Should Women who committ Paternity Fraud be jailed?

[Anonymous]

Paternity fraud clearly meets the legal definition of fraud which under the law is defined as an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. However, it is currently not considered fraud under the law (women do not receive prison time for defrauding a man into believing the child he is raising is his own). Why is the law absent? Why doesn’t it punish these criminals who are engaging in fraud by lying to a man about being the father of their kid? Perhaps most painful of all is that when men find out that the child they are raising is not their own, they are almost always legally held responsible as the father even when DNA results prove otherwise. Try to image a scenario where a rape victim has to pay her rapist monthly checks for years after the crime. That would be unthinkable. So why are men who are victims of paternity fraud punished for years of having to write child support checks to the woman who defrauded him even after DNA testing has shown the kids are not his own? While Maury Povich is out there doing God´s work exposing the scandalous nature of women who are trying to defraud men, this subject does not get enough attention. Paternity fraud is far more prevalent than one realizes.

No

Yes

They should be forcibly sterilised

Updates

+1 y

Paternity fraud is far more prevalent than one realizes. In fact, a 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks found that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not the biological father. While that number is high because those people already had doubts about the paternity, it illustrates how common this is and that there are many men being victimized by women.

[pnl86]

I said no, but I'll explain why.

First of all, there is no such thing as "cruel and unusual punishment... to the child." Parents go to jail all the time, and kids get placed in foster care or put up for adoption all the time. "But I have a family," is no excuse to a crime.

Secondly, there is a difference between "the elements of a crime" and "actually proving the elements of a crime."

For example, I worked a case where Bob and Tom entered into a contract to develop $10 million worth of land together. They both signed, and Bob kept the "original," while Tom was only given a "copy." Bob died. Now, New York has something called the Dead Man's statute. That means that Tom cannot testify about his "transactions" with Bob (because Bob is not around to dispute Tom's testimony). In other words, Tom must "prove" his case with evidence "other than his own testimony." The problem is, nobody else but Tom was around when Bob signed the document. So, Tom may be "right" (under the law), but unfortunately, Tom cannot "prove" he is right (in court).

That's the problem with paternity fraud cases.

The "elements" of fraud (i. e., what constitutes fraud) are generally substantially similar across all kinds of fraud cases; they are:

(1) a false statement of fact,
(2) which was false at the time it was made,
(3) with knowledge of its falsity by the speaker or maker, (BIG ISSUE)!!!
(4) made with an intent to deceive the plaintiff (scienter), (BIG ISSUE)!!!
(5) such false statement being material to the transaction,
​(6) plaintiff's reliance upon the false statement was reasonable, (BIG ISSUE)!!!
​(7) the false statement caused the plaintiff damages or harm.

See, Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N. Y.3d 173, 182 (2011); see also Stephan B. Gleich & Associates v. Gritsipis, 87 A. D.3d 216, 223 (2d Dept. 2011).

There are "three" (BIG ISSUES) with paternity "fraud" cases. First, "I" (the woman) can always claim, "I never 'knew' it was false; we had sex, I reasonably just assumed he was the father." Second, "I" can always claim, "I never 'intended' to defraud him, I was just stating who I genuinely believed the father was." Third, "He always had the right to 'deny' paternity and request a 'paternity test' ... 'BEFORE' paternal/equitable estoppel kicked in... so, (a) how was it 'reasonable' for him to rely on my statement, and (b) how was his reliance 'detrimental'?"

[pnl86]

Simply saying something false is not "fraud."

The way men can protect themselves against paternity "fraud" is:

1. If the child is already born, (a) immediately challenge/dispute paternity, (b) immediately request a DNA test, and (c) do not be involved at all in the child's life (to prevent a paternal/equitable estoppel argument).

2. If the child is not yet born, but "conceived," and you haven't otherwise protected yourself, then you're fcuked - sorry.

3. If the child is not yet "conceived," then enter into an agreement with the female sexual partner. The agreement is not about "child support" (because child support is between parent & child, not parent and parent). The agreement is one of essentially "shifting" the burden of proof. The parties agree that the male does not consent to any of his genetic materials being used for conception of a child, does not want to be a parent, etc. ... unless he gives his prior written consent.

[pnl86]

That way, the burden of proof has eventually "shifted" from the male having to prove paternity "fraud," to the female having to prove "consent" by the male.

At that juncture, the stage is set for a constitutional challenge to the state's default "biological affinity = parental status" statutes whereby a simple DNA test creates parental rights, under the argument that such statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee to an individual's "liberty/privacy," by depriving the male of his freedom to choose whether to "bare or beget a child" (i. e., be a parent) See... Roe v. Wade, etc.

