A post on Dr. Helen's blog that started as a discussion about alimony has degenerated into a fight over paternity fraud and child support in such cases. Now I know that there are a number of women out there who won't like my suggestion, but that's not relevant. My solution is simple, humane and constitutional.
- Require paternity tests within two weeks of the baby being born.
- If the husband is not the father of the child, then the father can immediately be granted a legally-binding divorce on the spot if he so chooses.
- Unless the husband has a criminal record involving serious crimes against people and property, the husband will be granted the option to be the sole legal guardian of the child on the grounds that a woman who would commit paternity fraud is automatically unsuitable to be a mother.
- For those who have already been victims of paternity fraud, the father may be given exclusive custody of the child if he chooses. It would be either a class six (or equivalent) misdemeanor or a class one felony for the mother or biological father to ever visit the child short of a bonafide emergency or with the step-father's permission.
- If the biological father of the child is married, his wife must be immediately informed about her husband's actions. If she has never committed paternity fraud herself, she may simultaneously divorce him and take possession of seventy five percent of all of the marital assets if this is her husband's first offense; after one offense, she may take possession of all valuable marital assets.
- In the event that the mother of the child cannot identify the father of her child, she may be compelled by the courts to seek as much gainful employment as is needed to pay for her child support. In compliance with the 13th amendment, she will be compelled involuntarily into this work until she has payed in full, all child support due. In the event that the biological father is later found, he shall be required to split all child support costs with her if there is probable cause to believe that he knew of the pregnancy.
Well, except #3 makes little sense, because we have just established that the husband has no legal or familial relationship with the child. The mother may be unfit, yet there is nothing to recommend her husband as a default caregiver.
I disagree. Unless he has a record of engaging in criminal or adulterous behavior, he has demonstrated himself to be of a higher caliber of character than the mother, and probably the biological father as well. Most men who have sex with married women, tend to have some idea of what they're doing. As I said, it would be just an option for the husband. If he's the sort of man who is so inclined, he could take responsibility for all of the children without the mother having legal recourse to stop him.
What? Hold women responsible for their actions?!?
You are the biggest feminist EVER!
I couldn't agree with you more.
Feminist is a fighting word, Pablo. Don't make me drive up to Canuckistan to prove my point... :)
I agree, except for #3. What man would want to raise the spawn of the guy who boinked his wife? It is against nature.
If he's a good man, he should have the choice. Given that she is his wife, he has a moral claim to any child she gives birth to while married to him. There are men out there who'd care enough for the child to decide to make the sacrifice, and I think they should have the option, if for no other reasons than it might mean better homes for some of these kids, and it would scare a lot of women by taking away their babies.
Imprisonment. No if's... no but's.
The courts are quite prepared to imprison men for sending someone elses DNA in a test, so why should the woman be able to lie with impunity
Only a sissy cuckold would use option 3
Not true. Taking the child away would be both revenge and a chance to give the child a good home.