Men jailed for nonpayment of child support – even when they’re not the children’s biological fathers

Yesterday we posted a piece about one form of paternity fraud – women deceiving men into thinking they were using contraception when they weren’t (usually by not taking contraceptive pills) or sabotaging contraceptive methods e.g. puncturing the ends of condoms with pins.

Today we turn to a second form of paternity fraud, a form which is illegal in the UK and a number of other countries – women deceiving men into believing they’re the biological fathers of individual children, when they’re not. It’s believed to be a far more widespread practise than is popularly supposed, which is why we call in our public consultation document for compulsory paternity testing within a week of a baby being born.

In 2008 the Child Support Agency (‘CSA’) reported that it knew of over 1,200 cases of this second form of paternity fraud, i.e. where a paternity test had found the woman’s claim to be false. You have to wonder how many men simply accept the women’s word, and pay for many years to support another man’s child. Now here’s an intriguing fact about this form of paternity fraud:

Not one British woman has ever been convicted of the crime.

I’m grateful to Mr W for alerting me to an interesting article from the US, concerning cases of men being legally required to pay child support for children even when they’re not the children’s biological fathers:

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/03/25/jailed-for-nonpayment-of-child-support–but-its-not-his-child-n1548325/page/full

Mr W asks the intriguing question, ‘Could it happen here?’ I don’t know – maybe it’s already happening – so I’m sending the following Freedom of Information Act request to the CSA, to obtain the answer:

130709 FoI request to the CSA

I’ll post their response as soon as I receive it.

Paternity fraud is an appalling assault on men, both emotionally and financially. Yet the state effectively condones it, and doesn’t punish women who are demonstrably guilty of having committed it. It’s time for this ridiculous state of affairs to end.

Advertisements

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Men jailed for nonpayment of child support – even when they’re not the children’s biological fathers

  1. Mike: I would also like to add this piece to my prior contribution–another excerpt from my next book I’m in the midst of writing. Alan   A Government System used Against Men and the Family

    The traditional nuclear family is the smallest unit of our social structure upon which the whole is built. The male has been the cornerstone of this institution, and its structural arrangement is only possible (held together) by the unity and complementary sex role arrangement held between men and women. The attack against men and the traditional nuclear family continues now behind the scenes by use of tax-payers’ money with the indoctrination of new generations at the continual expense of citizens’ rights and freedom. Fewer jobs are now available to men than ever before in our country’s history. We have Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action to thank for this societal reconstruction and redistribution of finances. Yet, more financial burdens are imposed upon men by society and a government that, through assistance programs, freely gives to women, who it discriminately grants child custody, what (benefits, finances and other compensation) it requires men to pay back by force and continual threat of force and imprisonment. Supposedly, here in the United States no one is to be imprisoned for a debt owed, a condition existing in Old England that inspired people to come to America and revolt. Even Mexico has this law—that no person shall be imprisoned for a debt–and announces it on a brochure for visitors entering the country. To get away with violating this basic right to freedom, courts/judges call child support, which is determined by the same source, an obligation and if not paid a contempt of court—same thing. Isn’t a debt an obligation to pay someone back? Courts/judges calling something by another name doesn’t change what it is or the violation by these courts and judges. Debt imposed by the courts has less founding, since it is not derived from borrowing money–a lender–but from someone else creating it at will and using your own child in the process to do it. We are merely witnessing by this process a breach of justice and abuse of authority, tyranny—something we have not heard of in this country since the days preceding the Revolutionary War and debtor’s prison existing in England. (This is one example of what is now often referred to as legislating from the bench.) The common practice–deprivation of parental rights to “excuse” extortion of state-defined child support and what are often its unconstitutional consequences per court order–attests to a violation our Constitution rights. A person is only to be imprisoned or cast into indentured servitude for a crime he or she is convicted of per the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” We should be ashamed since the U. S. now has the most people imprisoned per capita of its population than any other country in the world (Liptak, 2008). Alan Millard

    ________________________________

  2. Mike: Coincidently, here is something I wrote fairly recently pertaining to this topic. Alan

    Injustice and Judicial Idiots Some cases, after a couple breaks up or divorces, now end with the judge awarding child support against men who are not even a child’s father, with the “reasoning” being that the child bonded with him as if he was the real father. Thus, even if a child isn’t a man’s, he is often held financially responsible for supporting it due to an emotional attachment that may have taken place between him and the child. Financial obligation therefore applies not only after marriages or cohabitation with women but now to relationships with their children. But how does emotional attachment have any association with a financial obligation? A price is being placed on emotional attachment when emotion, not money, is the value recognized. This is a contradiction of terms. Under this unfounded rationale, why would this arbitrary extortion of money by association not also apply to friends of the family and close relatives who are not the biological parent but to whom the child is emotionally attached? If the value we recognize is emotional, then no financial value exists anyway, right? If the emotional attachment to a child continues after the adults separate, as it would with close friends and relatives, then that is the value that continues, so what basis is there to determine any financial obligation in the first place? This is a mere excuse to financially target men by abuse of biased authority. Women and their children are, by the system, being made in to financial liabilities for men. This will discourage men from getting involved with women and their children. Freedom and liberty pertaining to who we associate with is not to be infringed upon. Involvement and emotional attachments are a choice, not an obligation, and should therefore not carry any potential financial liability. Any type of support (whether it be emotional or financial) a person, to include a friend or relative, provides to children should be considered a gift or bonus, but in today’s litigious and “right of entitlement”society it is actually held against men by mere association. This is fraud and extortion because it’s forcing someone to pay money under false pretenses—more legislation from the bench. There were divorces and second marriages in the past when this was not done, but it now serves as another arbitrary means of financially targeting men. Must a prenuptial agreement therefore apply to women as well as to their children, and whether the couple is married or not? Some prenuptial agreements are not honored by judges. If a prenuptial agreement isn’t honored by the judge, then the attorney who wrote it up is liable for it and all assets to which it pertains, and this should be stated within the contractual terms. Perhaps this will hold attorneys more accountable. That safeguard is what you paid the attorney for by securing a prenuptial agreement. And what about the judges who fail to honor them? What holds them to any accountability? Oh, right, neither the attorney nor the judge is held accountable, and you are held in the middle, accountable due to their incompetence. This is predominantly the case in our contemporary and subjective court system.   Alan Millard  

    ________________________________

  3. Mike: This really riles me! Alan

    ________________________________

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s