Many women are using sex and restraining orders to extort money from men.
Laws that protect the fairer sex from rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment all rest on a simple assumption: women who claim to be victims are almost always telling the truth. Maybe it’s time to revisit that belief. Three weeks ago the National Center for Men filed a lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, who claims his girlfriend repeatedly assured him that she was unable to get pregnant. When she later bore a child, the state of Michigan went after Mr. Dubay for child support.
That’s what people used to call entrapment.
But chivalrous pundits rose to defend the honor of this damsel in distress, dubbing Mr. Dubay a “sexual predator,” “deadbeat dad,” and – horrors! — a “weasel.” And if you happen to believe that men should be shouldered with the responsibilities and women enjoy all the rights, their criticisms certainly ring true.
Recently That's Life! magazine polled 5,000 women and asked them if they would lie to get pregnant. Two-fifths of the women – 42% to be exact – said “yes,” according to NCM’s Kingsley Morse.
Yikes!
But that was just a hypothetical survey. Women would never stick it to a man they actually knew. Or would they?
Consider the paternity scam. Here’s how it works:
Find any dim-witted man to get you pregnant. Then look up the name of some unsuspecting Joe who’s got a steady job – it doesn’t matter that you never met the poor bloke. Put his name on the baby’s birth certificate.
Now cross your fingers and hope the man is out of town when the sheriff delivers the papers. In California, such default judgments account for 70% of paternity decisions, according to a 2003 study by the Urban Institute.
Or defraud one of your previous boyfriends, assuming he’s a good breadwinner, of course. That’s what happened to Carnell Smith of Georgia, who willingly assumed financial responsibility for a child, shelling out more than $40,000 in child support over an 11-year period. But when the mother went to court to up the payments, Smith requested genetic testing. That’s when he learned, to his great surprise, that he wasn’t the girl’s father.
Stung by the injustice, Mr. Smith founded Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, [http://paternityfraud.com/pf_fight_back.html] a group that works to protect men from being cheated by these modern-day Welfare Queens.
Last year Michael Gilding, sociology professor at Swinburne University in Australia, reviewed studies from around the world, and concluded that 1-3% of children were fathered by someone other than the man who believes he’s the daddy.
Let’s run the math. Four million children are born in the United States each year. Using the mid-range 2% figure, that means 80,000 men become victims of paternity fraud.
Yikes again!
Ready for the next scam?
This one involves false allegations of domestic violence. Each year, one million restraining orders are issued that serve to evict a person – usually a man — from his own home.
Restraining orders have become so commonplace that family lawyers refer to them as silver bullets, slam-dunks, or simply, “divorce planning.” It has been estimated that one-third of those orders are requested as a legal ploy in the middle of a divorce proceeding. Not only are the orders easy to get, in many states a restraining order automatically bans a father from gaining joint custody of his children. [www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Threat-to-Families.pdf]
So the restraining order granted on the flimsy grounds that he caused “emotional distress” becomes the woman’s meal ticket to many years of child support payments. Prosecutors never go after persons who commit perjury, anyway.
And state welfare agencies don’t get upset either, because the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement reimburses 66% of the costs of states’ child support enforcement activities. Think of it as a bounty payment for deleting daddies.
So let’s see…… 42% of women admit they would lie to get pregnant. Each year 80,000 non-biological fathers become victims of paternity fraud. And about 300,000 restraining orders are issued in the middle of a divorce.
Assume a father so defrauded finds himself on the hook for $250 a month for each of his children. Over an 18-year period, that comes out to a cushy $54,000, all legally-enforceable, tax-free, and no strings attached.
In the past the American legal system was guided by the rule, “No person shall benefit from their own wrong-doing.” But now, hundreds of thousands of women replace that dictum with the self-indulgent excuse: “Get while the getting is good.”
If a woman is really shrewd she can collect child support without even having to care for the child. We helped raised a couple of children for years without any child support. It was either we take them in or they live in a horrible environment. They prospered under our care and are adults now. During that time the mothers always had a dire reason why they couldn’t help to financially raise their offspring. Later I realized they were getting child support all along. We were used, but fortunately the results of our care were worth it. I wonder how many men (and other women) are emotionally blackmailed to take care of children financially ofr otherwise just to keep them in a stable home.
