Another man's child (by Jeff Jacoby)

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- SHE told him he was the little girl's father, and he believed her. When the state asked him to acknowledge his paternity, he went in and signed the paper they put before him. Though scarcely more than a child himself, he understood that good men don't walk away from their children, so he paid the child support asked of him without grumbling -- 27 percent of every paycheck, right off the top. He visited "Cheryl" regularly, played with her, bonded with her. He loved his daughter and tried to be a good father.

Oh, he knew what people said. Two of the mother's friends told him that Cheryl wasn't his. Some people, observing that his daughter didn't resemble him, hinted that he was being played for a fool. But he figured the people who talked like that were just trying to bust his chops, or were having a fight with the mother, or didn't know what they were talking about. Maybe, down deep, he suspected they might be right, but couldn't bring himself to confront the mother over it. Maybe, as people often do, he simply lived with an awkward situation until it became unbearable.

Maybe he couldn't bear the thought of losing his little girl.

And so it wasn't until 1999, when Cheryl was 5, that he finally took her for a DNA test. When it confirmed that he wasn't her father, he asked to be released from child support. Now that the truth was known, he argued, it wouldn't be fair to keep making him pay for another man's child.

Last week, in a case styled "Paternity of Cheryl," the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gave him its answer: Shut up and keep paying.

"The law places on men the burden to consider carefully the permanent consequences that flow from an acknowledgment of paternity," the court held. "He waited too long to challenge his paternity."

And what burden, you might wonder, does the law place on women? A burden to tell the truth when asked to identify a child's father? A burden not to trick a young man into forfeiting tens of thousands of dollars that he doesn't owe? A burden not to deceive the courts?

Nope, none of the above. To judge from the court's opinion, a woman like Cheryl's mother is under no obligation whatsoever. The four justices who decided this case say nothing -- not one word -- about her dishonesty, or about the immense hardship she has inflicted on an innocent man. There is no hint that they disapprove of a woman who bears a child out of wedlock, then falsely names a former boyfriend as the father so she can go on welfare.

She may have been the liar, the court seems to believe, but he is the one who is guilty -- guilty of not seizing the "opportunity to undergo genetic testing before he acknowledged paternity" and of not having "promptly challenged the paternity judgment" once he suspected he might not be Cheryl's real father. Never mind that he was only 18 at the time, a kid just out of high school. Never mind that he didn't have a lawyer or realize he needed one. Never mind that he wouldn't have known what the offer of "genetic marker testing" meant even if he *had* noticed that phrase in the fine print of the legal documents he agreed to sign.

None of that gives the justices pause because they are focused on something else.

His money.

We may not be able to force this guy to go on pretending he is Cheryl's father, says the court, "but we can protect her financial security." He may no longer feel the same affection for her, but "we can ensure that Cheryl ... is not also deprived of the legal rights and financial benefits of a parental relationship." In short, it's okay to keep ripping him off, because she needs the money.

He works in a restaurant and makes $21,000 a year, more than half of which is deducted to pay child support and taxes. He has already shelled out $25,000 to support a child he didn't father and can expect to hand over another $50,000 before she turns 18 -- and perhaps pay for her college education after that. He is so financially straitened that he cannot afford to move out of his parents' house.

But the swindle must go on, says the Bay State's highest court, because someone else needs his money. In the justices' view, he is not a wronged man with a compelling plea for relief. He is an ATM machine.

Thomas Conroy, the man's attorney, marvels that at no point throughout this case has anyone asked the mother to identify the real father. "No one seems to care who he is -- not the Department of Revenue, not the Welfare Department, not the Child Support Enforcement Division, not the courts, nobody. Nobody's asked."

The court justifies its dreadful ruling by noting that "numerous other courts" -- in Vermont, Florida, and Maryland, for example -- have done the same thing. It's true; they have. The problem has gotten so bad that a group of men have formed Citizens Against Paternity Fraud to press for relief in the state legislatures. (Web address: http://www.jps.net/mrcas/1man.htm).

But how the mighty are fallen. There was a time when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, under the leadership of jurists like Lemuel Shaw and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., was renowned for its legal brilliance, a time when it was the court other courts relied on in abandoning unworthy precedents. Today it is a follower, not a leader, hiding behind unjust decisions elsewhere to rationalize injustice of its own.

-- (judges.are.out@of.control), May 01, 2001

Answers

Good reason to make testing mandatory in paternity issues,

Too, bad for the guy but, he chose to get involved with a piece of shit. Cheryl has no choice. I have to agree with the court on this one, reluctantly. He is the only father she has known. Why did he get the test now? Maybe he was tired of paying. Does he now, have no feelings for the child? Sadly, Cheryl is the one who will ultimately suffer no matter how this is resolved.

This whole situation sucks but, lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 01, 2001.

By your compelling legal logic, if a convicted murderer is later exonerated by DNA evidence, he should remain in prison.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasser (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), May 01, 2001.

No, that is comparing apples to oranges. He paid and acted as the father for 5 YEARS. When he got tired of paying , that is when he had the DNA test. He has a relationship with the child. Does that count for nothing? Should the child suffer more because the mother is a piece of shit? Use the argument he was too young to know better? Tough. Keep your pants zipped until your married and you won't have this particular problem.

I said I agreed with the court's decision reluctantly. Does that need clarification?Just because he now has the test and finds out that the child isn't his, he can turn off whatever affection he had for her because his wallet is lighter.

Why, did he feel the need to have the test now? I have a friend with twins. He's been paying child support on them for 11 years. One of the twins is his and the other is whoever his ex was screwing around with. No DNA test was done but, it is very obvious. He would never have the test because he considers the boy his because he has raised this kid, loves him and wouldn't want to ever hurt him in any way.

