As anyone knows who has been commenting on this blog (including the vast array of nuts I’ve attracted) I am now entering my second year of blogging about child custody issues. October 27, 2004 was my very first post.
Generally what I’ve done in the past is post an article with a link attached along with a brief opinion of my own about the article.
Now, I’d like to try something different and each week post a discussion point about various public policies I’d like to see implemented nationwide. I don’t know if there are enough discussion points on the various public policies out there to cover 52 weeks in a year (since I generally update weekly) but since I have a very active imagination somehow I think there will be.
One policy, which I would like to discuss today, is a time limit for a so-called prodigal father to be allowed to file a paternity lawsuit.
Why is it that a prodigal father can be aware of a pregnancy for months before the birth or even be at the hospital for the birth, then decide NOT to file to have his name placed on his childrens’ birth certificate for months or even years afterwards? In essence isn’t he abandoning his children?
YET years after the fact, with no questions asked or penalty whatsoever, the prodigal is then allowed to file for paternity even though he had the opportunity to do so earlier and chose not to exercise it?
Is there any other legal situation that someone can think of where a person can chose not to exercise their rights and then turn up years later and file for them?
For instance can I get injured on someone’s property and wait ten years to file a lawsuit? Can I just leave my car on the street and turn up years afterwards to reclaim it? Same thing with my house, can I refuse to pay property taxes on it, abandoning it really and then suddenly waltz in and announce I’ve decided to reclaim my rights? Can a mother leave her children for a year or two, or three and then suddenly turn up again and reclaim them as if nothing happened?
No, I don’t think so.
Most states have a six months to a year abandonment policy regarding children and this should be enforced via paternity claims as well. Unless these prodigals can prove they didn’t know about the child or said child was deliberately hidden from them, then their rights to file a paternity claim should be time limited to the six months to a year that most states force mothers to live under.
It’s clearly a special benefit for men which allows this scenario to play out ONLY with paternity claims, whereas after years of ignoring their children these same prodigal fathers are even allowed to simultaneously file a paternity and custody lawsuit at the same time.
I mean New York was stunned to learn that John Aylsworth, who was at the hospital when Bridget Marks’ twins were born,YET chose to wait over THREE YEARS to file a paternity suit, was still allowed to file a custody lawsuit following it as well.
OVER THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACT.
Even though he knew about the kids since their birth and left them with their mother all those years.
What kind of crap is that?
We shouldn’t be allowing special treatment for men to file for paternity whenever it is most advantageous for them to do so, as in: My kids’ mother died so now I can file for paternity and custody of the kid I’ve been ignoring for years. This will enable me to collect her life insurance policy and social security benefits even though I knew about my kid for years and never bothering filing a paternity suit in all that time.
OR alternative scenario: My kids’ mother finally woke up and realizes I’m not really planning on marrying her and she has started seeing someone else. So before she marries someone else and then hits me up for child support, which I’ve gotten away with paying up to now stringing her along with the “we’ll be getting married soon” baloney, let me file for paternity and custody first…
Unless, as I stated previously, these prodigal fathers have creditable proof that they weren’t aware of the existence of the child or the child was actively hidden from them, then their claim should be denied outright. The six months to a year abandonment clause should automatically kick in (no judicial discretion whatsoever here) which covers abandonment of children in most states and these prodigals should be turned away from courts and not allowed to file a ‘daddy-come-lately’ paternity lawsuits.
19 comments:
You idiot dyke liberal hag!!Fuck you!! Stay away from txfeminist's blog and stop badmouthing me!! I will make you look like the mental case you truly are. GO TO HELL!!!
You want to talk about mental cases, take a long hard look in the mirror...
I think the case you use as an example is a poor choice. You must not have read all the facts on that one. Mr. Alysworth was a part of the twins life from birth on. The problem arose when he returned to his wife and wanted to see the girls as well. He was told he was not the fater and could not see the girls. His only recouse was to prove he was the bio father and request visitation rights, since the jilted mother was using her children in an attempt to keep the married man.
How would you apply your time limit in that situation?
Same way...no difference...
BTW, his wife came with him to the hospital to see Bridget Marks' twins, so he knew darn well he wasn't going to be with Marks when the children were born...
YET he continued on for three years not bothering having paternity declared, not establishing a visitation schedule, not establishing any child support order...and this is a guy who probably had an attorney on retainer...
So there was just no excuse.
Just like Marks said as soon as she finally reached the conclusion he was never going to divorce his wife and marry her and she finally found a steady boyfriend, Aylsworth suddenly decided to launch a paternity and custody lawsuit...
Very typical MO, btw...as long as women are willing to tolerate a mans' crap, he's fine with the status quo. As soon as she demonstrates some independence, then he's going to use custody of her children as a club against her...
So no, he's entitled to no special rules for his sitaution no more then any other man who 'abandoned' his children when they were born...same thing.
BYT, Aylsworth's own attorney never claimed he was 'told' he was not the father. She implied that Marks was a slut and so Alysworth himself doubted he was the father.
So let's stop painting the story to favor this guy. That was his own decision not to follow through on paternity testing and establishing a child support/visitation order in NY.
His own decision...
NYMOM, that's not me at the beginning .
Great post though.
I would guess that the prodigal father (as you put it) might see signs of distrust/unfaithfulness or physical characteristics of the child that just don't seem right and that can be the cause of a paternity test later on.
