« Interesting Postings in German Blogs | Main | No Surprise about Antisemitism »

Comments

You realise how it works - the genetic test can only work in her favor, not his. If she knows it will work against his case, she would allow it. If it doesn't she can have it made unadmissable.

It gets worse. There was a case in sweden where 2 lesbians who were the legal guardian of a child whose father was a test tube, fought over child support. In their wierd little universe, only a male can be responsible - so they had the sperm bank open up its' records, and nailed the guy with 14 years of child support.

That's interesting - like she's going to agree to any test she knows will prove he isn't the father?

What next, a murder case can't be prosecuted because the suspect didn;t give his permission for ballistics test?

Things are equally bad here in Canada.

There was a guy in British Columbia who was supposed to pay more child support than his salary. His only solution out of this situation was suicide.
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0003/oc000327.htm

There was a woman who lied to her (ex) husband about their "common" child for something like ten years. When it came out that the guy was not the father (they already divorced at that time and he was paying child support), the courts lowered his child support payment since although he was not the real father, he acted like the real one. It didn't matter that he was *NOT* the father and was lied for a decade. The judge's argument was something like that since he was acting like a father for a long time, he had an influential effect on the child, he had to continue paying.

Here in Canada, if a woman accuses a man of rape, then the guy is automatically considered guilty practically without further questions. It doesn't count if everything points against it including the woman's earlier behavior. In one such case, the guy was exonerated years later when it became suspicious that the woman reported a rape every half a year or a year or so. Search for Fordham and "Jamie Nelson" for more info.

These and many other such cases led to the decision on my part if I ever see a woman hitchhiking, irrelevant of where, what the weather, or what the situation (like a months long transit strike, or with a child), I will not pick her up. Not because I am cruel, or that I am afraid that she would sue me for improper behaviour, but because if it does happen, then I know that I would be considered guilty regardless whatever I say. Both my mother and my wife agree with me.

Vilmos

Is anyone surprized? The state would have to pay is teh father can't be located. It makes perfect sense to the welfare breaucrats.

There is a war against men in almost all Western cultures. In my opinion it is promoted by Lesbian activists who are influential in legal and legislative circles. These people cannot understand how ordinary women could possibly have a stake in heterosexual relationships. As a result, they think only in terms of exploitation and domination of women by men. Some part of this story relates to the observation by a dead white male that common sense is not so common.

There is a presumption of fatherhood in most English speaking jurisdictions. The original English law was that a husband is presumed to be the father of a child unless proven otherwise. This law predated both DNA and blood tests. The only time the husband would ever get off paying child support was if the other guy confessed to being the father. The purpose behind this is to make sure that all children have fathers: even if the father is not the biological father.

Different variations of the old English common law are still practiced in the States. In most jurisdictions, if the male admits to paternity, but later has proof that he is not the father, the court will still hold the male liable for child support. Again, there is a public interest in making sure that kids get taken care of, even if it is unjust in some cases.

> Again, there is a public interest in making sure that kids get taken
> care of, even if it is unjust in some cases.

I fail to see where the public interest is. It is like after an unusually grisly murder, the police is pressed to produce results. It doesn't matter much if they find the real murderer. They need to produce a quick result. It is bad since the murderer is still out there. The problem with the approach "the kids get taken care of, even if it is unjust", is that, well, it can be unjust. And it flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty". How can I be expected to trust the justice system if it knowingly produces unjust results?

Vilmos

The first entry to this thread was written by someone named "Amihasser". All you English speakers (American dialect and others) should know that this translates as "American hater".

Note from David: He's routinely deleted. Please don't refer to him.

Abu Ghraib:

"But no defense witness confirmed that Graner was directly ordered to abuse prisoners, and several said just the opposite." Kein Thema in deutschen Medien mehr, wenn das Ergebnis nicht paßt.

Thanks for the tip, JK. My German is so bad that I always mis-read the name as Amirohrer. I'll be more careful in future.

"if the male admits to paternity, but later has proof that he is not the father, the court will still hold the male liable for child support."

I don't see a problem with that - if he admitted paternity he admitted responsibility, even if the paternity part didn't pan out.

That would be sort of like a guy adopting a kid - he's stuck with that decision.

As for Amihasser - well, learn a new word every day I guess.

