Good News!!!

[Quentin0352]

Yeah. I live in Ohio and it is a partial victory at least!

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1138873267253690.xml&coll=2

More From The Plain Dealer   |   Subscribe To The Plain Dealer
No limit on proving paternity
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Donna J. Miller
Plain Dealer Reporter

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld a state law Wednesday that gives men unlimited time to use DNA proof that they are not biological fathers, which means they could stop paying child support.

Previously, men had one year to challenge support orders with DNA. The law removing the time limit, enacted by the General Assembly in 2000, was challenged by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutors Office.

Thousands of the 685,000 child support orders in Ohio could be overturned, sending mothers and child support enforcement agencies searching for the real fathers.

An estimated one-fourth to one-third of DNA paternity tests nationwide result in men learning that they are not the fathers, according to the American Association of Blood Banks, which monitors the laboratories doing the tests.

In Cuyahoga County in the last five years, an average of 120 men a year sought DNA tests. About 40 a year had their child support orders dismissed.

"The cases were usually settled by forgiving the arrearage the man owed from failing to pay for months or years," Assistant County Prosecutor Laura Gallagher said. "Since the men weren't paying it as ordered in the first place, most mothers' budgets won't be devastated. It's the kids who feel it the most."

Former State Rep. Peter Lawson Jones, a Shaker Heights Democrat, sponsored the bill five years ago.

"I feel great," he said Wednesday, after learning of the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling. "No man should be forced to pay for children that are not his. It's just pure, unadulterated common sense."

It's not that simple, said Gallagher and her colleague Timothy Spackman.

The law doesn't allow judges to consider the overriding concern in Juvenile and Domestic Relations courts -- the best interests of children, they said.

"I've been involved in a case where the boy was a Junior," Gallagher said. "It's heartbreaking. It's to hell with the kids.' "

Spackman added: "I've been involved in cases where teenage kids ended up in psychiatric hospitals" after they learned the man they called dad was not their biological father.

The clash between DNA science and years-old support orders began as a trickle in the 1980s. It swept through 43 states in the last decade and generated conflicting court rulings.

Florida's paternity law requires men to obey the original court orders. Fathers must be current on their support payments before they are eligible to have them lifted with a DNA test of non-paternity. There are no refunds.

Now I bolded some of the more interesting parts. Notice how they trot out the old "best interests of the child" excuse? The exact same excuse they use to throw a guy in jail to get money and then use to REFUSE to throw a woman in jail for refusing to let the father see the children. Also the exact same reason they use to refuse to require a mother that lied pay back the money or go to jail for fraud.

[LSBeene]

This is good news.

Notice how it's "but if the kid knows it's hurtful" ... but no blame is laid at the lying scheming money junkie mother who STARTED the fraud.

Steven

[woof]

It's good to hear that in Ohio the law makers are a little brighter about this issue than here in Colorado, we had just the opposite happen here.  :x

Condoning Slavery Under Color of Law - Part II
Maternity is a fact, paternity is an opinion.
Paternity Fraud
  For five years the Equal Justice Foundation has been pointing out that a man with the intelligence to understand Colorado laws (and those of most other states) has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child.
  One of the principal reasons for that statement is widespread paternity fraud. Over 300,000 DNA paternity tests are done yearly and consistently 30% of such tests show the man is not the father of the child in question.
   A man typically marries to have children of his own and that is an underlying reason marriage was invented. Therefore, paternity fraud should be roundly condemned and thoroughly punished by any society built on a foundation of stable families, as was ours.
   Incredibly, despite the well known fact that paternity fraud is widespread, in Colorado the legislature and courts have condoned this practice and consistently rewarded women for their adultery. It is not at all unusual to find a woman has asked for increased child support after it is found her child was not fathered by the man paying the support. In some cases we've heard of women collecting child support from multiple men for the same child, or collecting support for child(ren) that do not exist or long ago reached the age of majority, and sometimes to places that don't exist (Maricopa, Tennessee, gotta love Maximus, Inc.).
   It seems obvious that women will do all in their power to keep their husbands, ex-husbands, and sex partners from discovering their infidelity to keep the child support money coming. Thus, it isn't at all unusual for a putative "father" not to discover he isn't for many years. In a recent New Jersey case the duped man did not find out about the paternity fraud until the child was 30-years old, 20 years after he divorced his adulterous wife.