The constitutional challenge of the DNA statutes aside, it also supports a conviction of "fraud" and "theft" against the mother (although that will have no effect on child support).

[Bandit74]

"If the child is already born, (a) immediately challenge/dispute paternity"

yeah but then the girl will say he's an asshole for nor trusting her.

It's a lose/lose situation

[pnl86]

@Bandit74 ... Jewish proverb --> "'Trust' is the prerequisite of 'deceit.'"

This should be much easier to ask if the girl has been through a guy's phone or Facebook, etc.

Usually, the girls to do these kinds of things are also likely the kind of girls who do things like commit paternity fraud.

[Bandit74]

Oh that's a good quote, I'm going to have to remember that.

How common are the types of girls who are willing to commit paternity fraud?

[pnl86]

@Bandit74 ... it depends largely on socioeconomic status. Usually, the lower the socioeconomic status and level of education, the "less she has to lose" from doing something like that. The "cost" to that behavior is relatively "low" in those situations. So, you can expect to naturally see more of it.

That's starkly different from a girl from a higher socioeconomic status with a higher level of education. For such a girl, the "cost" of engaging in that behavior is her child "losing its father," and her and her family "losing reputation" within their community.

Compare and contrast a situation where that's not the case, and instead, the "cost" is low, but the girl may "potentially gain" by engaging in that behavior (e. g., if I make him my baby daddy then he will stay; or he's a balla and NFL playa so I be milkin' him for dem child support).

These are situations where men in that community would likely leave anyway.

[Bandit74]

You said one of the risks for girls higher economic circles is that the child would lose its father but

Wouldn't the child lose its father in both cases?

[pnl86]

@Bandit74 in higher socioeconomic status groups, male/female couples have a lower rate of "abandonment." I'm not talking about "divorce." I'm talking about "abandonment" of the unwed mother, and the children. So, the "risk" is much less, compared to lower socioeconomic status groups, where male/female couples have a higher rate of abandonment.

So, give the circumstances, a "high soc. eco. status" female might not find the "rewards" of paternity fraud to exceed the "risks."

Yet, in a "low soc. eco. status" female, the "risks" of paternity fraud are minimum, compared to the "rewards." More importantly, in the "alternative," the risk of the male "abandoning" her are already high. So, she's more likely to figure, "what the hell? He's likely to leave anyway. So, on the off-chance that he stays because he thinks he's the baby daddy, why not?"

[OlderAndWiser]

How much do you know about the law on this subject?

[Cookies_AndMilk]

After reading @pnl86 comment I no longer think they should be jailed, but I do think the man reserves the right to leave and no longer take care of the child. Some type of law should be put into place, because I've seen men's lives be entirely destroyed by women who do this and it's sick. If a man is not the father there is no reason he should be forced to pay for a child that is not his responsibility. I feel like people who have kids shouldn't have them if they know they're depending on someone else for their child's well being. I feel like the woman should pay a fine based on how old the child is. Whatever the estimated expenses are for that child based on age is, that's how much she should be required to pay back to the man by law.

[Betwyn]

I haven't voted yet.

What about women who truly believe Guy A is the father, but are incorrect?

As to the child support issue, doesn't have to with time served so to speak? Like, if you find out a 6-month old isn't yours, you shouldn't be on the hook. But if you've in this kids for like, 12 years... biological or not, you are the kids father.

Step parents and adoptive parents can be just as good and often better parents then the biological ones anyways.

[GigaChad]

Why should they be forced to take care of a kid who isn’t theirs?

[Anonymous]

Punished, yes. Jailed, no. Somebody has to take care of the child. For the record, though, I think we jail too many people and it's fairly ineffective for rehabilitation - including for men. Mandated work/service hours is possibly a better structure for non violent crime.

[Asker]

Its not about rehabilitation its about punishment.

[Opinion Owner]

You can punish people as easily by making them work unpaid hours as locking them up with violent criminals.

[Opinion Owner]

Then when they get out, they're more likely to not be unfit for society and a drain on the system.

[Opinion Owner]

This is my philosophy on other kinds of fraud, as well. Look at that Wolf of Wall Street douche, Jordan Belfort. He is out being a motivational speaker instead of paying his debts. Making people work for the taxpayers is a way of making criminals less of a drain on the system by sitting around in jail, eating, drinking and getting medical care. If they're non threatening, otherwise productive people, keep them working in the world and on watchful probation.

[Prettygurl12]

I actually like that idea. Only one major huge giant flaw with it. She had a duty of care (legal term) to the child and taking her away for a prison sentence could be considered cruel and unusual punishment to the child.

