Sunday, July 30, 2006

Matt Dubay "Roe vs. Wade for Men" Ruling Should be Appealed

I actually am sorry this case was dismissed out-of-hand as I didn’t see it as being frivolous at all. In fact I strongly hoped this would cause some changes in public policy and the laws to benefit women and children.

As the laws now stand, a man who has any casual sexual encounters with a woman (even a one-night stand) that results in a pregnancy, he might not even know her last name or care, yet he is now given the exact same legal rights to a child as the mother from the moment of birth. Even though he has basically contributed, invested, risked NOTHING during the entire process, other then a recreational sperm deposit. Meanwhile a woman who has carried, nurtured, and invested herself for 9 months in producing another human being, not to mention a bloody and painful delivery at the end of the period, has her status downgraded to mirror that of a recreational sperm donor. Both have suddenly become equal in the eyes of the law.

Sorry but that is in no sense good, just, fair or morally correct for either mothers or children. Actually it can put children at risk of being forced into a relationship with a man who could be downright hostile to their very existence. Not to mention down the road, these kids could be ripped from their mothers custody to be used as pawns for financial gain, as many benefits flow if and when these so-called ‘fathers’ manage to wrestle custody/guardianship of a child from its natural mother. I won’t even bother going into the trauma that mothers go through when faced with separation from their own children, as I know the unprincipled and vicious gender neutralized monsters we are dealing with today, who are behind many of these laws and public polices, don’t give a rat’s ass about mothers. But can we at least examine the policy so that children don’t have to be used as bargaining chips by men trying to get out of paying child support? Or as a conduit for citizenship, tax and other public benefits which flow as they manipulate our system to get custody/guardianship of these innocent kids?

At least this man Matt Dubay had the common decency to be honest about his feelings here and I applaud him for that. He had little or no connection to this child’s mother OR her child, never planned on marrying her and certainly did not wish to create a family with her. The entire conception was an accident. Thus I believe he should NOT be given legal rights NOR have any legal obligations to this child and should be released from his obligation to pay child support. Going forward this rule should be made universal. No never-married man should be able to obtain legal rights or have obligations to a child unless BOTH he and the child’s mother agrees to it.

Now regarding a child who winds up needing public benefits after birth, then a man can and should be garnished for his one-half of the birth expenses and other tax-payer financed benefits. Yet he should have no legal rights to this child, unless again BOTH he and mother agree. I ‘m sorry but just because you are obligated to repay the taxpayers for the burden you imposed upon them should NOT give you any additional rights, especially to some innocent kid. Why should that kid be forced into a potential hostile relationship with a man and his new girlfriend/wife who could resent the financial burden placed upon their family by some earlier irresponsible behavior.

We need to revisit this case and come up with some modifications to the current laws that address these issues. That protect the mother and child from an unwarranted invasion by a potentially hostile relationship, ensures the taxpayers don’t get fleeced by irresponsible reproduction and that also protects men from having to assume the mantle of father, just to please various gender-neutralized feminists and fatherhood activists, before they are ready for it.

The Daily News
Online Edition

Roe vs. Wade for men case dismissed as frivolous

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:36 AM EDT LANSING

Attorney General Mike Cox announced Tuesday that Dubay vs. Wells, Thomas and Cox, often described as "Roe vs. Wade for Men," has been dismissed.

The lawsuit, filed by Matthew Dubay in U.S. District Court at Bay City, claimed that Michigan's paternity law is unconstitutional because the father is compelled to pay child support even if he did not want the child to be born.

"This is an important victory for the children of this state," Cox said.

"Both parents have a clear responsibility for the support of their child, no matter the circumstances surrounding conception. The court upheld that time-honored understanding today. Michigan will not become the state where parents can opt out of personal responsibility.

"U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, dismissed the Dubay vs. Wells case on Monday.

This case challenged Michigan's Paternity Act, which requires a parent to pay child support.

Dubay argued that he could choose not to pay child support because he told the mother of the child while they were dating that he did not want a child.

