – thinking it's only you – torturing yourself with desperate imaginings that if you had just done this or said that she wouldn't have yanked off her panties for someone else. Cowshit. She STILL would have done it. Women are not loyal creatures and the sooner men learn that the more bearable life becomes.
Now hear this: you need not be shamed by your wife's infidelity. It's not you, it's her. It's her problem. Her nature. Cement a good relationship with your kids, keep some cash socked away in an account she doesn't know about, and expect that someday your wife will run off to "find herself" – move to the Rockies, or shack up with a Rastafarian beach bum. If you're prepared for it you can survive it. If you're blind-sided, like most of us, it becomes an emotional disaster. She'll still claim monetary support from you, but you'll no longer be entitled to any kind of emotional support from her. Divorce is a tsunami for men because we don't see it coming. We don't plan for it. Women are clever; women are two-faced. The closer they get to divorce the smoother things will appear to be running because they're making plans behind your back. Be ready. And remember, her infidelity is not your fault. Not your shame. Shame on her for being so shallow and duplicitous.
— Rich Zubaty, in
What Men Know That Women Don't
* DNA-tracing is a wonderful research tool. Amongst many other species, it has been used to trace the genealogy of elk, apes and humans.
Guess what, while the bull-elk is busy posturing, bugling and fighting for dominance, some of the yearlings are busy getting it on with members of his harem. More than 60 percent of the offspring in a given year is not that of the bull-elk but that of the adolescents looking for a little bit at the outer fringes of the boss's staging area, while the boss made sure that his does were ready to receive the sperm donation they wanted from any available source. (I tried for many hours to find the reference to the source of that information, but I had no success, so for now I have just my memory to go on.)
As to apes, in groups of chimpanzees in the wild it was found that, even though the groups were closely watched by researchers – they thought, at all times – the babies born to the mothers in the group were fathered about 60 percent of the time by males from other, neighbouring groups. There was only one possible way by which the females could have gotten impregnated by foreign males. The females used great stealth during the night to meet the fathers of their children-to-be in the bushes somewhere out of sight and hearing. (Scientific American, Jan. 1999, p. 97)
And as to humans, the story is much the same, and not just in row housing in England. On average, in supposedly stable monogamous relationships, the chances are one out of five or 20 percent that a given child is not the biological offspring of the alleged father. It appears that civilization has not quite tamed the savage in humans.
The Association of American Blood Banks found that in
the year 2001, out of more than 310,000 DNA tests for paternity, the men who were fingered as the fathers were not the
natural fathers in 29 percent of the cases. Doesn't it make you wonder what the percentages will be if DNA testing for paternity is mandatory at the birth of every child?
** The Family Research Institute identified, based on data from two large government surveys, that,
...about 2% of males and 44% of females who engaged in homosexuality, and also said that they had an "on-going sexual relationship" in the last year, were married! None of these married homosexuals reported having had sex with their spouse! Some of these are probably in 'shell marriages,' where two homosexuals marry for social cover but voluntarily do not have sex with each other. Others probably have mystified or troubled spouses (e.g., 'is there something wrong with me?').
Here is more detailed advice from The Advocate, UTOPIA Foundation and
MEN, FEELING HORNY? THINKING ABOUT HAVING SEX? FIRST CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
1. Sex with underage females can throw you into prison.
In Wisconsin having sex or sexual contact with a female under age 16 is a felony, even if she consents. Other states have different age limits. Ignorance of the law or of her age is no defense. In other states men are in prison for having sex with 17-year-olds they met in bars and assumed were of legal age. 
2. Sex with a consenting adult female who has been drinking could throw you into prison.
In Wisconsin, sex without the consent of your partner is sexual assault. District attorneys and juries could readily perceive a woman who has had some drinks as alcohol-impaired and incapable of freely giving consent. Wisconsin law presumes a person suffering from a defect which impairs capacity to appraise personal conduct is incapable of freely giving consent. On this issue Ohio's criminal code states: "No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another person...when...for the purpose of preventing resistance the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person." Your own drinking of alcohol is not a legal defense. Regardless of your level of intoxication, you are responsible for your actions, and apparently, for the actions of your female partner. 
3. If a sober woman consents to have sex with you and later regrets it, you could falsely be charged with rape. A recent study finds 50% of all campus rape charges are false.
While the majority of women are emotionally stable and trustworthy, some are not. Make sure you are not falsely accused. Know your partner well. 
[Walter's Note: However, even if you are married and have consensual sexual intercourse with your spouse, you can still be accused of and sentenced for the rape of your spouse. If in doubt, it is always safe to assume that even Yes may mean No, no matter how much she puts her heart into it, and that it is left up to the woman to decide at any time after the fact what she
later claimed she had meant. Beware, many men found out to their sorrow that when the woman said yes, a few days, weeks or even years later she changed her mind. In the US, there are an estimated 520,000 false rape allegations a year — 98.1% of all reported cases. (Eeva Sodhi, Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics; Rape)]
In Australia, Kevin Ibbs was sentenced to a four-year prison term after his sex partner alleged that he took at least 25 seconds to pull out after she said that she had enough. He said that he did pull out in ten seconds. (The diabolical episode of the 30-second rapist).
...Perth resident Kevin Ibbs was having consensual sex with Christine Watson on the night of 29 November 1986. Watson, a close friend of Ibbs's wife, Katrina Carter, was living in the same house with Ibbs and Carter. The sex act was taking place with the full knowledge of Carter who was in the house at the time....
Some years later Watson admitted to police that the whole incident was a set-up orchestrated by Carter to have Ibbs charged with sexual assault to get him out of the house they were sharing.
Christine Elizabeth Watson, a.k.a. Christine Elizabeth Wardle, and Katrina Ann Carter were subsequently convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. They served seven months in jail.
Mr. Ibbs was acquitted in 2001 but the damage was done. He says that his health has been affected, his career as a tradesman has been ruined and the whole affair has cost him over one million dollars.
That case in Australia came about quite some time ago, but all that
indicates is how long ago already it was extremely easy for a woman to cry
rape with the results she desired.
Here is a more recent case. It appears that the Australian case is
likely to have served as a model for the one in the USA, because the number
of seconds that make the difference between rape and consensual sex is very
similar in these cases.
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA; S103427
Laura told him that she needed to go home, but he would not stop. He said, “just give me a minute,” and she said, “no, I need to get home.” He replied, “give me some time” and she repeated, “no, I have to go home.” Defendant did not stop, “[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me.” After about a “minute, minute and [a] half,” defendant got off Laura.
...we conclude that the offense of forcible rape occurs when, during apparently consensual intercourse, the victim expresses an objection and attempts to stop the act and the defendant forcibly continues despite the objection.
In the US, there are an estimated 520,000 false rape allegations a year — 98.1% of all reported cases. (Eeva Sodhi, Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics; Rape) We know who decides whether force was used, but it is obvious that the decision is based on whatever the victim decides was "force". How did the victim know how long it took the accused to withdraw? Did she look at her watch? I hope it had an illuminated display. After all, she also said that the room was too dark for her to find her clothes when she was free to leave before the alleged rape occurred.
See also the commentary at Rape After Consent to Sex
In England, a mother of five was awarded 13,000 pounds (Can$31,000) in personal damages for the alleged rape by her husband. Her lawyer had advised her to take her case to Civil Court because it would not stand a chance in Criminal Court. The man's now-ex-wife expressed her displeasure with the lack of concern by the Criminal Court. (The reference for this case will be shown when received)
If you are still in doubt, consider "Your 'lucky' night."
4. Women can and do lie about their use of birth control, and no birth control is 100% effective (nor will it be 100% effective in preventing you from contracting a venereal disease). The failure rate of a birth-control method may not always be entirely due to a woman's deliberate lie. Many women are uneducated and perhaps undisciplined about using the pill.
"...condoms are unreliable. They have a 16% annual failure rate. [Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York City, New York, (212) 248-1111.]" --Everyman; a Men's Journal, Issue 33, Sept./Oct. 1998, page 12
5. If your female partner conceives a child, she has absolute power to abort your child against your wishes. In fact, she has no obligation to even inform you if she plans on aborting. 