Previous poster: Wrong. If a man agrees, based on the woman's statement, that he is the father of a child, then that agreement is contingent on truthfulness of the statement. If the statement is untrue, then he didn't agree to anything.

As far as the execrable court decision and possible legislation go, well, we all see the agenda here, and it obviously has nothing to do with privacy. This court decision and the possible legislation are crimes against humanity.

If a woman for any reason whatsoever doesn't feel like she was wants a child, she can abort it during pregnany - no concern for the rights of the child there. But let a man take a cotton swab to a glass the child drank from - a procedure that is not in any way physically invasive - and the Leftists want to throw him in jail for a year. Imagine, some poor bastard has the test done and finds out he is not the father. For that, the state wants to throw him and jail for a year and then make him continue to pay for the child when he gets out. And woe to the man who serves his time and continues to claim that the child isn't his; he will likely be looking at a second stretch in the pen - we can't have people running around claiming that the state has erred. Meanwhile, the woman who made the false claim of paternity will not face any punishment whatsoever, and cannot under any circumstances be compelled to reveal the name of the real father. The tortured Leftist logic required to justify this obscenity is truly frightening.

Woman and child: In the US there a plenty of examples of enterprise nurseries (?) for the very young so that women are enabled to stay at work. In Germany this sounds like a fairy-tale. For a female employee starting a career it is a `take it or leave it` decision. I mean job or baby. Women in manager positions in automobile industry , forget it, in Germany.

manager (German term) , rather CEOs etc.

Dont necessarily see a big conspiracy myself more of a big cock up. Surely this anti-gene test thing was brought in because of work law and this baby thing is just a loophole that some civil servant forgot to fill. As far as I know the law was brought in to stop for example employers collecting chewing gum or hair samples of employees and checking them. German companies pay a substantial ammount towards the health insurance of their employees and so finding out whether employees may have genes that make them more likely to get certain diseases could have some nasty consequences. Hence the law that you cant use genetic material without permission and may be punished if you do. Trouble is, some bods in Germanys vast government offices didnt think about this little problem.... small oops for them but bad scheisse for "non-fathers". Interesting will be when a lot of fathers do the test, keep the results for themselves and simply withdraw payment. Although the father may have signed the birth certificate surely this was made under false pretenses! More interesting is if the child at the age of 18 decides to look for their "real" father. In Britain I guess case law system could deal with that but, in my limited knowledge, I think German law isnt as flexible. Hmmmmmm thats a real melon scratcher.

When this thread wasnt yet up last night I googled up the site of Brigitte Zypries who is "ledig, keine Kinder" (single or at least not married, no children) and wonder whether she is the most qualified to deal with cases like this! More generally though the Greens get their knitting in knots when Genes are mentionad at party conferences and the CDU think Genes are pants from the USA. The FDP may be the only party with any open mind on genetic issues.

As a more general gripe I am pretty amazed at this issue in Germany. Every day time TV talk show seems dominated by these tests in Germany: Vera, Britt and the like. Meanwhile in Britain fathers are dressing up as batman and climbing building to raise public support for their rights to seek their children... Im sure that says something about attitudes and systems of child support, but im just not sure what.

My personal hero is that Batman guy who keeps climbing up onto Queen Elizabeth's porch. Now we all know women are angles and men are devils. A woman gets alimony and can have her "boyfriend" spend every night at her home, and as long as he has his own apartment, the idiot who married her in the first place has to pay alimony. Ever since the no-fault divorce laws were passed to protect the government from picking up the tab the most lucrative position a women can attain is marrying a guy who makes good money, have a kid or two and then telling him to get lost.

I digressed. Just as it is a woman's right to choose and it is a woman's right to inform. It is a man's bad luck to watch his flesh and blood be murdered and a man's bad luck that he is hoodwinked into believing a child that is not is is his. Where is the law that makes you criminally negligent for allowing some fool to think he is the dad when there is no legal certainty that this is the case???? Isn't that forgery of official documents?? It certainly is morally reprehensible.

Sure there are guys who aren't angels. But the laws as they stand allowed the pendulum to swing from one extreme to the other and stop there.

Shouldn't the state be held accountable for making sure that it's official documents are truthful. Is just trusting the word of a person enough? Doesn't the state have a duty to the child to ensure that the information on his/her birth certificate is correct?

