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'?"
Most Helpful Opinions
- u
How much do you know about the law on this subject?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
20Opinion
jailed or punished to the fullest extent of the law... that needs to be created
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.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.
Absolutely women like this should be punished and don't deserve motherhood. The poor child losing a father.
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.
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 meI 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 jailedI 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.
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.
I voted no because of the interest of the child, whoever's it is.
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! =)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.
Who'sto say one is unable to realise it's prevalence?
I know men are just always the victem. Clearly the most prejudice targeted group ever. It must be so hard to be a man.
Why is the guy so stupid as to pay without taking a paternity test? Protect yourself. That's on you
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions