Slate Columnist Advises Reader to Keep Paternity Fraud Secret
June 20th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.I wrote recently about a hospital in Canada that debated the question of whether to tell a man and his daughter when its lab discovered that he was not the biological father of the girl. In other words, should the hospital reveal the mother's paternity fraud? That hospital told the pair, but apparently many do not.
Now here's another person who claims it's better not to tell (Slate, 6/15/09). In this case, a second wife has written into "Prudence," the advice columnist for Slate.com. She married a man who had two sons. As the boys matured, she noticed that, while the younger looks like the father, the older boy does not. Her sister-in-law told her that the man and his first wife had been separated for a time before the older boy was born. On top of that, the husband had once asked her if she thought the older son looked like him.
So the question is "what should I do?" Should second wife tell what the sister-in-law told her? Or should she bury that information?
Prudence says "bury it." In essence, her reason is to let sleeping dogs lie. She passes off the fact that the child needs to know his true father for obvious medical reasons as merely concern about a "genetic propensity for toenail fungus." She tosses aside the husband's concern as "an idle remark."
To all of which I say, "Isn't it amazing how many excuses there are for keeping paternity fraud secret?" Admittedly, my bias is for truth and openness, even when it hurts. People can get over a hurt, but a suspicion is always there doing untold harm.
The boy does need to know his medical history and it has little or nothing to do with toenail fungus. To pass off the issue that casually is outrageous. The husband's question was not an idle remark, it was an expression, however offhand, of a genuine concern.
Both husband and son have a right to the truth and the ex-wife has no right to perpetrate a fraud.
"));
19 queries. 0.370 seconds.
June 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I totally agree, Robert, but I can't help but think, after having seen various objections to this, that many women have a kind of visceral response to cover paternity fraud because of the risk of severing the father-child bond. Maybe it goes back to Carol Gilligan's idea that women tend to think more relationally and contextually rather than in terms of individual rights. Now I think Gilligan is to a large degree full of it (as do some other feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers), but if there is a grain of truth to what she says, it might help to explain the differences in perspective on this issue. In other words, it's at least plausible that women tend to put a greater weight on the context and the impact of parental relationship, while men tend to put a greater emphasis on the "right to know" and the objective truth of paternity. Again, I am pretty skeptical of Gilligan's ideas, but it's at least one potential explanation for the observed difference of opinion about paternity fraud between many men and women.
June 20th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
In the book "Before the Dawn" Nicholas Wade noted that the first thing that the mother and maternal relatives say about new baby's is "how it looks exactly like the father"! Now baby's often don't look much like the father at birth and Wade indicated this was a long term evolutionary reaction to protect the child and mother when the mother had cuckolded the father.
During pre-history such an act would results in the child's and possibly the mothers death. Thus it's very much in her interest to hide it. I think this is why you can't get a straight answer from women... they are expressing a very primary reaction to protect themselves and the child.
June 20th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
"Admittedly, my bias is for truth and openness, even when it hurts."
MY own particular bias is to prevent fraud perpetrated against men from being cavalierly excused -- when I know damn well that if the genders could somehow be reversed, "Prudence" would not so readily excuse it.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I would suggest that any man with even an thought that a child is not his have a paternity test. There are actually kits that you can get over the counter that can do this. I think that with statistics pointing to the rampant infidelity rates in marriages (for both men and women), DNA tests should be something that is just standardized at birth. I know that a lot of women will not like that statement, but if it were possible for the situations to be reversed, then I believe that many women would agree. Seriously, if any of you men out there have any doubts at all, I highly suggest that you get the DNA test done. It will save you a lot of heartache & serious money in the future if you do this as soon as possible.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I would say that without some sort of legal recourse against the mother, there is very little reason to know other than medical. I do think that paternity fraud should be at least actionable in a civil court. Perhaps termination of child support and having that money being owed to the non-father. Or if it could be used in favor of the guy in a divorce. I don't see it happening, but it would be nice.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
It's more excuse-making and justification for women's deceitful and criminal behavior.
June 20th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
If her husband had been separated from his first wife for a long time before the elder son was born, surely he must have an inkling that he's not the dad. Does he know, but accepts the fact? Is he in denial? Indeed, what proof does the woman have, beyond the word of the sister-in-law and the fact that the elder son doesn't look like his father? After all, in mixed marriages you can get one white child and one black, so that proves nothing.
Even if the son needs to be told, he's the dad and she's the stepmum, so is it her role to tell him?