6. If your female conceives a child, she has absolute power to make you a father against your wishes.
[UTOPIA NOTE: With the impending Welfare Reform Bill, a single mother MUST reveal the name of the
natural father or have her benefits reduced by 15-30%]
[Walter's note: In Canada, depending on which province the mother of your child resides in, she may not qualify at all for welfare, unless she reveals and labels you as the father, however, be sure that you are the father.
If you deny paternity, the onus is on the mother to prove that you are. Don't take any allegations that you are the father too serious. On average chances are one in five
or better that you are not. That average includes all children, whether the mother is married or not. For additional information refer to the index of related information. As shown in various places elsewhere on this page, mothers "misidentify" the father of their child in as many as one out of three cases.]
7. If your unwed female partner gives birth to your child, she may give your child up for adoption to strangers against your will and even though you may wish to rear your own child.
Attorneys, nationwide and in Madison, specialize in assisting unwed mothers give a child up for adoption against the father's wishes. After having sex your reproductive choices as a man end. Your fate is now totally in your female partner's hands. After a woman has sex, her reproductive choices continue. She may abort, give birth, include you in or exclude you from your child's life, or give your child up for adoption.
[UTOPIA NOTE: Many state and federal courts are re-evaluating this position, but in all the cases I have reviewed in the last 3 years, the mother has fled the jurisdiction, and proceeded to do as she wishes with no fear of being held in contempt]
8. Regardless of your age and even if a judge decides that you were raped, if your unwed female sex partner gives birth to your child, in all probability you'll not be allowed to raise your child, but you will be obligated to financially support your child until he or she reaches 18 years, or in some states until he or she reaches 23 years, or, in Canada, as long as he or she is a student.
All important decisions about your child's life — his or her name, where he or she will live, medical care, education or religious affiliation, etc. — will be made by the mother. You will have input only if the mother allows it. If your female partner lied about using birth control or the fact that she alone had the right to choose to abort or give birth, that DOES NOT change your legal obligation to financially support the child. 
9. If your unwed or married female partner gives birth to your child and she separates from you, your future wife and legitimate children will always be in second place financially to her and your prior child. The prior mother and child from a marital union or not will have first call to your income and resources.
You and your future wife will both be required to disclose your finances and income to the mother of your child until the child reaches 18 years of age. [6, 7]
10. If your unwed female partner gives birth to your child, you can, and likely will, be ordered to pay the mother's obstetrical expenses, hospital costs, the mother's legal costs, the costs for paternity testing, and the child's health care expenses until he or she reaches 18 years of age. 
[That isn't the case in Canada with respect to hospital costs, as those will be carried by the health care system. With respect to the costs of the paternity test, those have to be born by the plaintiff. The burden of proof is on her, so far. However, if it turns out that you are the father, the judge may order you to pay for the tests. The cost of a paternity test will be in the order of about US$350-600, depending on how quickly you need the results. See index of related information. —WHS]
11. The state of Wisconsin will force you to assume full financial responsibility for your child until he or she reaches age 18, by paying 17% of your gross income to your child's mother on what the court determines is your "earning capacity."
You will be forced to pay the above percentages on your "earning capacity" even if you are not currently earning up to your supposed capacity or
are not earning any income whatsoever. Your child's mother has no obligation to actually spend this money on your child, nor to contribute to the financial costs of rearing the child, or to account to you or anyone for your child support money. The state of Wisconsin
(and almost all other jurisdictions in all developed nations) allows her to spend this child support money on alcohol and drugs, luxury trips, gifts to new boyfriends, or anything else she desires. Nonetheless, your child support obligation will be enforced by the full powers of the state. Attempts to avoid paying child support will result in destroyed credit, suspended licenses, liens on your property, garnishment of your wages, posting of your photo on a publicly-displayed wanted poster
or on the Internet, and incarceration. 
12. If your unwed female partner gives birth to your child, there is no minimal amount of time the State of Wisconsin will allow you to share with your children, as long as you have some contact with them.
A Wisconsin Appellate Court has ruled that as little time as two days per month of time with your children is "reasonable."  In other states and in Canada, "standard visitation" for you will be in the order of 11 or 12 percent of the time throughout the year. That includes extra days for holidays and vacations. Nevertheless, many non-residential fathers will be quite happy with that because they feel that the courts have found them to be worthy and respectable fathers because they were given what the courts call "joint custody"
and "standard visitation rights."
However, your visitation rights are only nominal. The mother
can at any time and anywhere refuse to let you see your child or have
you play a meaningful role in the child's life. Unless the police
are specifically ordered in the visitation order that spells out your
visitation rights to help enforce the court order if denial of
visitation rights occurs, the police will do nothing about the criminal
offence by the mother of interfering with a court order. The
police will claim that the mother's criminal act is matter of family
"law" or domestic relations "law". In other words, the police will
wrongfully allege and claim that the mother's criminal act is not
criminal but a matter in which they have no jurisdiction because it is a
civil matter to be heard in civil court.
13. If you are not of legal age and father a child, you'll not be permitted to use the excuse that you have been raped.
You may still be subject to all of the above, regardless of age. All that matters is that you are male, fertile and have fathered a child, regardless of whether the mother of your child has been found guilty of statutory rape. [11, 12, Article by SF Examiner, 13]
You'll be ordered to pay even if you are under-aged and were drugged into sexual submission.
14. If you cohabit with or are married to a woman, and if she conceives a child by another man (the chances are on average 1 in 5
for the first child in a marriage), that child will become with virtual certainty your responsibility -- to support in all ways as if it were your own -- even after separation or divorce.
Man forced to pay Child Support for Child not his own
The strands of adultery, Cheap DNA testing could mean broken families
15. If you cohabit with or marry a woman from another country, and if she should decide to end the union and to return with your child[ren] to her country of origin or anywhere else, you'll be considered guilty of abusing your child[ren] even before she makes the decision to leave; whether or not abuse took place.
Governments Sponsor International Child Abduction
All men are now deemed guilty even before a crime has been committed
A report from the
international family law conference in Hobart, Australia, October, 1998.
16. If you want to become married to a psychotherapist, consider what may happen to you, especially if you don't give up quietly.
Miller, a jewelry manufacturer with a brisk business, put his wife through university so she could get her Ph.D. in Psychology, and
he set up an office for her. She fell in love with one of her patients, a Ms. Sherry Ferland, after bestowing 100 different personalities on her, and declared her intention to get a divorce. After that Erwin
Miller's life became a living hell, although it was partially of his own making. He should have laid down and died instead. That would have been much more painless for him. Now he can't be found to attend his deportation hearing, scheduled for November 2, 1998 in Edmonton.
It appears that Erwin Miller would have been far better if only he would have funded Ms. Ferland to file a lawsuit against his wife for malpractice.
Update 2004 10 22: Just a few days ago I received a phone call from Erwin
Miller. He called from outside of Canada and claims to be doing well.
17. If you are happily married, that will give you no protection against losing everything you have in addition to anything you earn in the future – if your wife decides to follow the advice she gets from her friends
on how to do you in.
Marriage is no guarantee that you won't wind up in jail and with a permanent criminal record – even if you have not done anything at all for which you can be held criminally responsible in any court of law. Innocence is no protection and all you may attempt to do to establish your innocence will be held against you in court.
That sounds incredible? Well, think again. Check the following:
An Australian separation story
The story of Bob, his wife Mary, and their two children
Have a look also at
Other Possibilities — Divorce Games
You may think that prenuptial agreements will establish legal protection for you. If so, you would be wrong. There is not a single prenuptial agreement that can't be cast aside. It doesn't even take a good lawyer to do it. All it takes is a judge who sympathizes with your ex-wife, and
judges like those are a dime a dozen. Moreover, for example the
Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a prenuptial agreement had to be cast
aside because the female signatory to that agreement did not make a fully
informed decision. Chances are that you will therefore always be left
holding the bag. The reality of that is that what is in that bag will
be all that you will be left with.
"Our most loyal ally is truth. Truth brought to public light recruits the best of us to work for change."
— A World Waiting to be Reborn by Dr. Scott Peck
(I added Item 13, 14, 15. 16 and 17. See also these remarks--WHS)
Wis. Stats. 948.02
Wis. Stats. 940.225
False Rape Allegations, Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994
U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade; Planned Parenthood v. Danforth; Planned Parenthood v. Casey,
Wis. Stats. 767.51 and Michelle Delo, Washington Families
See also: Hair-raising case-law examples in relation to child support and alimony cited and analyzed by Eeva Sodhi.