Condoning Slavery - Part I
   Traditionally, the Republican Party has put itself forward as a supporter of the traditional family. In that mold, Colorado Republican State Representative Bill Sinclair, a retired Air Force colonel and combat veteran of three wars, put forth a bill HB04-1083 in the spring of 2004 that would have directed courts, upon a man's petition, to terminate child support payments after determination the petitioner was not the father of the child he had been required to support. Nothing required the man to petition the court for such modification, and made allowance for such actions as the man adopting the child. No provision was made to require repayment of child support before the fraud was discovered but did allow the fraud to be terminated. A modest proposal that won support in the Colorado House by a single vote, in large measure because of the respect Rep. Sinclair rightfully enjoyed.
    However, HB04-1083 was defeated in the Senate Judiciary committee by Republicans and Democrats alike. I've previously condemned the stupidity of Colorado Senators in so doing in the article Condoning Slavery Under Color Of Law. Clearly, Republicans (In Name Only) today have become anti-father, anti-family, and supporters of adultery and matriarchy, and Rep. Bill Sinclair was term limited and has gone into well-deserved retirement.
   As a Republican and father I am appalled at the actions of elected Republicans. Traditionally, and for many practical reasons, fathers are generally more conservative and thus have formed a core constituency of the Republican Party. Why the Grand Old Party has abandoned this constituency is a mystery to me? But the Republican Party seems to have done away with the Sixth Commandment and traditional families entirely. As a result Drop the GOP is a rising tide among father's and children's groups.

Condoning Slavery - Part II
    As proof of the sea change in the Republican Party I offer up the support of a Republican Congress and President for the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act in 2005 and funding such redfem pork in order to destroy children, families, and marriages at taxpayer expense.
   Then there is the action of RINO Colorado Senator Steve Johnson, (Republican - district 15) assistant minority leader from Fort Collins (Larimer County). In the 2005 Colorado legislative session this anti-genius introduced SB05-181, which was passed and took effect in toto January 1, 2006, although Section 9 became effective July 1, 2005.
   Under SB05-181 it is now impossible for a man to stop paying support for a child that DNA testing determines isn't his after a divorce is final or after a child support order has been entered if unmarried. Further, in this bill C.R.S. § 19-4-111 does not require rules of evidence to be observed in pretrial hearings and a record is kept only if requested. Senator Johnson can you say "kangaroo court"?
   Many times, if not the great majority of cases, the man is in shock over the divorce, has a restraining order against him as a divorce tactic that prevents him seeing his kids (or getting a DNA sample), has been falsely accused of DV and is in and out of jail and living on the street, the wife has moved out of state with the kids, etc., and there is little or no chance for him to get a paternity test during divorce proceedings. And regardless of language that says requesting a genetic test shall not prejudice, in practice it most definitely will.
   If the wife or female sexual partner didn't have a protection order before he makes a request for a paternity determination, she will certainly get one as soon as he does. Johnson and company appear to be blindly ignorant of how divorces and separations work in Colorado and SB05-181 simply makes a bad situation worse.
    A much more intelligent approach would have been to require DNA paternity testing for every child before a judge could require a man to provide support for that child. Any other approach is legislated indentured servitude at best and slavery at present.
   Then there is the interesting definition for jurisdiction which suggests Senator Johnson and his co-sponsors have little idea how human reproduction occurs. In Section 4 of this bill § 19-4-109(2) C.R.S. is amended to read (in part):

   "Jurisdiction - venue: A person who has sexual intercourse in this state thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to an action brought under this article with respect to a child who may have been conceived by that act of intercourse."

   Maybe I'm a little dense but a lot of pregnancies result without sexual intercourse, virgo intacto. I thought all Christians believed in virgin conception? Maybe Johnson and company deliberately meant to exclude such births? But a lot of girls have gotten pregnant just rubbing up against a male member without penetration. In one case at least with her panties still on. So more opportunity for judges to legislate from the bench because of bad law.
   Then there are cases where the man uses a condom but the woman retrieves it and uses the semen to impregnate herself. Common technique among gold diggers.
   Or what about the girl who comes to Aspen and parties with a bunch of swingers, none of whom are residents of Colorado? Does Colorado retain jurisdiction 9 months later in whatever state she and her consorts went back to? If so, then she is quite likely to bring a paternity suit against the guy who has the most money. SB05-181 lays out a blueprint for how to fake a hearing notice that even a blonde shouldn't have much trouble with and the ten day window hardly gives the guy much of a chance to discover the problem. And once the hearing is held, and a default judgement entered, say hello to child support for 18 years. No need to even produce the baby (if it exists).
  I won't go into the many other forms sexual intercourse takes and how pregnancies may result therefrom.
  Even though Drop the GOP has awarded Senator Johnson their Single Biggest Idiot On Earth award for his actions in the face of growing child support arrearages due to paternity fraud and deciding to make it legal, and provide direct financial incentives for adultery, I don't think he deserves all the credit.
   Johnson had some help with co-sponsors over in the House, even my own representative Mike Merrifield. But I can understand Merrifield's support. He's a socialist Democrat educrat who thinks the solution to K-12 education problems are more art classes.  Cheri Jahn, Betty Boyd,  Terrance Carroll, Rosemary Marshall, Angie Paccione (check out those runaway-bride eyes), Judy Solano, Nancy Todd, and Val Vigil are all Democrats so we know where their allegiances lie. Matriarchy here we come! I've previously noted that I can find no evidence that any matriarchal society ever advanced beyond Stone Age technology so don't expect technological solutions from these people. My guess is calculus is quite beyond all of them.
    But Bill Berens, Mark Larson, Ray Rose, and Debbie Stafford, who is supposed to be reforming DV laws, are nominally Republicans (In Name Only) that have banded together with RINO Senator Johnson to destroy marriage and families and lead us back to the Stone Age.
   Another question is whether SB05-181 a bad joke or have Johnson and company deliberately set out to further enrich the legal profession? For whatever reason it was passed, this bill will certainly act to further destroy children, families, and marriage in the State of Colorado, all in the name of the "best interests of the child" of course.
   In preparing this newsletter I encountered an ancient practice that seems to have merit in the current circumstances:

   A Locrian who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord around his neck, and if the law was rejected, the innovator was instantly strangled.

Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
  Good luck to Republicans trying to win elections in 2006. I can't imagine any better way to drive fathers and grandparents from the Republican Party than VAWA and SB05-181. And watch for an announcement from Senator Johnson that he has seen the ideology of the future and switched allegiances to the Democratic Party.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
                     

[Sir Farts-A-Lot]

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!

[JoeFin]

"I've been involved in a case where the boy was a Junior," Gallagher said. "It's heartbreaking. It's to hell with the kids.' "

Spackman added: "I've been involved in cases where teenage kids ended up in psychiatric hospitals" after they learned the man they called dad was not their biological father

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1138873267253690.xml&coll=2


They need to take up issue with the mother who committed adultry, lied to the father, lied to the courts, and ultimately lied to the child causing all the harm in the first place.

I wish we had the email of this fellow Timothy Spackman to point that out to him.

Perhaps we can all write a letter to the editor of the paper carring the story and illustrate it was the adulterous mother who did the harm to the child by facilitating those lies

[Bobby]

LSBeene wrote,

Notice how it's "but if the kid knows it's hurtful" ... but no blame is laid at the lying scheming money junkie mother who STARTED the fraud

"lying scheming money junkie mother" :shock: (shock power)

Yea, they used to have a name for women :oops: (embarassed) who had multiple partners. But "lying scheming money junkie mother" is pretty good Beene.

JoeFin wrote,

They need to take up issue with the mother who committed adultry, lied to the father, lied to the courts, and ultimately lied to the child causing all the harm in the first place.

"the mother who committed adultry, lied..." :roll: (boring)

The very men´s rights movement suffers from a sort of self imposed PC. (sad) Now, I :twisted: (mischevois me)prefer how they used to say it in the old days; it had more of a zing to it :shock: . But I would much prefer Beene´s lying scheming money junkie mother" to Joe´s "mother who committed adultry,lied..."

Yea, :x (mad) "They need to take up issue with the mother...". Maybe they should slap her on the wrist. bad girl... bad, bad girl. :oops: (oops)

[JoeFin]

Well not that I am a professional in the psychology field but it is pretty self evident the mother clearly harmed the child.

While the sarcasm is appreciated and heartfelt by myself it does little or nothing to call attention to the true problem of the  "lying scheming money junkie mother"

Until MEN start to demand folks like Timothy Spackman retract his statements and or contact media printing the crap it will continue. Fathers will be blamed for the lies of the mother and for the damage to the children

If any thing in a case where the child had to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital why the mother wasn't charged with Child endangerment. Seems to me so called professionals like Timothy Spackman need to be taken to task for violating the law and not protecting and investigating the mother

On edit

I don't mean to be flaming away here Bobby and company. This type of mentality is rampant here in America.

Once I had problem with my Ex allowing and encouraging my 15yr old son to attend parties where they were all drinking, smoking pot with an older group of people.

I complained to the head of CPS and the guy laughed at me saying "Oh he'll never want to come home now" and did nothing about it. To bad for him radio shack sells nice phone conversation recording equipment.

I handed the tape to my attorney who shares attorney client privilege with me and at the same time was the right to call a grand jury investigation of criminal wrong doing by agencies like CPS.

I'm saying stop pussy footing around with guys like Timothy Spackman and take him to task to uphold the laws which he is paid to do.

[powder-monkey]

...the best interests of the child.  

Detailed medical histories are used for diagnosis, as well as to determine the safest most effective treatment.  
Has anyone in your family ever...?

If incorrect information is being given through ignorance of a patient's true ancestry, the consequences could be dire.  If this knowledge is being willfully withheld, the conduct is criminal.

[Quentin0352]

A quick check shows that Spackman and company can all be found here http://www.prosecutormason.com/index.asp to contact them and let them know what you think of their statements.