All in all, I don't think this is as striaghtforward as others on this thread seem to think.
June 20th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
"Even if the son needs to be told, he's the dad and she's the stepmum, so is it her role to tell him?
All in all, I don't think this is as striaghtforward as others on this thread seem to think"
I agree. In my view, a doctor should disclose this info because the subject of a medical test should be entitled to learn all the results of the test.
But a third party? I'm not so sure. For example, I live in a suburb and work in a city. Suppose that one day in the city, I saw my married neighbor walking hand-in-hand with some young hottie. Would I disclose this infidelity to his wife or anyone else? Of course not. It's none of my business. Besides, it's very likely that the wife in that situation already knows her husband is cheating but chooses to ignore it. Bringing it to her attention would be a disservice.
June 20th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Malcom's right. How would the second wife's information that her husband and his first wife were separated for a time be news to him? Obviously, he must already possess that information. I mean, he must surely have noticed his first wife having moved out for a time, unless he's just spectacularly unobservant. Also, it's obvious he already has suspicions, even if it's just in the back of his mind. So, what exactly is the second wife accomplishing by saying, "Hey, such-and-such told me that you and X were separated for a time before your oldest son's birth, and oh yeah, your son doesn't really look like you?"
It's one thing if she has actual knowledge that her husband is not aware of. But, in essence, she's only telling him what he already knows. Which, in turn, only makes HER look like a gossip, and a ****-stirrer of the worst type to bring it up. If he asks her again whether his son looks like him, I think she should be frank and tell him no. But, what is the story here? Slate is telling her to leave well enough alone because this is history that she had no part of, and honestly, her talking about it would likely get her pegged as petty, jealous, and catty (for sticking her nose into it and implying the first wife is a liar and a cheater).
I don't see how one could honestly encourage that kind of behavior. Besides which, having one child look like you and another not, is hardly "proof" of paternity fraud. As Freud would say, sometimes a cigar really just IS a cigar. If you are going to accuse someone of such a serious offense as paternity fraud, you should have more evidence than an in-law's injudicious piece of gossip and one remark from a spouse. In Trekkie language (yes, I'm an unashamed trekkie) you really should stop looking for Klingons under every rock.
June 20th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Why bury it? The truth shall set us free. Who will be harmed: the lying mother or her child? The child will blame mommy and this is just. If she didn't want the shame and condemnation then don't do the act. Justice is receiving what you deserve.
June 21st, 2009 at 12:11 am
In other words, it's at least plausible that women tend to put a greater weight on the context and the impact of parental relationship.
===========================
Novaseeker,
If that was the case, then someone needs to explain to me why so many women interfere with the father/child relationship after a divorce.
I would say that without some sort of legal recourse against the mother, there is very little reason to know other than medical.
========================================
Erik,
How about because is it moral, and right, to not lie to a man about the fact that it isn't his child. People can make excuses all they want, but it is just morally grotesque to lie to a man that a child is his when it isn't.
June 21st, 2009 at 12:39 am
I agree that it is a contradiction, Steven, but my guess is that the typical female perspective is that it is different when divorce comes because then, on balance, they think they matter more to the kids than Dad does.
I am not arguing in favor of their perspective, merely explaining it. Yes, it is contradictory, but that makes "sense" in light of Gilligan, who claims that women reason, morally, in terms of context, and that means that women might differentiate between the "un-upset" marriage with paternity fraud (and the risk of causing a divorce she does not want) and the divorce (which she heartily wanted) where on balance she thinks the balance rests with her,
Look, I disagree with that perspective, but there is a chance (perhaps a good one) that this is how females look at this issue. Unjustified? Sure. But understanding their disgusting irrationality is a step forward for us.
June 21st, 2009 at 3:47 am
"many women have a kind of visceral response to cover paternity fraud because of the risk of severing the father-child bond."
I wonder how those same women would advise a female friend who is the victim of regular physical abuse by her husband which abuse is humiliating but does not carry a serious risk of serious physical injury? Would they say to let it pass for the sake of the father-child bond? Or would they tell her to get a restraining order and have the guy thrown out of the house?
June 21st, 2009 at 4:35 am
Dreamin said
"I wonder how those same women would advise a female friend who is the victim of regular physical abuse by her husband which abuse is humiliating but does not carry a serious risk of serious physical injury? Would they say to let it pass for the sake of the father-child bond? Or would they tell her to get a restraining order and have the guy thrown out of the house?"