It's time this guy be a real man and continue to be a father to that little girl, even if she is not his biologically.

It would be really tough if both adults in that child's life turned out to be shit!

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 01, 2001.

This case happened in Massachusetts, which is known for its liberal leaning. That was a big strike against the young man. Since this was apparently the Massachusetts state Supreme Court that handed down this ruling, it appears that he has no place left to appeal.

I don't know Massachusetts law, but I wonder if a pricey civil suit directed at the mother of the child for fraud might give this young man some financial relief.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 01, 2001.

J, how do you think all of the Kennedy byblows have survived? The "other" guy pays.Nothings going to change in Massachusettes any time soon.

I'm waiting for Vt's first gay couple , child support case. That should be a hoot.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 01, 2001.

What happens if a man marries a woman who has a child (his stepchild) and then he divorces her after several years. Does he legally owe child support in this instance?

-- This sucks (judges.are.totally.out@of.control), May 01, 2001.

I disagree. A man paid money based on a false claim. He was the victim of fraud. It does not matter how long he paid or why he decided to investigate the claim.

Your argument is tantamount to saying a woman who has cheated the government out of a disability check for five years "deserves" to continue receiving the stipend. After all, the "children" may suffer if the government cuts off her support.

An emotional attachment to a child is not a legal contract, nor should it be. I may like the children next door, but I am not obligated to pay their college tuition.

Why the man decided to have a paternity test is not your concern nor is it the court's. It is any citizen's right to investigate a claim made against them. The court's job is to determine if the claim is fraudulent. Child support is clearly the responsibility of the biological parent. If he is not the father, than he is not responsible for supporting the child.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), May 01, 2001.

This guy is getting screwed, BIGTIME. I pay over a grand a month in child support for MY 2 children. No way would I pay for someone else's. Maybe 'help out' the mom to some extent since there was a 5 year bonding period there (but that bitch would have to work SOMEWHERE too). But court mandated child support for a kid that has been proven not to be his???

That just ain't right.....no way, no how.....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 01, 2001.

Sorry, he signed on the dotted line VOLUNTARILY.He signed a legally binding contract essentially adopting the child if it wasn't his. He assumed the child was his.Everything was okay at first, but, when things got a little rough ,ie,5 years later, he couldn't buy a sports car like his buddy, he decides well maybe this kid ain't mine.Bullshit. I agree he should sue the mother in civil court for fraud but, is this all worth destroying a child?

So he has to pay support for a kid that isn't his, makes him a better person if he follows through with the court order and at the very least he'll be very careful about signing anything in the future, now won't he.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 01, 2001.

Marg

Yep, he did sign the papers. But the mom sure as hell needs to be reponsible for her actions. What she did was wrong (like leagally wrong), what he did was dumb (like really stupid).

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 01, 2001.

Deano, I agree with you. The mom should be made accountable for her major role in this, as should the real father.I am sure she knows who that is and this kid should hire himself a good attorney and sue both of them but,again my concern is for the little girl. She has believed that he was her father and the emotional ties, at least on her part have been forged. What if this were a happily married couple and everything is hunkey dorey and then they are contacted by a couple who claim their child is not theirs. The hospital got them mixed up.The happily married couple's child died of some inherited disorder and the only way the second couple knew about the mixup is through genetic testing in regards to the disorder. Do you think the first couple would give the child to the biological parents and then want to be reimbursed for the money they spent in raising this kid? I find it strange that he waited 5 years to question the paternity of this child.

Another instance of what's best for me is all that matters.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 01, 2001.

You know, this is another excellent example of a time when blowing a building up is not only a good idea, but called for. If this guy had any sort of stones, he would follow the example of Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and slaughter a few jurists at the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court. If he happened to kill the brood mare who duped him and her issue, so much the better. He can always claim they were collateral damage and that will make everything okay.

-- Y2J (Y2J@home.comm), May 01, 2001.

Oh look, it's an anonymous troll!

For your information, my name is J, not Y2J. Secondly, although this guy would be totally justified in blowing the Massachusettes Supreme Judician Court sky-high and dancing in the blood of these traitorous despots, that's exactly the sort of action that gets good patriots jailed and eventually executed.

The best thing for this guy to do is to just disappear quietly into the woods, a la Eric Rudolph. No one will notice if there's one less waiter in the Boston metro area. He should leave the bombing to the real experts.

God bless Timothy McVeigh.

88

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 01, 2001.

The moral of this story is "Never sign anything that will commit you for nearly several years without a lawyer,"

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), May 01, 2001.

Deano, I'm with ya all the way on this one. He should NOT have to pay, the child is not his.

Although he signed on the line, it was via state request. She told him it was his. IF you read the beginning, you see why he signed.

Once the test determined he was not the child's father, then support should have stopped. It has been my belief that it would have.

Sad day in our world, imho. She should work and support her own child or look for the REAL dad to ante up.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), May 01, 2001.

Sad, sad, sad. Where was this guy's father or a buddy with some sense? That bitch owes him every cent. Hah! I had this bimbo attempt the same shit when I finally got a decent job. The court backed off real fast when I sent them a copy of the bill for my vasectomy. Best thing I ever did. Bet that guy wishes he'd done it.

-- (Weeble@wee.ble), May 01, 2001.

My heart goes out to this young man. This ruling is so wrong.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 01, 2001.

Anonymous coward troll,

Excellent job of spelling "Massachusetts".

LOL.

Moron.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 02, 2001.

The court backed off, Weeb, because you threatened to drop your pants and show them your scar. I saw that letter.

Hey, send me an e if you need help with the relatives.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), May 02, 2001.