Dubay filed the action against the Saginaw County prosecutor for his enforcement of the Paternity Act.

Dubay also named the mother of the child as a defendant.

The attorney general intervened in the case to uphold the Paternity Act to protect Michigan's children.

In ruling in the attorney general's favor, the court stated that "(t)he fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the state played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child."

Thus, the court ruled that the state did not violate a constitutionally protected right to privacy that had been the underlying basis of his claim.

The court relied upon a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case that rejected the notion that some sense of fairness ought to allow biological fathers to avoid the financial responsibility of supporting a child as a proxy for the loss of control of the events that naturally flow from sexual activity.

Accordingly, the court found that the Paternity Act did not violate the equal protection of the Michigan and U.S. constitutions either on its face or as applied to Dubay.The court dismissed all of Dubay's claims against all of the defendants.Cox also requested that the court find the case to be frivolous.

The court agreed, stating this action was "frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation and seeks to advance a theory that is foreign to the legal principles on which it is ostensibly based."

The court is allowing the attorney general to submit a claim for his office's attorney fees.

Since taking office in 2003, Cox has made enforcing Michigan's felony non-support laws and raising awareness of the problem unpaid child support causes to children in Michigan a priority.

To date, $26,637,755.16 in unpaid child support has been collected, helping approximately 3,030 children.


This is a little odd...they've collected over $26 million and ONLY helped 3,030 children???? Hopefully a typo as that's a very small amount of children to help with 26 million dollars.


Anonymous said...

i find this comment by the judge "This is an important victory for the children of this state" and most others regarding this case contrary to the philosphy of abortion and equal rights.

NYMOM said...

How so????

Sean said...

That is completely insane and typical of the ultra PC trend this country is mired in. The man told that woman that he didn't want any kids; she assured him that she was A. on contraceptives and B. Physically unable to have kids. Either she lied or forgot to take her pill, and woops, she's pregnant. Guess what folks, that's her fault! She CHOSE to have that baby instead of an abortion or adoption. I'm sure that kids going to have a great life with a single promiscuous mother and $450+ a month from dad.

NYMOM said...

Well, as I told you in my previous reply, I'm in agreement with you as long as that mother is totally self-supporting and not expecting me or you through taxpayer financed benefits to support her and the resultant child.

Then, god bless, good luck with her decision to go it alone.

Mason said...

Seeing as you disagree, there is a feminist case for men to renouce rights and responsibilities to a child. There is also a very strong case for men who are interested in men's reproductive rights. It strikes me as shameful that the case was thrown out of court as frivolous. It clearly is not.

What this is really about, is the ability of family courts to extract money from men. As can be seen with the dollar figure above.

Anonymous said...

To the author:

So by your rationale, the sperm donor should be barred from access to the child, does this include Child Support? Of course not. a typical feminist "i cannot take responsibility" answer...GEEZ!

Anonymous said...

Your views are incredibly biased and ignorant. Maybe you aren't familar with what this coutry stands for, as your views are clearly a threat to equal rights. You seem to view all men as evil beings, only capable of doing wrong instead of good. Using a child as a pawn to get back at a mother? Wow, like a woman has never done that to a man? Any man who gets a woman pregnant and does not wish to father the child should be able to opt out of child support and should even have an equal say in if the child gets aborted or not. It doesn't matter that it's in the woman's body, the child is 50% his. Saying anything different would be a violation of equal rights. It's not right that a woman can have casual sex and chose to have an abortion if she is not ready to be a mother, but a man may have casual sex and be forced into fatherhood when that was never his intensions.

Anonymous said...

"yet he is now given the exact same legal rights to a child as the mother"
This is incorrect. The only 'right' the man has is to send a check to mom every month under threat of prison. She is free to deny access, move across the country, give the child away, and collect welfare and support from the state if she is unemployed or unemployable. She is also free to force the financial burdens of her own freely made decision onto him. Which of those 'rights' does the man have? None.