[Asker]

Was ot not cruel and unusual punishment to tell have a child grow up only to find out that their father has walked out because he's not the child's real father. Now thats cruel and unusual how would the child be ever able to trust its lying bitch of a mother again.

[Prettygurl12]

You cannot provide me with a solution, I see. Welcome to the law. :p

[Asker]

The solution is adoption as the mother is a criminal and unfit mother.

[Prettygurl12]

Good luck convincing the supreme court of that.

[Asker]

The only way to make sense of the law and its rulings on these matters is simply to conclude society still believes women are tall children.

[Prettygurl12]

You sound bitter.

[Aguy565tt]

Making the women work for some unpaid hours a week for 30 years.

[madhatters4]

jailed or punished to the fullest extent of the law... that needs to be created

[jacquesvol]

We all know women too cheat.
BUT
-The important person is the child. It is entitled to a father and a home.

-THE REAL father of a child is the man who raises it.
The sperm is of secondary importance. Adopted children and donor children are just as good as other children.

Putting much importance on "paternity fraud" will
-push a number of children in single income households, which form the mass of poor America. It's not desired.

-create some disregard for adopted children and donor children. It's not desired either.

[jacquesvol]

I read and agree with most of what
@pnl86
@Prettygurl12
@RachelBrigs
@AustinMan
wrote here.

[takumii]

Being father is a concept , if your name is in the birth certificate of the child you are officially the father. Making something a crime changes people's outlook on it. For example before 20th century child marriage wasn't considered a crime in most countries and people were okay with it, after being declared a crime people's, outlook changed on it completely and they find the idea of it disgusting. Declaring paternity fraud a crime will create hostility in the mind of fathers, creating more single mothers which is not healthy for society.

[Explore2016]

Absolutely women like this should be punished and don't deserve motherhood. The poor child losing a father.

[longjohndan]

This happens because the government benefits from the fraud avoiding prosecution and associated costs as well as allowing paternity to be falsely established thus requiring support that can be drawn from somewhere other than the state. It's ridiculous really, but stems from a society where fathers/men have few rights.

[nalaa]

You know there are two main parts to consider with every sentence

1) punishment and here I see your point
2) rehabilitation and that's where your logic fails. What good is a jail sentence to anyone. She'll unlikely be a threat to others, instead you leave a kid without mother and a father that might not stay around. Who does it benefit? Certainly not the tax payer

And actually I think 30% of people who were doubtful enough to get a test does not sound that bad to me

[TheGuyFromMiddleEast]

Yeah, test rate is not so high considering only ones that doubt the situation actually have the test. However, you simply cannot let a fraud be free simply because she cannot deceive anyone else. There should be some kind of punishment for misbehaviour. Heck, in this situation the word misbehaviour makes it sound les serious than it is.

[nalaa]

@TheGuyFromMiddleEast ya I know, right? Another way of phrasing it is 70% of men are paranoid

And well it's an easy decision. Punishments never are and I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. But again who is benefiting from punishment? The child? The father? Society? The answer to all of them "not really".
Even punishment as in withdrawing financial support is in effect punishing the child for something that is not his/her fault. Other than revenge, what do you hope to get out of a punishment?

[TheGuyFromMiddleEast]

Punishment does not really "benefit" people in general. It is designed to make the punishee's life harder and to create some level of fear in the society. Plus, we pay the price for our parent's faults and we receive the reward for our parent's achievements all the time. It doesn't really make sense to use the child as a human shield to protect the woman from going through financially hard times.

[nalaa]

@TheGuyFromMiddleEast

Maybe in the middle east it is, but in the west punishment is usually to the benefit of someone. In case of fines it's obvious, for jail sentences it's usually to avoid further crimes and keep people safe

[ambertaylor]

I think it should be prosecuted under 'intentional emotional distress' and given an appropriate sentence. Forced sterilisation is not a suitable punishment for anyone, as tempting as it to pursue upon certain individuals, it's just not an option. All the money given to support the child by the false father should be repaid by the lying mother.

[Poppykate]

I agree! I read somewhere that in a modern classroom, one out of four children will incorrectly believe who their father is. This is due to deceptive behaviour on behalf of the mother, infidelity and other medical mistakes. (Use of wrong sperm, etc)

[Asker]

I didn't realise it was that high. Wow

[BigJake]

Yes, fraud is fraud, but unfortunately, the US government still treats women as helpless waifs who need eternal protection from the scourge of men. It's yet another double standard that benefits women at the expense of men. I would be homicidal if I were forced by law to financially support another man's child.

[Liam_Hayden]

Yes, but it would require a reworking of fraud statutes in such a way that putting someone's name on the birth certificate while knowing that someone else could possibly be the father would be a crime. As obvious as it might seem, the statutes scream "reasonable doubt" when applied here as written.

