| www.CostaRicaTicas.com https://forum.costaricaticas.com/ |
|
| Interesting Men's Rights Case https://forum.costaricaticas.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13914 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | D2864 [ Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Interesting Men's Rights Case |
An interesting case to me - the girl says that there is a medical reason she can't get pregnant and says she is on birth control too, but after getting pregnant she wants Ch*ld support. She convinced the guy that he had nothing to worry about - she wasn't/couldn't get pregnant! She did (after understanding that he didn't want to be a father) she is in control, she decides to keep the baby, she decides she wants to be a mom, she decides she doesn't want an abortion and she decides to sue him for support. She gets to decide everything. Hey, let's reverse the situation, she doesn't want it and he does.... what's the chance she'll have it, turn it over to him and then pay him Ch*ld support? **************************** Dads: No cash for unwanted Ch*ldren In lawsuit, activists argue if women have right to decide fate of fetus, fathers can decline financial role. David Shepardson and Eric Lacy / The Detroit News "It's just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices," says Matt Dubay, 25, of Saginaw, who is part of a lawsuit claiming fathers have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a Ch*ld they didn't want. See full image A federal lawsuit seeks to establish a "Roe v. Wade for men," allowing them to renounce parenting responsibilities before the Ch*ld is born. Do you agree that men should have the legal right to opt out of supporting Ch*ldren they never wanted? A national men's rights group plans to file a federal lawsuit this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit, claiming that fathers have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a Ch*ld they didn't want -- in a claim they dub "Roe v. Wade for Men." A Troy lawyer for the New York-based National Center for Men said he will file a long-shot lawsuit on behalf of 25-year-old Matt Dubay of Saginaw that seeks an order declaring the Michigan Paternity Act unconstitutional. Dubay recently was ordered to pay support for his 8-month-old daughter. In 2004, Dubay, a computer technician, began dating a woman who worked in cell phone sales. He said she told him she couldn't get pregnant -- because she was using contraception and had physical conditions that prevented her from getting pregnant. After three months, they stopped dating -- but soon afterward, she told him she was pregnant. "It's just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices," Dubay said Wednesday night. "I was up front. I was clear that I didn't want to be a father and she reassured me that she was incapable of getting pregnant." After learning of the pregnancy, they discussed adoption. "I was trying to talk reason, to try and have a two-way conversation. She considered an adoption but then quickly stopped listening," Dubay said. So he researched the issue and found the National Center for Men in New York, which agreed to take his case. "The whole issue is, she made the decision based knowing that I wasn't going to be there for the Ch*ld in any part and she said she could raise the Ch*ld on her own," Dubay said. Troy lawyer Jeffrey A. Cojocar, who is filing the lawsuit for the National Center for Men, acknowledged it will be an uphill battle. "No one is denying this is going to be difficult. But we want the law applied equally between sexes. They each should have a say about a Ch*ld's future," Cojocar said. Women's organizations oppose the lawsuit because it leaves the Ch*ld and mother to fend for themselves. "This is ridiculous," said Leslie Sorkhe, director of operations for the Association for Ch*ldren for Enforcement of Support. "This is about the Ch*ld, a Ch*ld that needs the emotional as well as the financial support of both parents. The Ch*ld is entitled to his or her equal protection under the law." Renee Beeker of Milford, legislative vice president for National Organization for Women's Michigan chapter, says the lawsuit implies that the burden of pregnancy prevention is solely on the woman. "In the event of an unintended pregnancy, the needs of the Ch*ld must be met," Beeker said. The National Center for Men and its president don't want to be able to force women to have abortions or give up a Ch*ld for adoption. They want to be able to go into court before a Ch*ld is born and renounce parenting responsibilities -- and 18 years of Ch*ld support. "More than three decades ago, Roe v. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception," said Mel Feit, the group's director. "But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy." Cojocar admits that courts across the United States have routinely thrown out lawsuits by fathers who claimed women committed fraud by lying about taking precautions to avoid getting pregnant. Those courts have typically found a greater state interest in ensuring that minor Ch*ldren are supported. This claim is different in that it cites the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. But, the men's group says it should be more than biology. "We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA," Feit said. "A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother." Saginaw County Circuit Judge Patrick McGraw recently ordered Dubay to pay $475 a month -- plus half of all health care expenses for the baby girl, Cojocar said. He sold his dream car, a 1998 Trans Am, and took in a roommate to stretch his budget so he can begin to make Ch*ld support payments next month. He has seen his daughter once -- when he took a DNA test to establish paternity. The Ch*ld's mother didn't return calls seeking comment. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who has made collecting unpaid Ch*ld support a top issue, said fathers must support their Ch*ldren, regardless of the circumstances of the births. "If the subject is Ch*ld support, our focus should be on Ch*ldren, not on squabbles between the parents," Cox said. His office has collected more than $23 million in Ch*ld support, his office will announce today. Michigan parents owe more than $7 billion in unpaid Ch*ld support -- part of the $100 billion owed nationwide by parents who fail to support their Ch*ldren. Legal experts say a ruling allowing men to opt out of support could open a Pandora's box, forcing the state to pick up the difference to support Ch*ldren of single parents. The planned suit names the girl's mother, who is 20, and the Saginaw County prosecutor as defendants. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ... 90385/1005 |
|
| Author: | Tman [ Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm sure this may be controversial...but I was taught as a youngster that if I stick it in and she gets pregnant...whether its a "Ho", a one night stand, a GF or a wife...I am responsible. Whether tricked or not...if one is proven as biological father, he should have the responsibility for that Ch*ld...not society or "the state" as a whole. I still live by that credo... I do concur though in this case that a father should have equal rights for decisions related to that Ch*ld if he also has the legal responsibility. Too many moms want it both ways. They want the control but the man to pay. That part is phucked up... |
|
| Author: | Jaggededge [ Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Most of us learned at an early age that if you play ...you pay...... but....... I have to give some creedence to the fact that if woman gets pregnant by accident , the man was lead to believe that safe sex was happening all around that he should have as much to say about it as the woman does. If she decides she wants to keep the baby, and he doesn't want it , then it is should be her burden financially. When are men going to get equal rights........???? besides.... I learned at en early age ....it cheaper to bury them in the backyard than pay support. ( my italian roots) |
|
| Author: | Raw [ Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I found out the hard way how one sided Ch*ld support issues are. I got a court order for the dna test about 10 years ago. I sought legal advice. The attorny said I had 2 options, deny ever having sex with this girl and refuse the test or take the test and pay if the K*D was mine.I took the test. The results were 99.75 probability. I was in denial and had a 25 hundreth percent chance that the K*D wasnt mine. Anyway, I started paying Ch*ld support and took an active role in the K*ds life. the mother had a buch of personal issues and I managed to get custody of my son and his little sister about 4 years later. The mother has 2 court orders to pay Ch*ld support and has never paid a dime. I complained to Ch*ld support recovery but to no avail. I even consulted with an attorny about sueing CSR for discrimination but the attorny said I would be wasting my time and money. So much for equal rights for fathers. |
|
| Author: | JazzboCR [ Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | re: men's rights |
Can anybody give us an update on this case? Or caselaw on this issue? I had a vasectomy 20 years ago but that isn't even protection enough--can't quote them exactly but I know there's cases on record where a man's been forced to pay even though DNA testing proved he can't have been the father. This is not a men's rights forum (what, you mean we have rights??) but as the topic was presented... |
|
| Author: | Mia2Ewr [ Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't practice family law, have never been married, and do not have Ch*ldren, but I would assert that no matter what precautions either of you are taking, if she has a Ch*ld and DNA says it's you (and 99.75% makes beyond a reasonable doubt seem doubtful) you are going to pay. |
|
| Author: | Raw [ Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You reap what you sow. The guy made a conscience decision to let his seed flow. Id say he has has a snowballs chance in hell of getting out of paying Ch*ld support. |
|
| Author: | Prolijo [ Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: re: men's rights |
JazzboCR wrote: Can anybody give us an update on this case? On March 9, 2006, the National Center for Men challenged the Ch*ld support order in District Court. Michigan's Attorney General made a motion to have the case dismissed, and on July 17, 2006, District Court Judge David M. Lawson agreed and not only dismissed Dubay's lawsuit but ordered him to pay all of the states legal fees in the case. The National Center for Men appealled the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 14, 2007. Oral arguments began September 10, 2007, and in November the appeals court affirmed the District court decision.