Unfortunately, count the women who actually do need restraining orders against violent men as victims of paternity fraud. Those that cry wolf endanger the safety of women with legitimate concern. However, if a man is crazed and violent having a restraining order doesn’t help much. My mom refused any child support from my dad because she was sincerely afraid of him. The point is, if a man is a true threat the last thing a woman is going to do is to have a financial tie with someone who may harm her or the children. The sincerity of a restraining order is cast into doubt if a women is going after his money without fear.
I am a man that pays support, although mine was through a divorce settlement. However that being said, I would love to see the tax code laws changed in this respect.
Firstly the woman does NOT have to declare the support as income. Ok fair enough, but on top of that she usually receives a tax credit each and every year as she retains custody of the child. How about giving the tax credit to the one that ACTUALLY supports the child, namely the father?
Or perhaps the father can at least have some type of deduction to write off the support.
And finally how about basing the amount of the support on NET income instead of GROSS income? I feel that to many fathers are driven to financial distress or worse simply because the laws of many states almost automatically side with the mother.
Hats off for having the courage to write this article.
Finding myself in a situation all too close to what this article speaks about, I’d also like to add that child support should be determined based upon the finances rather than just income. Under the status quo, if I make $1,600/month, my support is the same regardless of whether I pay $600 or $1,300 in bills because its a one-size-fits-all cookie cutter formula and any judge that deviates from that faces immediate scrutiny and political pressure.
If I had custody of my child and overspent my income, I doubt a court would consider me a responsible parent or look the other way when my creditors demand payment.
Give my wife custody, however, and the court can (and will!) order a support amount without paying heed to your other bills.
Like I said, congratulations for having the courage to write about this issue. This is a system in horrible need of a fix.
You guys are naive, as a non custodial father who has paid child support for years I can tell you why the states have the system set up the way it is. First for every dollar they collect for child support they get money from the federal tax payers in a scheme that was initially set up by our almighty federal legislators to intice states to go after so called dead beat dads. Now since almost every state automatically collects CS from every dad, they automatically get to partake in this trough at Dad’s expense. Neat trick, the feds set up a system or incintive to collect from dead beat dads, states now collect from every dad and get a percentage of this incentive. So now you have a system set up for not only wealth redistribution but a way to enrich state coffers at a father’s expense. Do you think the states and their pussy whipped legislators would actually do anything to threaten those funds? Or even upset all those screaming vaginas?
The only way anyone will do anything is for every paying father out there, divorced or not, is to scream like holy hell at their legislators and our faltering President to even out the system. But most dads are like me, quietly obey the laws, meekly bust your ass for the few days visitation at your own expense and settle for the bones you get. We got what we allowed to happen to .us
One last thing, every dad divorced or not (since you wife is only a phone call away from taking your kids and income) write your legislators and demand:
-null or overturn the asinine Bradley amendment (if you don’t know what it is look it up)
-demand child support be based on a bare minimum subsistence level for the area you live in. (the same payments for a plumber, for a lawyer, for a doctor, for a football or baseball star, for a ditch digger.) This way YOU the father get to determine how much of your hard earned income goes to your kid’s extras in life not the state and certainly not your ex! Child support would be just that support. Tied to a bare minimum subsistence level, you would cut out a bunch of fraud at least and knowing how most dads are they would send whatever extra they could anyways but it would be their choice and not someone elses.
-demand that you get to alternate child tax exemption every year no matter who has custody, joint or not.
-Joint custody the norm. Make the state prove first you are unfit. Otherwise joint.
-Mandatory DNA testing at birth for father and child. That way you go in the deal absolutely knowing the child is yours.
-For current fathers, if you demand a DNA and the child is not yours, the mother is charged with fraud and the (taxpayers ) owe you back pay. (why the taxpayer? Because we allowed these Bullshit laws in the first place, we owe these dads.)