[LordZero]

Because society needs beta males to keep everything in order, while omega males and every girl that exists on this planet keep procreating behind their backs. Girls want kids from liars, criminals, and rapists, but want the genetic line of alpha males and beta males to die off. Welcome to the feminist world.

[RachelBrigs]

There's a couple problems with this.

A) there's no way to prove she knew who the father actually was. Ultimately you'd be prosecuting her for adultery.

B) the children will have no mother if she's jailed

[TheGuyFromMiddleEast]

Actually, if your wife commited adultery, you should be able to get divorced free of any charges, obviously. You shouldn't pay for someone who has cheated on you. The law's problem actually starts where the man still has to pay allomony and child support even though his wife has cheated on him and let another man impregnate her. That's simply f**ked up.

[RachelBrigs]

@TheGuyFromMiddleEast
I do believe you are misinterpreting what I'm saying? You're going off on a tangent here.

Let me explain my first point.
It isn't possible to prove that a woman KNEW who the father of her child was unless she did a test, the only thing you could prove is that she slept with another man. So if you tried to turn that into a paternity fraud charge you'd really just be charging her for having an affair, and honestly I don't think that the government has any business doing that.
I would be all for a paternity fraud charge but it is difficult to prove/prosecute.

But in response to your.. whatever that was, the courts NEVER make a man pay child support for a child they KNOW isn't his.
No matter what in a divorce you're gonna be spending money, women are paying money/giving up property to men who cheated on them too, that's not a male specific problem.

[Bandit74]

I think there should be mandatory dna testing at the hospital when the child is born. This would prevent this short of thing from even happening in the first place.

[oldanddecrepid]

I would not want to take the mother away from the child, however, I think there should be a significant fine paid and automatic settlement to the non-father to dissuade women from doing these things.

[AustinMan]

I voted no because of the interest of the child, whoever's it is.

[LittleSally]

Makes sense to me that they would be.
I thought they were in America?

Hmmmm... you Americans should look into that - it's a good idea! =)

[Casper286]

I agree with everything you said except for if the man who claims legal rights as the father knows the child isn't biologically his.

[Fortres]

Who'sto say one is unable to realise it's prevalence?

[Anonymous]

I know men are just always the victem. Clearly the most prejudice targeted group ever. It must be so hard to be a man.

[Opinion Owner]

Just pointing out i dont agree with this, it is horrible. That being said, im so tired of men acting like they are being persecuted by the world and always the victem and womem are horrid sucubuses while at the same time ebing sexist and saying all women are the same. This had really been prevelant on this site lately

[Riggers]

Your fucking joking right? Hahaha, 99% of the time its girls claiming to be oppressed and patriarchies and all sort of other non existent misognystical shit xD

[Opinion Owner]

You dont get out much do you

[Anonymous]

Why is the guy so stupid as to pay without taking a paternity test? Protect yourself. That's on you

[Intraluminal]

If you're married to the woman, it's yours - no paternity test needed or allowed. That is you can have the test, but it don't mean nothin. (I know, double negative)

[TheGuyFromMiddleEast]

Even if you have the test and prove the child is not yours, you still have to pay child support. That's the problem with the current law.

[Byakuyarko]

sterilise these cunts and take away their kids and put them in welfare

[John_Doesnt]

They should pay a fine to the guy she defrauded. A HUGE fine.

[WrongAddress]

It's a crime and they should be sterilized for the sake of preventing another crime like that by them.

[Aguy565tt]

After the child becomes an adult, jail the mother for 10 years.
Nothing should happen to the mother when the child is below 18

[Anonymous]

They should pay restitution and be fined, but jail time would be counterproductive.

[AngryHorny]

Why not jail everybody? Keep troublemakers off our streets.

[Anonymous]

Forcibly sterilized seems a bit harsh but they should get in trouble with the law

[Anonymous]

No question about it... Women need to start being held responsible for all their bullshit.

[Applefan1]

Could not have said it better myself. I get sick of all the cry baby cop outs some women give for their bull shit behaviour.

[Opinion Owner]

@Applefan1 Yeah I'm starting to grow tired of women getting away with the magnitude of crimes that they do.
Some are mainly female only crimes like paternity fraud, false rape claims, and false abuse claims... but even the shit they get away with that men are punished more for, like actual rape, child sexual abuse, murder, intimate partner violence, and pretty much every crime out there.
Feminist groups are actually fighting to close down women's prisons because they feel women should not be institutionalized.

[cinderelli]

yes they totally should be..

[RajeshTheJeshter]

They should be executed.

[falafelany1]

I clicked no but I meant yes

[Anonymous]

Yes, that's fucked up!