Dubay v. Wells District Court decision: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/opinions/lawsonpdf/06-11016.pdf Dubay v. Wells Appelate Court decision: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0442p-06.pdf http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page10.shtml Most of the other case law that I've found on the issue of abortion and paternal rights involved the exact opposite situation where a woman wanted an abortion but the father did NOT want her to have one. One reason there may be more cases on that side is that it gets the backing of the right-to-lifers, who are really more interested in protected the unborn fetus than any real concern for men's rights. In the case of Dubay v. Wells, all you have is the fledgling Men's Rights movement, which hardly has the same clout and strength of organization as either the right-to-lifers or the feminist pro-choice movement. |
|
| Author: | Mia2Ewr [ Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nice work on the links. Was entertaining to me to read the District Court opinon then 6th Circuit's before going to the website to read their take. But they didn't get taxed appellate fees!! |
|
| Author: | Prolijo [ Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mia2Ewr wrote: ...they didn't get taxed appellate fees!! Big woo! The fact that they didn't get charged for the other sides' legal fees for the appeal but lost on absolutely every other ground is hardly any real consolation. Besides, I never really said they were "taxed appellate fees". What I said was that the DISTRICT court judge ordered him to pay all of the STATE'S legal fees (being one of the defendants in the case_:The Honorable Judge David M. Lawson or the US District Court wrote: ... Therefore, the Court will grant the State’s motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). As it happens, the other defendant in the case, Ms Wells, was similarly awarded recompense from Dubay for HER costs of defending against his frivolous lawsuit (on top of all the Ch*ld support she would be getting in the future). AND, while admittedly the appellate court did not similarly award the defendants right to compensation by the plaintiff for the attorney's costs in handling the APPEAL (under Rule 38 of Federal Appellate Procedures) it DID reaffirm the District Court's award:Appellate Court wrote: ... that the district court properly exercised its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Defendants pursuant to § 1988(b). Some that district judge's other comments were also pretty extreme, revealing just how badly and thoroughly Dubay lost his case: "If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case." or "The plaintiff’s claims have been rejected by every court that has considered similar matters, and with good reason." or "The plaintiff thereafter had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct, so the State came to his assistance..." or "No conceivable set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to the relief he seeks." Final he cited similar precedent cases where the plaintiffs were roundly defeated including this one: Quote: Although Dubay couches his claim in the language of the Equal Protection Clause, the theory of the plaintiff in this case has its roots in a concept of substantive due process that has been soundly rejected by other courts, including the Sixth Circuit over two years before Dubay filed his lawsuit. See Hedges, 391 F.3d at 836. After affirming the dismissal of the claim, the Hedges court took the
additional step of affirming an award of attorney fees against the plaintiff in that case. The court there proclaimed: "The plaintiff presents simply a novel legal theory, a theory that would invalidate the paternity and Ch*ld support laws of the fifty states and the federal acts on Ch*ld support. The theory is that unwed fathers, as a matter of reciprocity, should also be given the choice to deny any financial responsibility for the child’s existence. It is a theory so foreign to our legal tradition that it has no “foundation,†no chance of success. We cannot imagine that any federal court would agree with plaintiff’s principle that the concept of “procreative privacy†should be stretched to include the constitutional right for a father to receive the constitutional equivalent of he termination of the mother’s pregnancy by allowing him the right to deny paternity and deny the duty of financial support." Hedges, 391 F.3d at 836. This Court likewise finds that the amended complaint in this case is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation and seeks to advance a theory that is foreign to the legal principles on which it is ostensibly based. The message that such a claim not only is without foundation but would subject its proponent to the costs of defending against it was sent by the Hedges court, to be ignored by a putative plaintiff at his peril.....The Court also determines that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation, and therefore the intervening defendant is entitled to attorney fees. |
|
| Author: | Orange [ Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the judge who wrote the opinion in the original case has a vagina. The wording he uses is not how a man would write. |
|
| Author: | Mia2Ewr [ Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Perhaps his law clerk(s) at the time was female? |
|
| Author: | Crookedcr [ Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tman wrote: I'm sure this may be controversial...but I was taught as a youngster that if I stick it in and she gets pregnant...whether its a "Ho", a one night stand, a GF or a wife...I am responsible. Whether tricked or not...if one is proven as biological father, he should have the responsibility for that Ch*ld...not society or "the state" as a whole. I still live by that credo...