-Get rid of family courts and lawyers for both parents. Instead have one trained individual coordinate the arrangements and payments and to be there to witness the signing of the decree. Automatic joint custody, equal tax burdens and exemptions, subsistence child support would be the norm; why do you need a lawyer?
These may sound like wild ideas but to non custodial fathers and the children it would be a godsend.
I’m involved in an ongoing case where my ex wife accused me of molesting my daughters. She did this to gain full custody and get more money from me. The molestation charges were dropped in the first three days of investigation. We then ended up in Family law for a year. Then it was over rided by DCFS and we spent a year there. Then back to family law.
I’m fed up.
Someone mentioned the Bradley bill, i also believe that the Mondale act is detrimental and the Los Angeles county department of Family services is an aborration and disgrace and should be abolished.
I’ve given up hope and have let my ex have the children, and move. I’ve spent all of my savings in fighting this case and that money should have went into a fund for my daughters education.
We have two sons that went ahead and started families with questionable
females, even though we saw it as entrapment. Both sons now suffer hideously and have been denied even visitation rights. But the courts keep agreeing with these female sexual predators and up the support payments.
The next time these grandchildren visit, they will be dna tested. The ex-daughter in laws will allow a visit to Grandpa in exchange for $2000.00. Fraud lawsuits will follow. We know it is useless to attempt prosecution.
The national scandal in the story above is just the iceberg tip. The real payoff will be to the next generation that breaks up families for profits. Pre nuptial agreements and sterilization will be the cure.
Here in Wisconsin, the percentage is cut and dry for each child. If a woman has a child, she is “entitled” to 17% of his income, no questions asked. She could have 3 kids with 3 different fathers, ( occurs more often than people know), and BOOM- 51 percent of 3 mens incomes, all tax free. At this point they usually have free healthcare, reduced housing, and free education. What a joke. Here is the real pathetic part- if that same woman was to have 3 kids by one man, they only get 25 percent of the father’s income. Talk about an incenitive laden system.
Don,
Even of you get a DNA test and it proves someone else is the biological father, they will still have to pay child support. A couple years ago, there was a case (I can’t remember the guy’s name) that was exactly this issue where his ex had three kids from another man but he never knew it. The court ordered him (the now ex husband) to pay child support even when three of the kids were not his. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the court decided to let the lower court ruling stand. So, it now puts a loaded gun, so to speak, in every golddigger’s hand. The court defines a father more than just biological. It’s the man who has had a role in parenting the children whether they are biologically his or not. It sucks and it is extremely unfair.
I’m 19, I’ve got two friends and a half-cousin who’ve never met their fathers, never had a dime of child support from them, and never had a second parent in the house. My biological father was a physically and emotionally abusive deadbeat who’s never paid child support either. After my mother left him, she got a restraining order against the poor bastard, so he threw a violent rage, threatened her life and kidnapped me and took me out of state. It took my mom 2 months of court battles with a pro bono attorney and flying out of state to get me back, and the only reason she was able to do so is because she had filed the restraining order. Otherwise, there would have been nothing she could do about it. When you hear cases like that, it’s tough to assume that the majority of women are gold diggers, and really hard to sympathize with dads who have to pay child support. How about men just taking some responsibility? Don’t get together with a gold digging woman, like my mom, and knock her up in the first place, and you don’t have anything to worry about. Or get a prenuptial agreement. But if you knock the her up, you just bought yourself the responsibility of providing for the child. So make your decisions carefully.
I’m 19, I’ve got two friends and a half-cousin who’ve never met their fathers, never had a dime of child support from them, and never had a second parent in the house. My biological father was a physically and emotionally abusive deadbeat who’s never paid child support either. After my mother left him, she got a restraining order against the poor bastard, so he threw a violent rage, threatened her life and kidnapped me and took me out of state. It took my mom 2 months of court battles with a probono attorney and flying out of state to get me back, and the only reason she was able to do so is because she had filed the restraining order. Otherwise, there would have been nothing she could do about it. When you hear cases like that, it’s tough to assume that the majority of women are gold diggers, and really hard to sympathize with dad’s who don’t want to have to pay child support. How about men just take some responsibility? Don’t get together with a gold digging “b***h”, like my mom, and knock her up in the first place, and you don’t have anything to worry about. Or get a prenuptial agreement. But if you knock the “b***h” up, you just bought yourself the responsibility of providing for the child. So make your decisions carefully.