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Department of Health and Social Services, Chapter HSS 80 Wis. Stats. 767.25
Wis. Stats. 767.51
Wis. Stats. 767.25 and HSS 80
Wiederholt vs. Fischer, 169 Wis.2d 524, 485 N.W.2d 442, 1992.
County of San Luis Obispo vs. Nathaniel J., a minor 96 C.D.O.S. 8074, filed November 4, 1996
Erin McCormick, SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, 03-Dec-1996 Tuesday
The Supreme Court of Kansas in 1993
A lower limit for the age of paternity?
SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER 03-Dec-1996 Tuesday
By Erin McCormick
SAN FRANCISCO -- He was a "normal 15-year-old kid," with all the usual teen-age sexual passions.
She was his neighbor -- a 34-year-old mom, later convicted of statutory rape for engaging him in a romantic tryst that resulted in her getting pregnant.
However, in a case that turns the term "deadbeat dad" squarely on its ear, a California appeals court has ruled the young man from San Luis Obispo, identified only as "Nathaniel J." in court records, is responsible for paying child support for the baby born of the illegal union.
The Nov. 6 ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles -- the first decision of its kind in California -- opens a Pandora's box of sticky societal questions, ranging from whether girls and boys should be treated differently in cases of statutory rape to the fairness of government's increasingly aggressive pursuit of child support payments.
"This is a really bizarre case," said University of California Berkeley social welfare Professor Mary Ann Mason, who specializes in societal legal issues. "It seems unfair that he was taken advantage of, and then he gets prosecuted for child support. He's considered a victim on one hand and a perpetrator on the other."
County and state authorities, rather than the mother, have pursued the case, seeking compensation for welfare payments the infant girl has been receiving since her birth in January 1995.
Attorneys from the state Attorney General's Office, which represented the state in the appeal, say the teenager should be responsible for the child because he indicated he was a willing sexual partner.
"Our point of view is that the newborn is the victim in these matters," said Carol Ann White, a lawyer who heads the attorney general's child support enforcement unit. "No matter what the circumstances of their conception, babies deserve to have two parents."
"And this was a consensual relationship," she added.
The youth, now 18, won't be required to pay until he has some kind of income, said Deputy Attorney General Mary Roth, who handled the case. "Say he makes $800 a month working at Burger King," Roth said. "He'll probably be expected to pay $200 a month to reimburse Aid to Families with Dependent Children."
Under state law, the boy's parents aren't responsible for child support for their granddaughter.
The case began in 1994, with a 2-week-long affair between the young boy and the unmarried woman, listed in court records as Ricci Jones.
According to court records, Jones and the teenager discussed having sex in advance and made a clear decision to do it. They had intercourse approximately five times, in what the boy later told police investigators was "a mutually agreeable act."
The teenager's attorney, Pat Perry of San Luis Obispo, didn't return calls. Neither Jones nor the teenager could be reached for comment. The case didn't become a court matter until after the pair's daughter was born on Jan. 20, 1995, and Jones began receiving welfare on the daughter's behalf.
Under federal guidelines, counties must make an effort to determine the identity of the father of any child on welfare and collect child support from him to offset the welfare payments.
That's exactly what San Luis Obispo County did.
As soon as county officials realized the baby's father was a minor, they filed statutory rape charges against Jones, which resulted in a conviction but no jail time. Almost simultaneously, they sought to have the young father registered as being responsible for child support.
After being ordered to pay by Superior Court, "Nathaniel J." and his parents appealed the decision, arguing that a child who was the victim of sexual exploitation by an adult shouldn't be penalized for the consequences of the exploitation.
But the appeals court disagreed.
"Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities," said the opinion, written by Judge Arthur Gilbert. He cited cases from other states in which minors were deemed responsible for child support if they had consented to sex with an adult.
"We conclude he is liable for child support."
Clearly, said attorney Roth, if a teen-age boy got a teen-age girl pregnant, no one would question the state for holding him responsible. She said the teenager's testimony made it clear that he had known what he was doing and agreed to it.
"I guess he thought he was a man then," she said. "Now, he prefers to be considered a child."
But Fred Hayward, founder of the Sacramento-based group Men's Rights Inc., said the court was setting a horrible double standard.
"This is victimizing the victim," he said. "The law is based on the premise that a 15-year-old is too young to give his consent to anything. Yet he gets a 34-year-old woman pregnant, and suddenly he's old enough to be responsible."
Men have to be careful, there is no doubt about that, but women, who have been taught — and accept — that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," better think twice. For them, the consequences of having sex with men are quite serious too. They may become pregnant, and the people who have told them about the fish and bicycles would have done them a great service if they had told them about the difficulty of raising a child or children in a lone-mother family.
Much has been made out of the emancipation of women with respect to their right to their bodies, the right to end the life of the child that is developing in their womb. It is a biological absurdity to have the metabolic processes of the body interrupted when a pregnancy is "terminated", when the baby is killed. There have recently been reports of increased risks of cancer for women with each abortion that they undergo. It was said that these risks increase exponentially with each abortion.
The biological processes are not the only ones that one must worry about. The consequences of the processes involve a subliminal adjustment of the brain, to make the mother ready for the addition to her life -- after all, to be a mother is what nature has equipped her for. The consequences of forcing the premature end of a pregnancy results for normal women in a higher risk of breast cancer, but also in the virtual certainty that they will become depressed, at least to the extent that for years after they will have thoughts about the child that could have been. More about that is contained in the section on Abortion.
In the case described in the SF Examiner, some might argue that a 15-year old boy should know better and should be held responsible for his actions (although I don't understand for the life of me why we would hold the opinion that he can't be held responsible for murder to the same extent as an adult is, yet are ready to condemn him to a life-sentence of paying for being raped).
How young must a boy be before we decide that too much is too much and he should definitely not be held responsible to pay for the support of a child not much younger than he himself is when he became the father as the result of a crime, without being able to give his consent? Let's see:
Last month (Jan. 1998), someone asked about the child support case resulting from the statutory rape of a minor boy by an older women. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of Kansas in 1993. It is available at <http://www.nas.com/c4m/rape_case.html>
The court found in effect that "the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determining paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
"The State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children is superior to the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from their improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent."
Philosophically, what the court seemed to believe is that although Colleen had violated the criminal law in having sex with Shane -- the boy she was hired to baby-sit -- the violation was really just a technical one. In reality they believed it was just two kids playing house.
So, OK, yes, we punish Colleen for violating the criminal statute, but we also hold Shane financially responsible for the child that he fathered. That captures the essence of the court's reasoning.
The mindset producing those kinds of views is by no means unique to the USA. Two British members of Parliament, both men, also hold and promote the view that, regardless of whether statutory rape was involved or not, regardless of the age of the victim and the size of the age gap between the aggressor and her victim, if he was forced or seduced into fathering a child, the victim must be made to pay for what was done to him.
From MENTION (name of contributor unknown):
"4. The State's interest in requiring minor parents to support their children is superior to the State's competing interest in protecting juveniles from their improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent.
5. In an action [***2] by the State against a minor father for reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, even if criminal, has no bearing on the father's duty to support such child."
Thanks to Stuart Miller and ACFC, 1998 11 02
This was a story picked up by the AP on Friday.
WALNUT CREEK, CA
A woman accused of giving a 16-year-old drugs and then having sex with him is now suing the boy for child support.
State law entitles the child to support from both parents, even though the boy is considered the victim of statutory rape, Contra Costa district attorney's officials said.
But the mother of the Pacheco boy called the support "ridiculous," saying her son was plied with methamphetamine for a week before the two had sex.
See also http://www.vix.com/men/rawdeal/seyer.html for details on the Shane Seyer case. For related articles and information check "Other Male Abuse" at
Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own.
Index of articles pertaining to issues of paternity
Note: There are many misperceptions and misrepresentations regarding the assumption that the outcomes of paternity tests reflect the incidence rate of paternity fraud. Non-paternity does not equate to paternity fraud. Paternity fraud involves the deliberate allegation that someone is the
natural father who cannot be and is known not to be the natural father of a child.
Under specific circumstances it is possible that the results of paternity tests overstate the possibility that paternity fraud took place. In other circumstances the results of paternity test may understate the probability or possibility of paternity fraud.
It is important to know how a test was constructed and for what purpose to recognize the difference. The website of Child Support Analysis UK contains an important clarification of the issues involved in attempts to determine accurate figures for paternity-fraud incidence rates: "Paternity test statistics don't show the rate of paternity fraud." It is strongly recommended to anyone involved in these issues to read that article.
Not only that, but the website of Child Support Analysis UK contains a very large collection of quotes, comments and even links to full articles and study reports relating to paternity testing. It is perhaps the most comprehensive collection of such information available on the Internet.
See also: Mommy's little secret. That article contains a good summary of the perceived issues, moral dilemmas and biological and social realities of falsely assigned paternity. The following information addresses some of the circumstances and consequences of falsely assigned paternity.
Article from the Alberta Report, Aug. 10, 1998, depending on where the study was done, 10% or 30% of children from allegedly biological fathers in supposedly monogamous, stable relationships aren't the biological offspring of the putative fathers. Full Story
- The Association of American Blood Banks reports that for 310,490 DNA tests made for paternity in 2001, "of the cases reported 90,227 were reported as exclusions or a rate of 29.06% exclusions [i.e.: paternity was proven to be falsely alleged]." (Source: Annual Report Summary for Testing in 2001, prepared by the Parentage Testing Program Unit, October 2002, Association of American Blood Banks,
footnote to Table 2 — PDF file, 129kB)
Parentage exclusion rates per AABB Annual Reports:
- Of 310,490 cases, 90,227 (29.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source,
p. 2 of 12)
Of 340,798 cases, 97,681 (28.7%) were reported as exclusions (Source,
p. 3 of 51)
Of 353,387 cases, 99,174 (28.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source,
p. 3 of 53)
Of 374,171 cases, 100,588 (26.68%) were reported as exclusions (Source,
p. 6 of 62)
- DNA testing can be obtained how cheap?
Prices start at US$295 — Testing for all types of relationships world-wide: DNAnow.com
All that is needed is a few strands of hair.
Update 2004 10 22: DNA testing technology having progressed considerably since that was written, it is now sufficient to establish paternity based on nothing more than an analysis of a swab of the mucus from inside the cheeks of a child and its putative father.
Update 2005 08 16: Check http://www.paternityfrauddna.com/Costs.html for a comprehensive price list. Their prices range from US$350 to about US$600 for testing DNA samples from a father and his putative child.
- One in seven fathers 'not the real parent' — By Lois Rogers, Medical Correspondent, The Times (Britain), 23 January 2000 (Alternate link)
At least one in 10 children was not sired by the man who believes he is its father, according to scientists in paternity testing laboratories.
- Adultery pays - if you are a woman
In 1989 British Zoologist Robin Baker did a study that revealed 20% of children in apparently stable families were not the sons and daughters of their ostensible fathers. That's one cuckoo in every five nests!
His discoveries suggest that human females like many other species females choose mediocre, but reliable husbands and have affairs with more genetically desirable male neighbours. Adultery is hard wired into women (not men) as a genetic strategy. In fact, Baker discovered that women have different orgasms when they are unfaithful which retained sperm longer in the vagina. (don't ask how he measured that!)
—Mentioned in Dark Nature, by Lyall Watson
(1995 Hodder and Stoughton ISBN 0 340 61788 8), p. 108
Support Gold-Diggers, By Carey Roberts, April 7, 2006,
- Fighting blood test
for paternal determination -- Methods of Defense in Contested Paternity Cases.
Blood tests are far from being a sure-fire method for determining paternity, but, in order to understand the reasoning for that statement, it is required to study the statistical methods used in making paternity determinations.
Blood tests only determine the probability of paternity. Odds are that some of the assumptions used when that determination is made are erroneous. There is enough information in the article to provide grounds for adamantly insisting that a DNA analysis be made to determine paternity.
- Woman deceives man into believing that she is sterile and conceives a child by him — he must pay.
Minnesota Court of Appeals: Fraud and misrepresentation are not available as affirmative defenses to paternity actions under the Parentage Act.
A woman cohabiting with a man for three months claimed that she had a tubal litigation, showed him her alleged surgical scar and got pregnant by him. He is alleged to have fathered a child with her. The blood test showed a 99.97% probability that the man is the father. He must pay.
Note that according to the information given at "Fighting blood test for paternal determination -- Methods of Defense in Contested Paternity Cases," it is not possible that paternity can be determined with a high level of confidence just on the basis of a simple blood test. A DNA analysis would be required to determine paternity with a probability of 99.97%. See also the subsequent article.
- Men who admit to paternity are often wrong.
18% of them are wrong when they "admit" paternity (but what the article doesn't say is how likely it is that an alleged father is wrongfully forced into paternity even though he denies paternity). This item, which quotes the original study from which that conclusion is drawn is based on the results of blood tests.
Once more, blood tests only identify the probability of a given man being the
natural father. The calculation of that probability is based on the assumption that it is not likely that anyone else but the alleged father is actually the father of a given child.
Obviously, in the case of a "gang bang" involving a number of men or teenagers who knowingly or unknowingly participated in having sex with a given woman in the time frame that could make anyone of them the possible
natural father, that assumption will be wrong. The probability of paternity will then be based on an estimate of probability that is founded in wrong assumptions.
The most certain value, the one with the highest level of confidence for the probability of biological paternity can currently not be established by any method other than DNA testing.
12/24/2000 - Sunday - Page D 27
Abigail Van Buren
DEAR ABBY: I'm 27. When I was 18 I got married, because my girlfriend was pregnant. We're now divorced, and my son lives with me, because my ex refused to be responsible for him. She ran off with her new boyfriend.
I have just learned my son isn't really my son after all. My ex finally admitted to me she had always known that he wasn't mine (his real father died of a drug overdose in 1996); a DNA test will prove it this week.
I'm extremely frustrated, because I don't feel I should have to take care of a child who isn't even mine. I love the boy, but I don't feel he's my responsibility anymore. I was tricked into being his father. I wouldn't have taken the job had I known eight years ago that he was someone else's.
We have a very close relationship, and I take good care of him, but I would like to live my life for myself and do what I want when I want - like his mother does. I know he needs me and loves me, and I'm afraid of what it would do to him if I sent him to live with his mother so I could live my life. I'm so confused, Abby. How can I compromise my desires and his needs?
- Used In North Carolina
DEAR USED: The last thing you should do is send the boy to live with a woman who has already proven she's an unfit mother. You are young and feeling overwhelmed with responsibility. But quitting is not an option, and I doubt you could live with yourself if you tried it.
You need time for yourself - every single parent does. If possible, arrange for relatives or close friends with children to invite your son to stay with them for an evening or a weekend once or twice a month. Or find a single-parent support group in your area. Parents Without Partners is a good one. You can contact the organization by calling 800-637- 7974 or visiting the Web site: www.parentswithoutpartners.org.
Being duped like that is not unique to the man from North Carolina. See Pregnant on the Sly, an article in the April 24, 2000 issue of the REPORT Newsmagazine.
"But quitting is not an option, and I doubt you could live with yourself if you tried it," advises Abigail Van Buren.
That is realistic and perhaps even good advice. Besides, there can be fates for a man that are far worse than living and caring for a boy who is not his son but who needs a father. There is nothing comparable to having a child's love, even if a man is not the father of that child.
However, quitting it is not an option for other reasons, most and foremost the attitude of the legal system. The judges hold that because a man assumed paternity, even though the child is not his and he may not even have know at all the the child wasn't his, he will be held to the responsibility of being the father of that child, even if he wouldn't want to be. The articles shown below illustrate that beyond any doubt. (Notable exceptions are the laws of Ohio, Colorado, Iowa and Louisiana — the first four states in the USA that addressed the issue of falsely attributed paternity in a manner favourable to cuckolded fathers.)
Let's hope that the man and his assumed son will be allowed to live in peace, without the mother of the boy ever wanting to have custody of the boy, because then the man will have no choice but to hand the boy over to the mother, and he'll have to pay child support to the mother without receiving any credit at all for the fact that most likely the mother never paid any child support to him. Mothers are about twice as likely as men are not to pay child support.
The best advice that Abigail Van Buren could have given to the man would be to have him establish through the legal system that he is the legal, sole parent of the boy. Without that "proof of ownership" he'll face an increased risk that the child will be taken from him. Not only that, but he could well be forced to pay arrears in child support going back to the date of his separation from the mother of the child.
- Man must pay child support for a child that isn't his, even though his spouse brought it into the relationship
Canada: The trial judge found that the husband had repudiated his parental relationship with the child and was not obligated to pay support for her. The Court of Appeal dismissed the wife's appeal for support for the child. At issue here is under what circumstances, if any, can an adult who is or has been in the place of a parent pursuant to s. 2 of the Divorce Act withdraw from that position.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appeal by the mother should be allowed and ruled that "A person cannot unilaterally withdraw from a relationship in which he or she stands in the place of a parent. The court must look to the nature of the relationship to determine if a person in fact does stand in the place of a parent to a child." Full Story
From the facts of the case:
The parties began a common law relationship in November 1989 and married on June 1, 1991. Their child, Jeena, was born on August 29, 1990. The parties separated in May 1992, later reconciled for a month or two, then permanently separated in September 1992.
Jessica is the child of the wife from a previous relationship. While the parties lived together, the husband played an active role in caring for both children and was a father-figure for Jessica. The parties discussed, but did not proceed with, the husband's adoption of Jessica. The parties did amend Jessica's birth registration to indicate, falsely, that the husband was Jessica's natural father and to change her name to his.
From Relevant Statutory Provisions mentioned in the case:
- Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.)
- (1) In this Act, "child of the marriage" means a child of two spouses or former spouses who, at the material time,
- is under the age of sixteen years, or
- is sixteen years of age or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life;
(2) For the purposes of the definition "child of the marriage" in subsection (1), a child of two spouses or former spouses includes
- any child for whom they both stand in the place of parents; and
- any child of whom one is the parent and for whom the other stands in the place of a parent.
Would it have made a difference if the two "parents" had not been married at all? All of the relevant statutory provisions would apply as long as they cohabited? In Canada, common-law relationships are considered to be the equivalent of a legal marriage.
The irony is that in 1995 the Court ruled that the father should be denied access, but that the Supreme Court decided in January 1999 that the man had played the role of the father in the life of the child Jessica.
According to the Public Legal Education Society of Nova Scotia: "There are no provisions in the law for adoption by common-law spouses. However, if common-law spouses marry, time spent together in a common law relationship may be taken into account in assessing the stability of the relationship. Also, one member of the common-law relationship may apply for adoption as a single person."
Nevertheless, it appears that when the Supreme Court of Canada gets into play, there are no more obstacles in declaring anyone it wishes to be a father, no matter how short the interval in which he was a "father" to a child not his own.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON, in
STATE OF OREGON, Department of Human Resources and Support, Enforcement Division, Appellant,
ROBERT L. TROST, Respondent, and NORMA L. NOGGLE, Obligee.
It was decided that the alleged father, for whom DNA test had determined that he was not the father, had the right to a jury trial in which his non-paternity was established. The decision was 2:1 in favour of affirming the right to jury trial at the time.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Armstrong stated:
"I conclude that the legislature intended ORS 109.155 to take precedence over ORS 416.430(4)(a) based solely on the provisions in federal law that required Oregon to eliminate the right to a jury trial by September 1, 1997, in order to avoid jeopardizing Oregon's right to receive its full share of federal welfare funds. Federal law is part of the context of the Oregon statutes, see Pamplin v. Victoria, 319 Or 429, 433, 877 P2d 1196 (1994), so my reliance on federal law to reconcile the conflict between ORS 109.155 and ORS 416.430(4)(a) does not implicate any of the legislative history of House Bill 2324." and further stated,
". . .I believe that ORS 416.430(4)(a), when considered in context, can be construed to give effect to the legislature's intention without attempting to resort to the tie-breaking principle favoring a particular over a general provision, and that that construction denies defendant a right to a jury trial. The majority errs in concluding otherwise."
13. Respondent argued below and on appeal that the 1997 amendments to the paternity statutes that removed the right to a jury trial, even if effective on August 4, 1997, could not apply to the August 27, 1997, trial in this case, because that would give them a retroactive effect, and nothing in the legislation indicates that the legislature intended them to apply retroactively. Respondent is wrong. Applying the amendments to a trial that occurred after their adoption involves a prospective rather than a retroactive application of them.
Well, I'm only a sheep farmer and know a lot about sheep droppings (my faithful Ruth calls them smartening-up pills) and not that much about B.S., but it seems to me that when a legislature decides to make legislation effective retroactively, and that when a trial was initiated before the date of the legislation and after the date on which the legislation was retroactively to become effective, that the August 27, 1997 trial should not be retroactively affected by legislation that came into being after the trial took place.
It is nice that Robert Trost (interesting name, in German it means consolation), won his consolation of the right to his jury trial. It is fairly obvious how things will go in the future for other paternity cases.
It is incomprehensible to me what the whole argument was all about. The man wasn't the father. That's what the DNA tests established. So, what was the State of Oregon after in this case? Did they want money from Robert Trost in spite of him not being the father? I guess so. At any rate, Judge Armstrong knew exactly what it was all about. It was about protecting the interests of the State. It is odd that a judge feels obligated to protect the interests of the State. Should he not simply be interested in preserving truth and equitable justice in the case of a man who isn't the father of a child, a child for which the State nevertheless wants a man who isn't the father to pay?
A collection of various articles pertaining to the discussion of paternity issues. http://www.vix.com/men/child-support/paternity.html
The consequences and the background of these stories contain a lot of heart ache and enormous costs. Much of that can be avoided by having a DNA test done before it is too late. Considering the odds, do it as soon as possible, unless you would rather not know.
Men who pay child support for children not their own
A man's wife decided to receive artificial insemination with other than her husband's sperm on the day he announced that he wanted a divorce. The judge said that biology is not an issue.
"Acting as a father lends more weight than actually supplying the sperm to create the child, a Monroe County Common Pleas Court judge has ruled, giving a boost to supporters of Pennsylvania's widely debated presumption of paternity doctrine."
Judge Reibman: "Husband is precluded from denying his parental responsibilities to the quadruplets," because:
"The quadruplets were conceived and born during the marriage. Husband presented no evidence to conclude he either had no access to wife or was physically incapable of procreation at the time of conceptions."
The husband asked for his name to be on the birth certificates of the babies.
The husband provided financial support to the children for the first several months of their lives.
"The doctrine of estoppel was created so that regardless of biology, the person who has cared for the child is the parent." [That is a a deliberate distortion of the truth. The doctrine of estoppel was in use by the legal industry a long time before it became blatantly abused to assign paternity obligations to men targeted as the victims of paternity fraud. However, Judge Reibman's outrageous decision is now a legal precedent that will serve to entrench the fraud as a principle of the law. —F4L]
The couple had been through an acrimonious marriage. It appears that the successful fertility treatment that his wife underwent (after a series of unsuccessful ones) was done using sperm from a donor other than her husband, even though the husband had asked the doctor at the fertility clinic not to proceed with any further treatment. He stayed with his then-still-wife until their acrimony resulted in her filing for divorce and a protection order on Mar 15, 1998.
[Has is ever happened that a man in a case like this laid charges of fraud against the woman who defrauded him? —WHS]
Another case along the same lines:
20 August 1999
ABC NEWS WIRE
High Court Rejects Non-Dad's Claim
CROSSETT, ARKANSAS -- The Arkansas State Supreme Court says a Crossett man must pay his ex-wife child support for two sons born during their marriage, even though D-N-A tests say he isn't the
natural father. The court says James Kelley failed to dispute paternity during his divorce proceedings, so he must pay. It's the second such ruling the court has made this year. Kelley says he'll appeal in the federal courts. He says he will also ask the Legislature to pass a law that would protect other men caught in similar circumstances.
[Has is ever happened that a man in a case like this laid charges of fraud against the woman who defrauded him? —WHS]
And another case:
Divorced Man Not Father, but Must Support Child
Judge rules that furthering the 'self interests of the parent' is not a good reason to abandon child support payments
New York Law Journal
September 3, 1999
A divorced man who paid child support for 13 years before learning that he was not the child's biological father
[that is: natural father] still must continue to make support payments, a Queens Supreme Court justice has ruled.