I do concur though in this case that a father should have equal rights for decisions related to that Ch*ld if he also has the legal responsibility. Too many moms want it both ways. They want the control but the man to pay. That part is phucked up... I tend to agree with this. There are all sorts of risks to phucking, and one should not expect the government to defend the consequences of a willful act of pleasure. Think of it this way. Say you have herpes but don't know it. You tell a girl you don't have any STDs. You two phuck, she gets herpes, you both get tested, and then you find out you do have herpes. Does the guy then have to pay the girl's medical bills for the rest of her life? I don't think so. Phucking is an elective activity, and absent outright fraud, both parties should deal with the consequences. |
|
| Author: | Udo [ Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ch*ld support in Illinois for men has become a matter of extortion by the state. They will garnish your wages, take your income tax return, take away your passport and screw with your credit report. My ex certianly did this to me. Now, according to my son, she lives with the father of her last three K*ds. He is a drug addict that does not pay a dime in support for the K*ds that he has fathered. My son told me that she was using the support money that was ordered by the state from me to support his drug and alcohol habit so he could sit home and father more K*ds for her. How the hell is this right? Where is the accountability for the money? My son told me that she is pregnant again by him so that she can insure another 18 years of free medical coverage from the state for herself. The state of IL makes sure the mother has medical coverage for the full 18 years of being a mother. I think that this is unjust and just evil. Where is the accountability again by the state? They had no problem going after me! |
|
| Author: | Prolijo [ Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dude, Don't you think you should be much more upset that your son is being raised in such a home environment rather than just bitterly complain about paying money to her? The REAL problem in the situation you just described is NOT that you have to pay Ch*ld support to your wife. The real problem is that the state awarded custody to such a woman in the first place. If you're so upset about in effect having to underwrite her boyfriend's drug habits through your Ch*ld support dollars, then you should reapply to the state of Illinois for custody of your son (and incidentally have the state garnish HER income and Phuck with her credit. etc.). Regardless of the parenting qualifications of your ex, your son is still half your responsibility. Frankly. the fact that you didn't seem to even consider that aspect of this situation doesn't exactly speak so well of you either. I assume since you can afford to take regular trips to CR, you can also afford to support the Ch*ld that you were 50% responsible for bringing into the world. If you guys want to talk about "men's rights" then we should talk about Ch*ld custody policy which is heavily biased towards the mothers. To focus so much just on Ch*ld support payments, just makes all of you sound like all the other shirkers who are much bigger problem in this country. There are MANY guys who don't pay a dime of Ch*ld support or else fall WAY behind in their financial obligations (sometimes due to real inability to pay but usually based as much on bitterness towards their ex). At the same time, many single mothers in this country are forced to try and raise the Ch*ldren these men fathered by turning to state aid, AFDC and food stamps, for which we ALL pay (not to mention the difficulty of raising well-adjusted Ch*ldren who will become productive adults in such situations). Just because one feels the money they send is being mispent, does NOT mean one can unilaterally decide not to send any money at all. If one feels there are valid grounds for their concern, they should raise those concerns with the courts and the Ch*ld welfare agencies. IF they agree with those concerns (AND truly care as much about men's rights and Ch*ldren's rights as they seem to about women's rights), then they will either change the custody setup, have case workers oversee how the money is being spent, or otherwise amend the support requirements. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|