Pat,
Your case is the exception not the norm. Do the research and you will see that the “majority” of non custodial fathers are “honest” men that have been screwed.
When you hear ‘deadbeat,’ think prison inmate. Because that is what most of the so called deadbeat fathers are. Yes they are in prison so they cannot support their obligation but to lump them with a guy who has been saddled with obscene payments loses his job or whatever then is termed a deadbeat. Lets get this straight a deadbeat is a guy who doesn’t even attempt to support his biological children or ‘adopted’ by a bare minimum (food, shelter, clothing). There is nothing that says a plastic surgeon for example, has to support his kids in the 90210 lifestyle, and not doing so does not constitute failure to support except by our leech like gold diggers and the politicians who suck up to them in the name of the kids.
I speak from experience. The system in place for child support is broken. In the state of Georgia, it’s an automatic 23% of gross income payment for child support. Additional children are added on a sliding scale. The kicker is, if you had the child out of wedlock you have NO visitation rights or parental rights. You must go to court and request that these rights be grated. Mind you, before this judgement is ever inplaced, you must pay child support on the word of the mother. See the issue, I have to fight in court for parental rights, but the woman can just go to the child support enforcement office and give my name and then I’m served for support. Paying the support is not the problem ( I have done so for 14 years and never missed a payment) its the fact that I have to hire an attorney and pay court cost to see my son and all she had to do is give my name. I get no tax break and her income is not even considered by the court. Outrageous. It takes two to make a baby. But in Georgia only one pays.
I am sorry but this just sounds like a bunch of dads who are still pissed off that their girlfriend decided they were a looser and left them. It takes 2 to tango, If you didn’t wear a condom you are jsut as much to blame and like it or not you should have to pay. Having seen many people in the family (both father and mothers side) go through this plus so many friends I can say that most men are just as much at fault. It’s not like “oh I didn’t know I was having $ex with her” and in most cases the men arn’t “innocent” they are just as much to blame. Even with the pill its not hard to tell if your partner is taking it/following it if you are in a close relationship…and if you arn’t in a close relationship..again your fault just as much you were a wh0re too.
As for the survey of 42% of women would lie, I don’t agree ont hat because I beleive that a child should only be brought into the world when 2 people agreed on it and are commited to a child however they didn’t go about int he survey mentioning how many of them are married they surveied. While its not best many married women want children while mny men are very apprehnsive about it (more so then even getting married) because its a big fincial cost,t hey are worried about being good dads, they are worried about their love life,..its making a whoe new commitment many men can’t handle. So yes many married women lie to their husbands, get pregnant and the dad has no choice so quickly grows into it, loving the child and easing his unrealistic fears. I would like to have seen in the survey how many of those women who said they would lie were in relationships and how long the relationships were.
As well I have seen women who have gotten restraining orders against men to get full custody when the father wasn’t physically abusive, but they did do it because the fathers were just crappy (Ie screamed and yell at them all the time, spanked the kid, just let them sit infront of the tv the whole time and never spent time together, cursed all the time, did drugs, drank alot, etc.) While its not right to lie in the case of a restraining order there should be a system in place that gives more awarness to the parents as people (its not to hard to hide that you smoke weed or something like that to the courts) and there they go screwing the kid up because the mom couldn’t prove it, so its just easier for her to get a restraining order. While its putting a bad name on the dad a mother will do anything to protect her child, even lie.
as for the 1-3% who arn’t actually the fathers ordered to pay, I think that is wrong. If you wonder you should have some brains to DNA test at the birth. If the man is not the dad after 1 day or 10 years they should let him go.
What can we do?If we dont pay they jail us or garnish pay.I sufered a stroke and i now have to live on 548.a month because they take half, mind you the so called child is 27 years old.So i cant buy meds i’ll probably die soon from another stroke with nothing to control it.Is that the new final solution DEATH to stop these rediculous payments?