This is comparing apples and oranges. All you do in this situation is to discuss her options with her, which includes getting a restraining order. You cannot get one for her, and neither should you, even if you could, since it's her choice.
June 21st, 2009 at 5:18 pm
"All you do in this situation is to discuss her options with her, which includes getting a restraining order"
A lot of people would advise the woman to get a restraining order and kick the guy out.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I agree with Malcolm and Rebekah. The situation is complicated, and the 2nd wife is a newcomer to an old, existing situation.
If and when medical necessity requires that paternity be conclusively established, the truth -- whatever it is -- will come out. As a loving 2nd wife, she can then support her husband and her stepson at that time.
June 21st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
"many women have a kind of visceral response to cover paternity fraud because of the risk of severing the father-child bond."
That's just good old-fashioned BS. There is no father-child bond, the man in such a case isn't the father. Women cover-up paternity fraud for the most obvious of reasons - there could be unpleasant repercussions for them.
I just listened to a 4-part, 2-1/2 hour long audiocast by John Young of European-Americans United in which he discusses the devastating effect feminism is having on the American family. In his presentation he mentions that studies show that 10% of children born to married couples are not the man's child.
Paternity testing should be automatic for all men who wish at the birth of all babies and paid for by insurance companies.
For anyone interested in listening to it, it can be found here:
http://www.wvwnews.net/index.php
June 21st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I forgot a closing italics tag in my previous post. This should make it more readable.
"many women have a kind of visceral response to cover paternity fraud because of the risk of severing the father-child bond."
That's just good old-fashioned BS. There is no father-child bond, the man in such a case isn't the father. Women cover-up paternity fraud for the most obvious of reasons - there could be unpleasant repercussions for them.
I just listened to a 4-part, 2-1/2 hour long audiocast by John Young of European-Americans United in which he discusses the devastating effect feminism is having on the American family. In his presentation he mentions that studies show that 10% of children born to married couples are not the man's child.
Paternity testing should be automatic for all men who wish at the birth of all babies and paid for by insurance companies.
For anyone interested in listening to it, it can be found here:
http://www.wvwnews.net/index.php
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 am
If paternity testing can be done by a cheek swab (rather than a blood test) then I have no problem with routine paternity testing on newborns. (I'm one of those "freaks" who thinks that we do way too much poking and prodding of newborns and opted out of everything that was unnecessary...for the people who are already having blood drawn, go ahead and use a drop to do a paternity test)
Beyond that, I have mixed feelings. Part of me wants to say that paternity testing should be a routine part of any divorce that involves children. Certainly it should be required before child support is ordered. The only problem I have is that article I read a while back about the judge in TX that was ticking off the AG's office. It was linked from this site so some of you probably read it too. It told the story of a family with (I believe) 3 kids. When the husband and wife divorced, they did a paternity test and it was determined that only two of the kids were the husband's. Now I'm a little fuzzy on the details and I believe the biggest issue here was that TX wanted him to pay child support for the third one but whatever the reason, he continued regular visits with two of the children and completely ignored the third. If I remember right, his lawyer had advised him to break off the relationship with the third child because if he acted like a father, it would hurt his child support case and that's reasonable. But the story was just heartbreaking because here the man was picking up two of the siblings and taking them for visits and not even speaking to the third...a child he had raised who was not old enough to understand the issue of paternity (I want to say 6 or 8 years old). Yes, it's the mother's fault. Yes, she should be punished. But as it stands, the father and child are being punished because if he's at all human, it has to be ripping his heart out knowing what that third child is going through...whether it was his sperm or not, it's his child.
Anyway, I would fully support some kind of system where a dad who finds out he's not the father doesn't have to pay child support but still has parental rights to the child...at least I think I would. I just wonder how that could possibly be set up and how many dads would even be interested. I'd like to think that many would but maybe I'm wrong.
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
I'm with Malcolm on this one. The step-mom doesn't have proof of paternity fraud, all she has proof of is a theory of her sister-in-law's. If the sister-in-law feels that strongly about it, she should speak to her brother directly.
How's this going to play out if the step-mother makes the accusation? A family argument, the boy shouts "You're not my mother!" and she comes back with "You're not his son!"
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 am
"whether it was his sperm or not, it's his child."