There was that senator in (I Can't remember his name) Denver Co. that made it illegal to get a paternity test done because when a illigitamate child was born it would cut into his welfare budget and the money needed would have to come from other areas.
If you can't trust the person your having sex with, don't do it!
It's not only fathers and mothers taht lose, but it's more to the child that's born. Be responsible, make a commitment (Key phrase) for better or for worse and stick to it. It's to easy to take someone to the cleaners and play the blame game. Grow up people! Be adults and show the children in our lives the RIGHT way to live life under the provisions of our creator.
NYMOM said,
"So let's stop painting the story to favor this guy. That was his own decision not to follow through on paternity testing and establishing a child support/visitation order in NY.
His own decision..."
We can't continue to have the family courts delegate who's responsible. It's about time both genders take responsibilty for their action whether it be a woman with her legs spread wide or a man with a boner, seems like sex is always someone else's fault. We are conditioned with so much sex around us, TV, magazines and influential music, why don't we just blame them insead?
NYMOM...
This is the price of perverse men that do something that's against a fathers moral standings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOHxGAPfyB8
I thought you would have blasted me by now NYMOM?
I watched that video and it's gross. I read up on it out of curiosity and from what I read the fathers son was kidnapped and molested, so I guess the dad killed the guy who did it. Amazingly the dad only got probation. Anyway, it's a nasty video whoever posted it.
Well unfortunately both groups: men and women are to blame for the current state of affairs.
Personally I don't think never-married persons should be allowed to take each other into court for either paternity lawsuits or child support.
But that's the way things are allowed to happen today...
Maybe that will be my next public policy suggestion: that it shouldn't even be a question of the 6 months to a year abandonment statue for never-married people, since they should NEVER be allowed to take a case regarding these issues into court...
People can file this paperwork voluntarily if they wish but neither should be allowed to force another independent adult into court to litigate these sorts of issues.
But the state could still be allowed to file to get reimbursement for public benefits...however individuals shouldn't be allowed to do so...
But you can never get people to agree on these things; since as the article below demonstrates as soon as ONE MAN changes his mind the law is thrown out the window...like that sperm donor in Kansas...
The law is clear but he just decided not to follow it and now he has standing to sue.
It's ridiculous.
99% of these situations would be settled overnight if individuals knew they couldn't get standing to sue in court for either paternity or child support UNLESS they were married or a governmental entity...
People would change their behavior to act accordingly...
I didn't waste anytime going to look at that video which is why I didn't have anything to say about it.
My computer at home is too old to see video or hear music on it anyway, so I just use it for blogging...
You have a great blog NYMom -- probably "enjoy" is not the right term, but I have appreciated the thought-provoking topics you have posted...
Thank you.
I rarely get positive feedback, so I oftentimes feel I'm a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness here.
You're correct enjoy is not the correct term to use either; as believe me I do not enjoy blogging on these particular issues. It causes me great distress to have to face the facts myself and then post them for others to let them know what is being done today to mothers and children...
I'm a person, believe it or not, who used to think the best of western society and was confident that our 'system' could be counted on to generally do the right thing. In most cases anyway, since no one or thing is perfect.
Now I have to say, I'm not really so confident of that position anymore, as I have seen that our system is easily corrupted by money. That's the source of much of this, the root of all evil as they say...
Children being worth money to people has distorted the entire legal process. So we not only face the destruction of millions of childrens' lives through this ongoing social engineering process of separating children from their mothers, but we are now looking at the destruction of what used to be the finest fairest legal system in the world. Since much of the corruption and use of children for money-grubbing that has invaded the family court system is now spreading into the criminal court system as well.
I mean child "abduction" is the fastest growing crime of this century...the FBI now has it's own website dedicated to hunting down the perpetrators of it and most of the faces featured there are mothers who have 'abducted' their own children, many of them infants.
It's just outrageous to me that no womens' organization has spoken out about this as yet...what I consider the criminalization of the normal reactions of perfectly good, fit, loving mothers to someone trying to separate her from her own child...and generally for no other reason then so as to help men make money off these kids.
It's outfreakinrageous.
I hope you don't mind but I used one of your comments on father's rights in my blog. I write about adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents. Maybe you could stop by and read what adoption is really about.
Fine amyadoptee, whatever moves you.
As I told you before I probably won't even go there to comment on it, as this blog is not really about adoption or adoptive children/parents, etc.
That post which brought you here was incidentally about adoption, as the real issue for me was the automatic, presumptive and stronger legal rights every mother has (and should have) through natural law, to any children she bears...
The adoption process itself was incidental to my point...I used the article as an illustration only, not to make some universal point about adoption processes, one way or the other.
Want to hear a kicker? Married to my husband for 16 years. He signed his name to all of the kids birth certificates. We seperated and ultimately divorced. Oldest child lived with him, youngest two lived with me. After years of marriage and raising the youngest two, all of a sudden he couldn't fathom paying child support or have any contact with them because he didn't believe they were his. Demanded a paternity suit. I laughed in his face.
Frankly, I would have been glad to be done with him after trying to pull a stunt like that.
i hate the fact that a prodigal father can have any rights after 3 years with no calls or contact im havin the same problem right now my ex threating to take me to court for custody and he has only attempted to see our daughter once in 2 1/2 years.
In these cases the laws of abandonment should apply: 6 months to a year of not seeing their children or supplying any support and they automatically terminated their parental rights...unless they can prove the child was 'hidden' from them and they had no knowledge of the child's existence...
Post a Comment