Paternity
So the latest: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24632911-3102,00.html
MOTHERS are being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to men who paid child support over decades but were wrongly named as fathers.
In many cases, the men determined they were not the father through paternity testing. But here's what the new article doesn't say: in the case where the money is repayed, it's likely going to be at the rate of a few dollars a week -- in Ken Rodgers' case, it will take 233 years for his ex to pay back the money he's paid her over the years -- somewhere around $71,000. You do the math here: $71,000 / (52 weeks a year x 233 years) = $5.86 per week.
But hey, this is a step in the right direction isn't it? I mean, this is going ahead despite a 2006 ruling by the High Court against Liam Magill, who was a victim of paternity fraud. Not according to many women's and sole parents groups, who reckon that it shouldn't matter that the children do not belong to the men who are paying for part of their upkeep -- the money's gone to benefit the child, right -- any repaying that money cannot happen without negatively affecting those children? But what about those men who go to form new families? Aren't their new children disadvantaged by they money their fathers would have been able to spend on their upkeep? In cases of paternity fraud, this means that the man's biological children are disadvantaged in favour of another man's children altogether!
The 2006 decision stripping Laim Magill's compensation (which he'd won in the lower courts) stated that there was no legal requirement that a woman (or man) disclose his or her infidelity. The result of this is that a woman who cheats on her partner and has a child as the result of the cheating can make a child support claim against a man based on no other evidence than her word -- and she can get away with it.
The obvious protective measures for men would be a paternity test right from the word go -- either in utero, or immediately at birth. But wouldn't that sully what is supposed to be the happiest time in your life? Isn't trust supposed to be established by this point already? If not, how sad has our society become?
MOTHERS are being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to men who paid child support over decades but were wrongly named as fathers.
In many cases, the men determined they were not the father through paternity testing. But here's what the new article doesn't say: in the case where the money is repayed, it's likely going to be at the rate of a few dollars a week -- in Ken Rodgers' case, it will take 233 years for his ex to pay back the money he's paid her over the years -- somewhere around $71,000. You do the math here: $71,000 / (52 weeks a year x 233 years) = $5.86 per week.
But hey, this is a step in the right direction isn't it? I mean, this is going ahead despite a 2006 ruling by the High Court against Liam Magill, who was a victim of paternity fraud. Not according to many women's and sole parents groups, who reckon that it shouldn't matter that the children do not belong to the men who are paying for part of their upkeep -- the money's gone to benefit the child, right -- any repaying that money cannot happen without negatively affecting those children? But what about those men who go to form new families? Aren't their new children disadvantaged by they money their fathers would have been able to spend on their upkeep? In cases of paternity fraud, this means that the man's biological children are disadvantaged in favour of another man's children altogether!
The 2006 decision stripping Laim Magill's compensation (which he'd won in the lower courts) stated that there was no legal requirement that a woman (or man) disclose his or her infidelity. The result of this is that a woman who cheats on her partner and has a child as the result of the cheating can make a child support claim against a man based on no other evidence than her word -- and she can get away with it.
The obvious protective measures for men would be a paternity test right from the word go -- either in utero, or immediately at birth. But wouldn't that sully what is supposed to be the happiest time in your life? Isn't trust supposed to be established by this point already? If not, how sad has our society become?