This is true, Barbara, which is why I think it needs to be done at birth. That's the only way to protect men from paternity fraud without having really adverse emotional impacts on both men and children. If you do it later on, it gets very messy because there is already a de facto parental relatonship. So it needs to be done routinely at birth, and all it takes is a swab, there is no blood test for a paternity screen.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Barbara - ”When the husband and wife divorced, they did a paternity test and it was determined that only two of the kids were the husband's. Now I'm a little fuzzy on the details and I believe the biggest issue here was that TX wanted him to pay child support for the third one but whatever the reason, he continued regular visits with two of the children and completely ignored the third. If I remember right, his lawyer had advised him to break off the relationship with the third child because if he acted like a father, it would hurt his child support case and that's reasonable.”
This sad story comes about because, in the current legal climate, the courts (and feminists and chivalries) have it a full 180-degrees backwards.
Now, a man’s emotional bond to a child is routinely used to “establish” his financial bond (and long-term liability) to that child – even though, not being the biological father, he has no legal standing if the mother wishes to cut him physically out of the child’s life.
I’ve long felt that the “justice” to be done in these situations is to severe the man’s financial bond to the child, while preserving (at his option) the emotional bond.
As in the case you cite, when a man has not discovered the paternity fraud within a relatively short time, and has gone on to establish a (pseudo-)father-child bond, he is likely going to be “stuck” with the child support obligations even if he cuts off the relationship with the child. What the courts still insist on doing is twisting his time of providing parenting and financial support as his on-going obligation to continue the financial aspect of that (broken) relationship as being in the best interest of the child(s mother).
If the justice and legislative bodies could ever grow the spine necessary to do real justice – AND PUNISH THE WOMEN WHO ARE AT FAULT – then, it could be possible to see situations in which men, free from the financial obligation are free to continue their loving relationships with children their unfaithful partners have brought to them – providing the loving nurturing that fathers historically have provided to such children (even if never knowing). If the mothers were forced to go after the bio-dad (aka cad) for financial support for the child, men who wish to continue the relationship with such a child are no less likely to voluntarily (and lovingly) continue to contribute towards that child’s needs and desires. This, to me, would be an ideal outcome.
Of course, it is predicated on changes in the legal system to punish the cuckolding women, rather than double injustice of punishing the cuckolded man.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
slwerner - I agree with you. I think that the child support system is completely backwards. I think that a better system would involve paternity testing before a father was named on the birth certificate. If a mother doesn't name the father at birth, she gives up the right to ever claim child support from the father. Perhaps there would need to be some very rare exceptions...say in the case where a woman is raped by a stranger and becomes pregnant and the identity of the rapist becomes known later. Those cases (stranger rape results in pregnancy that is carried to term and the rapist is later identified) would be incredibly rare. Honestly, that's the only situation I can think of where there would be a legitimate reason not to identify the father at birth. And none of this pin the tail on the daddy...it's a one-shot deal. If you identify the wrong man as the father, the paternity test will show that and you've forfeited your right to ever claim child support. If, for whatever reason, a paternity test was not done at birth (homebirth, child born in another country, father opts out at birth, children born before the new law goes into effect, etc.), it should definitely be required in the case of a custody dispute. In those cases, paternity should be confirmed before child support is awarded. If it is determined that the man who has been raising the child was not the father, he would have no financial responsibility but would have parental rights based on his relationship with the child. Now, this could get hairy if the bio-father is identified and wants parental rights as well, but again, I *think* that the cases where this would be a problem would be far less common than the problems we have with the current system.
Since the original intent of child support was to reimburse the state for welfare costs, I see a couple of possible solutions for welfare queens (not everyone who ever needs assistance fits this category, but you know the ones I'm talking about!) One option would be that even if the mother has forfeited her claims to child support by naming the wrong father or failing to name a father at birth, then when she applies for welfare, the state can still pursue the bio-dad for reimbursement, just no direct payments to the mother. Another option would be to say that if the mother who is not eligible for child support can't support her children, give them to someone who can. If the father is able to support the child(ren), great. If he's not able or willing, then a family member would be the next best choice followed by foster care. The mother should still be allowed a relationship with the children with the ultimate goal for her to get on her feet financially and be able to support her children herself. (If the father has custody of the children, they shouldn't be automatically returned to the mother when she becomes financially stable...only if they are with someone other than a parent).
Along with all this, there should be some means to enforce parental access to the children. I'm not sure exactly how that should work. Child support in exchange for visitation is just wrong on so many levels so I don't think that's the way, although withholding child support when parenting time is withheld would certainly be one option.