. . . Justice Phyllis Orlikoff Flug declared that the paramount concern in such a case must be the best interests of the child. . . .
The marriage between Joseph and Marlaine Ocasio began in 1976 and effectively ended with their separation in 1979. While pregnant, Ms. Ocasio received an order of child support at a hearing in Family Court, during which Mr. Ocasio did not raise the issue of paternity.
In June 1980, the child, Joseph Michael Ocasio, was born. . . .
[On appeal, predictably, as so many times before, THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS came into play.]
The case was then referred to Justice Flug, who held a hearing on the matter this June. In her decision, Justice Flug reacted scornfully to Mr. Ocasio's assertion that the termination of child support would have no adverse impact on the child's financial condition, calling the suggestion [that a 19-year-old young man doesn't require child support any longer] "preposterous, incredible and without substance."
[Has is ever happened that a man in a case like this laid charges of fraud against the woman who defrauded him? —WHS]
And here is the case of a man who found out, again too late, that three of the four children he had ostensibly fathered during his marriage were not his.
This article indicates that when DNA test labs perform paternity tests, "women, for whatever reason, misidentify the fathers of their children with some frequency." DNA Diagnostics Center, an Ohio firm and industry leader, says that 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified, the Texas attorney general's office, which enforces child support: "About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third."
You would think that those kind of statistics make a powerful case for mandatory DNA testing at the birth of any child, wouldn't you?
DNA TESTS ALTER LEGAL LANDSCAPE FOR DADS
Man supports sons not biologically his
The Dallas Morning News, 10/31/99
By Brooks Egerton
BIG SPRING, Texas - You are not a cystic fibrosis carrier, the doctor says. Sounds like good news, but it has ripped his patient's life apart. Both parents must have a defective CF gene for their offspring to develop the deadly disease -- so how could Morgan Wise's youngest child be sick?
"I'm sorry to say there's a good chance he's not your boy," he recalled the physician telling him. In disbelief, he had DNA work done on all his kids. The staggering conclusion: His three sons were not his three sons, at least not biologically speaking.
Full story at the Dallas Morning News
Has is ever happened that a man in a case like this laid charges of fraud against the woman who defrauded him?
Update 2001 03 06 : In the time since I asked that question, a number of cases were launched by men against women for paternity fraud. There are now four states in the US that have laws permitting men, on the basis of DNA tests, to have their child support orders and child support arrears cancelled. —WHS
Update 2003 09 19:
"Success"! Restitution for Paternity Fraud
Update 2003 11 04:
Non-father seeks $75,000 refund
Non-father seeks $75,000 refund
[The Age (Australia)]
"He did not want a baby, but he raised his child with love. When the man's marriage ended, he paid thousands of dollars in child support. Now the man wants a refund - telling a court that someone else fathered his child." (10/28/03) Full Story
The lesson to be learned from these stories is that if you are in Court to dispute child support obligations or custody issues, first of all make sure that the children are yours; and ideally make sure of that long before the case winds up in court. Do it right after the birth of the child.
Still, that won't help much in a case like the following one.
Woman created a "virtual child", a child that never existed in
reality but did exist on forged documents, still, the alleged father had
...first wife Viola Trevino gave new meaning to Paternity Fraud
when she created a “virtual daughter” based on a DNA sample from her
ex-husband’s adult daughter. With the help of accomplices, she
created a Child that Never Existed but that came complete with a
Birth Certificate, a Social Security Card, a Medicare Card, and a
judicial claim for child support that reached the sum of $20,000.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE - ONE BILLBOARD AT A TIME
By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006
See also an earlier related story:
Agency culpable in child-support
by Wendy McElroy, Dec. !7, 2004
Viola Trevino carried her 5-year-old "daughter" into an
court to satisfy a judge’s demand to produce the child.
had kidnapped the child moments before to pass off as her
Two: the "real" daughter never existed.
"father" and ex-husband Steve Barreras had paid $20,000 in child
Four: the system finally noticed Trevino was lying. (Full
Story at foxnew.com)
Update 2008 08 01:
Woman Accused Of Creating Fake
Child Makes Plea Deal
Viola Trevino Enters Pleas For 13
Of 24 Felony Counts
August 1, 2008
The Albuquerque woman accused of creating a fictitious child to
obtain government benefits and child support appeared in court
Viola Trevino's plea bargain begins the final chapter of a case that
made national headlines.
Trevino is accused of faking the existence of a child, then bilking
the government out of thousands in benefits and her former husband
out of tens of thousands in child support....
The plot included fictitious DNA tests and even a baby taken off the
street for an appearance in family court....(Full
Note: It will be interesting to see whether Steve Barreras and
his wife Viola will be getting the $20,000 back (with interest, of
course) from the State of New Mexico that the State extorted from
them for a child that Steve and Viola knew right from the start he
could not have fathered. — WHS
Chances are on average one (or better) in four that a specific child you assume to be yours isn't. If you think that you can't afford the cost of the DNA test, consider the cost of child support for many years for a child that could well be not yours. However, there is another possibility to bring the costs down. Deny
paternity. The burden of proof is on the other party, however, if you truly should be the
natural father of the child,
you'll be made to pay for the test. On the other hand, if you don't
show up in court to protest a wrongful allegation of paternity, you will be made to pay
a life-time of child support for a child that is either not yours or doesn't
It is obvious that nobody will have any sympathy for you for having been conned into paying perhaps as much as or far more than $100,000 in child support for a child that isn't yours. If you don't object to allegations of paternity right at the first custody or child support hearing, that fact will be held against you for the duration of your life, because then you will be held to be the legal father of that child through having assumed paternity.
To make absolutely sure that you will never be raked over the coals for
child support for a child that you think is yours and that isn't, get a DNA
test done right at birth of any child you are said to have fathered. If a
given child isn't yours but you accept it as yours without raising an
objection, the principle of estoppel
will then come into play, and you will with virtual certainty still be held
responsible to support that child financially until it reaches the age of
majority or finishes college, whichever comes later. It doesn't matter
whether you will be part of that child's life or not or whether you have
even been barred from ever seeing that child. You will be deemed to be
a one-legged cheque-book, a prick with a wallet. You will be forced
The laws of genetic diversity work as well as the laws of financial diversity. They mandate that a woman spreads her legs to as many men as possible, so as not to put all of her eggs into one basket. The rules of civility and social standards are only a very thin veneer over the savagery hidden by that veneer. Remember the rule of thumb: On average, in contested paternity cases, in one out of three cases the man who is alleged to have fathered a child is not the
natural father of that child. If you wish to play Russian roulette when one out of three chambers are loaded, make sure that you know whether the chamber that you pull the trigger on is empty.
Elsewhere at this website you can find an explanation of the meaning and consequences of estoppel. The gist of it is that the law does not discourage paternity fraud, and that paternity fraud is virtually never punished. In fact, as the law is right now it encourages women to commit paternity fraud — never say that crime doesn't pay and that the victim of the crime of paternity fraud can't be made to pay the perpetrator of the crime committed against the victim. Adultery and its consequence — a child conceived by another man who is not the current husband of the woman bringing that child to life into the marriage with her legal husband — are still a crime!
If you have a DNA test done, it is advisable to have it done by two independent labs. Although, if done correctly, a DNA test proves beyond a reasonable doubt who is or isn't the father of a given child, DNA testing labs do make mistakes. Who knows why? The fact is that a mistake by a lab can condemn you to pay more than a $100,000 in child support and to even pay with your whole life for a child that isn't yours.
Moreover, it is not likely that two independent labs will both become
involved in the same fraud, such as that used by Viola Trevino.
Again, the chance is on average one in five that a given child isn't yours if you are married, but if you are not married the odds that a given child isn't yours is about one in three or better than one in three. I don't totally agree with the following quote from Aristotle except for the part that tells of how sure a mother is that a given child is hers.
Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own.
The truth is that until DNA tests came around, fathers could never be sure, and now that the tool is in place to tell fathers the truth about their falsely alleged or real paternity, the powers wish to deny them the use of that tool, and that, they say, is "in the best interest of the child."
|Ohio lets men who can disprove paternity end child support |
That was reported in an article dated Saturday, October 28, 2000 5:47 AM, By Charley Gillespie, Associated Press Writer.
