What is your point, you are just showing how mysandric the law is. Why would this mother not allow the paternity test if she was honest?

The child is either hers and his or she fucked another guy and isn't sure and does not want to get caught!!

Again, what is your beef with this?

Maybe if she wore/took protection, she would not be in this situation. Maybe is she kept her pussy in one place, she would not have to use feminist lobbying laws to take another man hostage for her own failure!!

Maybe if there was a male contraceptive, the male in question would not be dragged in court to prove or disprove his seed.

DNA testing would have put this to rest in a flash.

Is this not what we want?

Justice?

The cited case highlights the way family courts or family law handles the role of men as fathers.

This child has a biological father. He could be the man in this case. He could be someone else. A court-ordered DNA test might have had higher probability of ascertaining the truth than words of man and woman alone.


In many other cases, one might wonder: which is more beneficial to the child:

1. To know for sure which man is his biological father, regardless of man's wealth;

or

2. To have a disgruntled man begrudgingly providing 'child-support money' but without emotional connection to the child.


"Jealousy is bred in doubts. When those doubts change into certainties, then the passion either ceases or turns absolute madness." -- Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613 - 1680)

From the article:

A paternity affidavit that is properly executed under this section may not be rescinded more than sixty (60) days after the paternity affidavit is executed unless a court:
(1) has determined that fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact existed in the execution of the paternity affidavit;

Here is the crux of the matter. Theses statutes are literally hundreds of years old, coming from English common law, and have no barring on what actually happens in reality today. Furthermore, these statutes come from a time when men did not have their salaries garnished or thrown in jail for losing their jobs. Make no mistake, when a man back in the day had any reason to believe that a kid wasn't his biologicaly then he could abandon that kid. This ensured that women had to do everything they could to demonstrate that the children they presented to men were actually the biological offspring of said men. Women did this by simply behaving themselves.

Fast forward to the 21at century. We live in a time where the crime of paternity fraud is literally the "crime that pays" often times in a big way. And not just for Mommy, but for the courts as well. This means that the only way this will change is through the legislatures. Lobbying on behalf of men who are duped in this way is the only way things will be corrected. The courts are incredibly corrupt when it comes to child support rulings as they can take a cut of up to 30% in some states. The courts cannot be trusted to change things of their own fruition on this matter because of the perverse incentive. Very few people see this problem as it really is and live in hope that, someday, a judge will do the right thing. It is a pipe dream.

At daylight, sometimes your posts are difficult, at least for me, to decipher. To answer your other cases, I think it is best for a man to raise his own children and pay the sum for the said children.

I DO NOT SEE how holding other men accountable for children that are not his own, to be responsible, unless they signed for it. Reverse the roles.

Would you, as a woman, or a man, want to raise a child that was a product of a fuck fest that did not not involve you?

If so, then you may stay in my mind as a mangina or feminist.

If the law holds you responsible for someone else s child, this is a crime. Unless you asked and signed for it!! I can understand adopting, but you need screening to do this and a very legal phenomenon takes place to do this, however, the lobbying behind what you are saying is way beyond sexist and feminized.

Please be more precise in the future, or I will take for granted that you are stirring an agenda!!

Mandatory DNA test at birth,NO affidavits, No benefits formom or child until positive DNA evidence.No more paternity fraud!

In disputes that are without evidence, normally it is "he-says, she says". It is difficult to know who is telling the truth. His word, her word.

In this case, it has gone a little one step further: "mail-in DNA test says, she says". Her words prevail.

Moral of the story: courts of law trusts her words more than a mail-in DNA test.