On a separate note, I'm a custodial mother and while this is not popular among custodial parents for a lot of reasons (many of which I understand), I have no issue with being asked to account for how child support monies are spent. Within reason, I also have no problem with allowing NCPs to make other tangible contributions to offset cash child support. This could get a little complicated. For instance, a breastfeeding mom doesn't need dad sending cans of formula in lieu of child support. I used cloth diapers on both of my children, so cases of diapers from their father would have been of no use to us. I can see that this one would be easy to "play games" with but if it's implemented right and both parents have the right intentions, I think it should be allowed.
Anyway, I'm not a lawyer or a politician and I'm sure there are issues with my ideas, but I think just about anything would be an improvement over what we've got now.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Barbara - ” One option would be that even if the mother has forfeited her claims to child support by naming the wrong father or failing to name a father at birth, then when she applies for welfare, the state can still pursue the bio-dad for reimbursement, just no direct payments to the mother.”
Barbara,
This is an intriguing concept I’d not seen proffered before. I like it a lot.
I had always imagine scenarios in which a woman would name the man she believed/wished to be the father, and he would then either submit to the testing to establish/eliminate his paternity; or he could refuse until compelled by court order before he could be legally obligated to support children proven to be his.
But, of course, I never thought it through to the point of making it a “one shot” deal for the women. Which would mean that a given women could name man after man (like the women of Maury Povich fame who named, if memory serves, 16), each one then either submitting or being compelled to be tested (a significant potential waste of resource in both the multiple tests as well as court time in seeking and issuing orders).
Your plan cuts nice through the BS. It would, in effect, compel her to be as truthful as she could; and punish her even if she was only mistaken in who she named as the father – with bio-dad owing the state, rather than her. Which, itself is a very “just” design.
If a man was determined to be the father, his obligation would only be the amount that any welfare mother got – not a portion based on his income (or the income the court believes he could be earning). Much fairer to a man who was likely never married to, nor in any way committed to the women out side of a sexual liaison.
While I’m not in favor of people having random sex (especially where pregnancies/ children are the result), I don’t object to NOT overly punishing the man (who, in my own estimation would like-as-not be a cad) simply because I do not believe a woman should be able to “cash in” just because she had sex with that man.
Thank you for sharing these intriguing and enlightening ideas.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Not that complicated. It's in the best interest of the child to have the right to know now. Not for the adults to decide based on reasons to protect their emotional comfort. Son deserves to know who his biological father is and get medical information. He won't be loved any differently. He is a pawn in the adults game, and that is not in the best interest of the child. Not going to be better for him to learn later when a medical emergency comes up and here will be more anger by the son that nothing was done earlier.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Having dated and remarried after divorcing and having a child from my first marriage I leaned a Cardinal rule, never introduce your children to your love interests unless you are certain that person will stick around. It is very traumatic on children to have to be dragged through their parents serial dating adventures. It is bad enough that the child has already had to deal with seperation from the divorce.
It has to be assumed by all that paternity fraud is a deal breaker. Even if it is hard for the guy to make a graceful exit because of children (his and hers) and the financial punnishment he will get it is still a high probability that person will not want to remain committed to his partner. One of the penalties of paternity fraud is that the man who was the victim must be held harmless for her actions. The seperation anxiety caused by the man dropping out of the children's lives is really her fault not his even though he is the one who has been put in the position of having to act. After all, she was prefectly fine with the arrangement as it was.
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Barbara wrote:
”One option would be that even if the mother has forfeited her claims to child support by naming the wrong father or failing to name a father at birth, then when she applies for welfare, the state can still pursue the bio-dad for reimbursement, just no direct payments to the mother.”
If I understand the Roe v. Wade decision, the court ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion because any attempt to determine whether or not she had, had one - in order to hold her accountable - would be an invasion of her medical privacy.
As long as Roe v. Wade is the law then the state should never be allowed to violate a man's medical privacy by forcing a paternity test. If he says he ain't the father, then he ain't.
The bottom line is that it's none of the state's business how much money I spend (or don't spend) on my child. No government or governmental agency has the right to force any parent to pay any amount of money to any child for any reason (especially considering that, that money actually goes to the other parent - not the child).
As insane as our governments and governmental agencies have become, not one of them (that I'm aware of) has ever tried to force a custodial parent (whether single or still living with the other parent - i.e. still married) to pay "X" amount of dollars to a given child per month.
But yet they think they have the right to order a parent who has been kicked out of his family to pay money to a child. This is an obvious violation of our constitutionally protected rights.
The reason no lawyer has taken-up this constitutional cause is that the divorce/child support industry is the largest single money-maker for attorneys.