The article mentioned that,
According to the National Association of State Legislators only Colorado, Iowa and Louisiana have passed similar paternity laws. Most states have policies like one in California to forbid "inquiries into the child's paternity that would be destructive of family integrity and privacy."
A number of people interviewed for and quoted in the article do lean towards the stance taken in the California law. Not one of those people appears to think in the least of the rights of the men who are falsely alleged fathers. Obviously, men don't matter to them, only the child support money that they think those men should have to pay does.
As of now, in the year 2006, the media
increasingly more often report on the issue of paternity fraud. Take
these two examples.
World Net Daily, 8 February 2006
Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.
30% of those named as fathers bilked of child support unjustly
Support Gold-Diggers, By Carey Roberts, April 7, 2006,
LOOKING FOR LEGAL CASES — involving Courts' denial of the right to establish paternity
Did the Court refuse you the right to have a paternity test done and prevent you thereby from establishing that you are the father of the child or children for whom you now must pay child support? If so, then contact DADS, Michigan
For full details see the following:
THE PAC HELPS FATHERS GROUP IN MICHIGAN. WORKING TOGETHER AND WINNING.
Subject: [denman] ASSISTANCE REQUESTED
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:22:18 EDT
To: [Not shown]
LOOKING FOR LEGAL CASES WITH THE FOLLOWING CASE SPECIFICS:
Married Father Denied Right to Paternity Testing of Children by a Court Prior to Issuance of a Divorce Decree.
Should you be aware of such a case(s) or situation, please provide us with contact names, addresses, phone numbers, case numbers, etc. via email reply.
A recognized national news organization is interested and needs a quick
27777 Franklin Road; Suite 300
Southfield, MI 48034
"DADS ARE CAPABLE PARENTS TOO"
The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud (110
kB PDF file)
BY RONALD K. HENRY; Family Law Quarterly, Volume 40, Number 1,
(This is the best overview yet
written by anyone I saw on the scope and nature of paternity fraud and
From the article:
The bottom line in the drive to find some man,
any man, to drive up the paternity establishment rate is that
“fairness was not a high concern.”....
In Los Angeles County, eighty percent of paternity
establishments are entered by default judgment, whereas for the
State of California as a whole, the number is sixty-eight
percent. California is not alone. The United States
Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector
General (HHS/IG report) reported that “seven states’ child
support agencies report half or more of paternities established
in their states occur through defaults.” The inspector general
further reported that “[t]wentyfour percent of local offices in
focus states report half or more of paternities in their
caseloads are established by default.”
The strands of adultery
Cheap DNA testing could mean broken families
If your wife had a baby and you suspected you were not the father, would you want to know? That was the dilemma faced by two Ontario men, "Gary" and "David." Both suspected their wives had been unfaithful; both opted to have DNA testing on their children. "Gary" discovered that the child was indeed his, and it brought him closer to his wife. "David" discovered his wife got pregnant by her lover; his marriage is now in serious trouble.
This true story, related by Ottawa sex therapist Sue McGarvie, illustrates a phenomenon that will become commonplace as inexpen-
(Picture of technician in a DNA testing lab was inserted here in the original article)
DNA testing lab: No more guesswork
sive DNA testing becomes widely available. Several studies in the early 1990s that used blood samples to determine paternity found that at least 10% of babies born to stable couples were illegitimate. A researcher who surveyed one British town in the 1970s found that 30% of babies born to married women were conceived adulterously. But now a man can have his cuckold's horns fitted by experts -- a saliva swab from the child in question is sufficient. Family advocates worry that men proving what they have previously only suspected will result in more divorces and broken families.
"We call these 'suspicious spouse' cases," says Jennifer Clay, sales and marketing director at Helix Biotech, a Richmond company that does private DNA testing. For $860 Helix will compare two samples of DNA -- from blood or cheek cells, for example-to see if their sources are related. The cost rises to $1,600 if the sample has to be extracted from more difficult sources, such as discarded chewing gum, or Kleenex, or Band-Aids. Helix receives about 100 privately-funded cases a month (though suspicious spouse cases are a minority of these). Its business has doubled in the last four years.
"Bringing forward this kind of legal certainty could have widespread effects," says Darrel Reid, president of Focus of the Family Canada. "Certainly we will see an increase in the number of paternity suits, bitter marital battles,' an upsurge in divorce hearings." Reid says technology is now catching up to the culture of sexual permissiveness. 'We're really paying the price now for a lifestyle that has encouraged infidelity and has encouraged consumerism in matters sexual," he says.
Ms. McGarvie, who hosts the popular radio show
Sex with Sue, says married women bearing illegitimate children is as old as the hills. Research by British biologist Robin Baker found that women want the father of their children to have "good genes" -- tall, handsome, athletic and smart. Yet they also want a mate who is responsible and a good provider. Since few men combine both ideal types, Dr. Baker suggests, some women square the circle--- they marry Mr. Sensible yet become pregnant by Mr. Biology. "I think a lot of it is down on a very subconscious level," says Ms. McGarvie. "A lot of women are unfaithful only around the time they're ovulating. That would be the time they'll say, 'Let's go for a girls' night out.'"
Ms. McGarvie says she does not think DNA technology will create social chaos, as few men are that suspicious. But Chuck MacKnee, a family counsellor and psychology professor at Trinity Western University, says negative paternity tests "would certainly rattle the foundations" of other happy marriages.
Dr. MacKnee says he would not necessarily suggest DNA testing to doubtful fathers. "I think I would have to try to evaluate that person's ability to handle and react appropriately [to bad news] before I encourage them to check it out," he says. "Sometimes mystery is just something we need to accept and celebrate, rather than to solve."
The article confirms reports by American doctors. A study of tissue typing in cases of children requiring organ donations found that about 20% of children from supposedly monogamous parents in ostensibly stable marriages were not the offspring of their alleged
The Unethical Australians
In an article "Paternity lab tests branded unethical," published in the Australian paper The Age, Monday 27 March 2000, the author, Deborah Smith, reports that "Laboratories testing for paternity are routinely analysing children's DNA without their mothers' knowledge or approval — a practice branded as unethical by privacy and medical experts."
It boggles the mind why anyone should think that it is unethical for a man to find out whether he has been cuckolded and is working his heart out to provide for a wife who actively defrauds him and has him believe that a child not his is his to care and provide for — without him knowing — and by actively preventing him from getting to know — that the child isn't his.
It most certainly brings to mind that our forebears had perhaps a more realistic view of such things. The crime of adultery was for obvious reasons thought to be so terrible that women who were caught in the act were put to death.
That may seem harsh, but is it any harsher than the fact that today a woman who is caught in an act of adultery can claim now, as she could and did then, that she had been raped? Rapists who failed to prove that they had consensual sex were routinely put to death too and are even now routinely sentenced to long prison terms. So there was at one time equality, at least to some extent, for men and women with respect to adultery, but no more.
Now, as pointed out in the article in The Age, we are supposed to condone the worst kind of adultery there is, to saddle a man with the emotional and financial investment for a child that isn't his. The article states:
The New South Wales privacy commissioner, Mr. Chris Puplick, said the practice was unethical and an illustration of the need for formal guidelines about genetic testing and access to genetic material.
The consequence for a man of finding out he was not the father could be devastating, he said.
The article further states:
About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community.
It doesn't say who made that ten-percent estimate and how. Obviously the estimate falls far short of reality. Even in allegedly stable monogamous relationships, every fifth child is on average not the biological offspring of the alleged father.
I say that you must do all you can to make sure that the child she says is yours is truly yours. Get your and your child's DNA checked. DO IT! The costs of doing nothing can kill you. Unless you object right after birth to being falsely fingered as the father of a child, you'll most likely have to work for that child, whether it's yours or not and whether you are married or not, until that child reaches the age of majority. Under certain conditions that can be when the child is 25 years of age or even much older.
Things should be carried even a step
farther. DNA tests should become mandatory at the birth of a child.
"A fair percentage of us, it turns out, are not genetically related to the men we grew up with as fathers anyway. Some physicians doing tissue typing for organ donations estimate that maybe 20 percent of people are not genetically related to the men who claim fatherhood; others say it is less, perhaps as low as 5 percent."
Barbara Katz Rothman (1989) Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society, Norton: New York, p.225
See related information about genetic diversity from an article in the January 1999 issue of Scientific American.
The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Equity Act of 1997
Things are bad enough with the feminization of the US Armed Forces, but this bill, newly re-introduced by Congressman Bob Stump (R-AZ) as H.R. 72, takes the cake. There is some good information about it at the web site of the
What's the beef? Basically it's this. If the bill is passed, and if you at any time were married either prior to or after joining the Armed Forces, your retirement pay will in effect be garnisheed for half of the amount, and that amount will go to your ex-spouse if you should happen to have her walk out of your life. That's it, plain and simple.
If you don't like it, then become a monk. If you want to take the risk of getting married, be aware that the chances are better than 50% that you'll become divorced and have half of your retirement pay taken away from you.
That's only just, you say? (After all, your prospective ex deserves half of what's yours on separation) Then I ask you, why should she get that much. Most likely she'll have a better paying job than you had, a better retirement pay, perhaps even a degree — after all, while you were dodging bullets, she had the time to pursue a college or university education and build her professional career. You are taking all of the risks. If there is a war, you'll be the one who'll be dodging the bullets, not she, but she'll be getting a widow's pension if you can't outrun what's coming at you. She's well looked after in any event. Sort of like buying a life insurance for your wife and paying for it with our life or being enslaved to her — married or not — until you find your peace six feet under.
However, if you would rather take your chances with the divorce courts to determine what portion of your equity, earnings and retirement pay should be handed over to your prospective ex, then stay out of the Armed Forces if you plan to get married. The divorce courts will shaft you too, but not as bad as the Armed Forces will if Rep. Bob Stump and the co-sponsors of his bill have their way.
I say, do the smart thing and stay out of the Armed Forces. If anybody wants to fight a war, let them do it without you and with the women they like to promote. It's crazy, I know. But that's what they want. So, to heck with it. Let the women do the fighting and protecting. Men have been doing it since prehistorical times, so now it's women's turn for the next 10,000 years at least. It's about time. If I had any sons that would be young enough to enlist, I would do my very best to talk them out of it. It's not a job fit for a man in a woman's army.
Let the women have it. Let them do it. It's their turn. WHY NOT?!
The following is an abstract of the proposed bill from the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA Chapter 1461 Home Page)
HR 2537 by Rep. Bob Stump (R-AZ) , The Uniformed Services Former Spouse Equity Act of 1997. This bill was referred to the Committees on National Security and Ways and Means on September 24, 1997. No hearings are scheduled as yet. This bill has 18 co-sponsors [if you check the web site of DIVORCED MILITARY AND VETERANS AGAINST THE USFSPA , you'll find that the list of co-sponsors had grown to something like 55. You'll also find all of their names —WHS]. Rep. Stump stated, "My bill has three principal components. First, it would terminate payments made as a division of property from retired pay upon remarriage of the former spouse. Second, it would require computation of the former spouse’s portion of retired pay based on the rank and longevity of the individual at the time of divorce, not at the time of retirement. Third, it would limit the time in which a former spouse may seek a division of retired pay." The time limitation is two years after the date of final divorce decree, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation, including court ordered, ratified, or approved property settlement incident to such a decree, or the end of the six-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this legislation, whichever is later. [Source]
Like genius, idiocy is a gift from the gods. Therefore we must not punish it.
—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Summary and Recommendation
Don't confuse love with lust. Make sure that when you get an erection you don't lose your mind. Always think of the consequences. Is she someone you would want to face across the breakfast table ten years down the road? Is she the woman who'll be the best possible mother to your children?
Whether you'll still be together ten years from now or not, you are trusting her with all you've got, your genes, with more than half of all you'll be able to earn for the rest of your life, and with your physical and emotional health. Will she be worthy of all of that?
Love is a commitment to someone else. It won't work if it is one-sided. Love will thrive only if there are mutual respect and common goals. The best possible goal is for both of you to devote your lives to your children. Will both of you be willing to do that forever?
Be careful. If there is anything that makes you feel sorry for your partner, don't assume that you'll be able to fix any of the problems she is suffering from. The most likely outcome will be that things will get worse over time, regardless of what you try. If she's untrustworthy now, she'll be more so as time goes by. If she speaks badly of others, chances are good that she'll come to speak badly of you. If she cheats with you, it's likely that she'll cheat on you as time goes by. If she's selfish now, she'll most likely not be able to be generous to you or your children. If she is a spendthrift now, she'll become worse as time goes by and your income increases. That will cause your marriage to suffer from the enormous stress of always having too much month left at the end of the paycheque.
You can tell a lot by observing how she deals with her friends and relatives. If she respects and loves them, she'll be capable of respecting and loving you and your children, provided you deserve that love and respect. However, if she is selfish and demands her rights to entitlements without feeling obligated to others at least to an equal extent, you'll most likely be no more than an indentured wage slave to her as time goes on. Not only that, but the courts will hold you to that responsibility whether you are married or not, regardless of whether your children are allowed to see you or not, even — whether you know or not — regardless of whether the children are yours or not.
—Ruth and Walter Schneider
- Two articles by Henry Makow, Phd.:
The Biggest Mistake Men Make
Incorrect Advice for Young Men
"If we truly wish to restore marriage, we must change not males but laws. Yet we are refusing to face this politically unpleasant truth and filling the public payroll with therapists and police."
- Don't Make Her Mad; Just Expose Her Abuse
Question for men: Ever hear a woman tell you, "Just give me a
reason!" or "All I need is an excuse"? She's telling you she's aware of
her legal advantages, and that making her angry enough could provide her
with just enough inward justification to destroy you with a false
allegation. Simply making her mad could cause you to lose your freedom,
kids, reputation, career, and finances.
Reacting to such an abusive woman's insane sense of entitlement, too
many men respond with hostility and contempt (which, too often,
backfires): it can be as simple as "hogging the remote" or as incendiary
as cheating. This site advises men against "acting out" toward her in
any way, because that could give her all the excuse she needs to
fabricate an allegation.
Instead, we advise men to "let her be her threatening self," long enough
for it to be captured via surveillance. Yes, we advocate the use of
to expose the outrageous intimidation that women wield against men who
would make them angry. This site provides men with the tools they need
to prove their innocence. Armed with technology, men can show the legal
system and the world that they are not the aggressors that the feminist
culture claims them to be.
2000 03 26 (to show information about illegitimacy rates in Australia and for price information on DNA testing)
2000 05 09 (to insert a few links)
2000 08 23 (added advice #17)
2000 11 22 (added link to No Way!)
2000 12 20 (added quote under Adultery pays)
2000 12 24 (to add Used in North Carolina)
2001 01 22 (minor format changes)
2001 03 06 (added references to new Ohio law that permits falsely alleged fathers to shed child support burden)
2001 04 27 (added links to articles on paternity fraud)
2001 06 08 (updated link to Your Lucky Night)
2001 09 22 (added link to winning strategies in cases of paternity fraud)
2001 12 30 (inserted comment by Rich Zubaty on female promiscuity)
2002 12 06 (inserted reference to report by the American Association of Blood Banks presenting results of paternity testing for the year 2001)
2002 12 22 (format changes)
2003 04 20 (added reference to hair-raising child-support and alimony case-law examples)
2003 07 08 (added reference to Stephen Baskerville's expose on The Federal Bureau of Marriage?)
2003 07 23 (added reference to British MPs who hold the view that the victim must pay for what was done to him)
2003 09 19 (added reference to article on a "successful" application for compensation for paternity fraud)
2003 11 04 (added reference to article on Non-father seeks $75,000 refund and edited subsequent comments)
2004 06 26 (updated information relating to the 30-second-rapist, and added reference to marital fidelity of homosexuals that have on-going same-sex relationships while they are married to spouses of the opposite sex with whom they have no sex)
2004 10 22 (updated to reflect some grammatical changes and to re-phrase portions of a few sentences)
2004 12 29 (reformated to conform with new web design)
2005 08 05 (updated links in item #17)
2005 08 15 (added comment and links pertaining to clarification of paternity-fraud issues)
2005 08 16 (added link to price list by a paternity testing service provider)
2006 02 08 (added link to World Net Daily article on
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College
2007 08 27 (added entry for article on
Victims of Paternity Fraud)
2008 08 15 (added reference to articles by Henry Makow)