I know that that this is the one area where I am cynical, but I can see the state using DNA to prove that a guy has to pay his fair share of an abortion (that he agreed to or not), the same DNA is not admissible to protect his rights. Well because it would seem he has none.

When are you "Guys" gonna demand equal protection under the law. You got my support!!!!

OT I know but that German fashion guy with the annoying dog has been found strangled!! Only reports in German so far from Reuters:

"München (Reuters) - Der Münchener Modeschöpfer Rudolph Moshammer ist tot. Die Staatsanwaltschaft und die Polizei gehen nach ersten Ermittlungen von einem Verbrechen aus.

Moshammer sei am Freitagvormittag gegen 09.00 Uhr von seinem Fahrer tot in seinem Haus im Münchener Nobelviertel Grünwald aufgefunden worden, sagte ein Sprecher der Münchener Polizei. Der Leitende Oberstaatsanwalt Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld sagte Reuters, Moshammer sei mit einem Kabel um den Hals entdeckt worden. "Wir müssen im Moment davon ausgehen, dass es sich um ein Verbrechen handelt", sagte er. Moshammer, der selbst sein Geburtsjahr früher mit 1945 angegeben hatte und sich später als alterslos bezeichnete, galt als eine der schillerndsten Figuren der Münchener Schickeria."

Happy birthday, Green Party!

Remember:
1985: Grüne brechen Tabu sexueller Kontakte mit Kindern:

Traditionelle Moralvorstellungen sollen verschwinden. Die Gesetze zum Schutz Minderjähriger §§ 175 und §§ 182 Strafgesetzbuch sollen gestrichen werden. In einem Gesetzentwurf behaupten die Grünen, diese Paragraphen "bedrohen einvernehmliche sexuelle Kontakte mit Strafe und dienen damit nicht dem Schutz der sexuellen Selbstbestimmung. Sie behindern die freie Entfaltung der Persönlichkeit ..." (Bundestagsdrucksache 10 / 2832 vom 4. Februar 1985).

Hierzu gehört insbesondere die Abschaffung des Schutzes minderjähriger Jungen vor homosexuellen Handlungen: "Die Strafdrohung belastet das konfliktfreie sexuelle Erleben derjenigen Jugendlichen, die sich ihrer homosexuellen Orientierung bereits gewiss sind. Die Strafandrohung, der sich ein zufällig über 18 Jahre alter Partner ausgesetzt sieht, vermittelt eine negative Bewertung der gesamten Beziehung ..." (Bundestagsdrucksache 10 / 2832 vom 4. Februar 1985).

Hierzu gehört auch die Abschaffung des Schutzes minderjähriger Mädchen vor sexuellem Missbrauch - weil - so der Grüne Gesetzentwurf: "Schutzgüter wie Virginität, Geschlechtsehre und ähnliches sind nur scheinbar individuelle und gehen auf ältere Vorstellungen von 'Marktwert' und 'Heiratschancen' des Mädchens zurück (...) Mädchen wird die Fähigkeit zur Entscheidung über ihre sexuellen Interaktionen abgesprochen, das Vorhandensein einer eigenständigen und selbstbestimmten Sexualität von Mädchen wird geleugnet." (Bundestagsdrucksache 10/ 2832 vom 4. Februar 1985).

Ob das unsere ausländischen Mitbürger muslimischen Glaubens für die Grünen begeistern wird?

Zu Anfang des Jahres 1985 haben die Grünen einen Gesetzentwurf eingebracht, der die Verführung von Mädchen unter 16 Jahren zum Beischlaf sowie homosexuelle Handlungen an Kindern und Jugendlichen nicht mehr unter Strafe stellt. Begründung: "die Strafandrohung behindere Kinder und Jugendliche beim Herausfinden der ihnen gemäßen Sexualität". (SZ, 12. Februar 1985).

Auf ihrer Landeskonferenz in Lüdenscheid (März 1985) fordern die Grünen in NRW, dass "gewaltfreie Sexualität" zwischen Kindern und Erwachsenen niemals Gegenstand strafrechtlicher Verfolgung sein dürfe. Sie sei "im Gegenteil von allen Restriktionen zu befreien, die ihr in dieser Gesellschaft auferlegt sind".

Der mit Mehrheit verabschiedete Programmteil attestiert zum Thema Beziehungen zwischen Erwachsenen und Kindern denjenigen eine "gesellschaftliche Unterdrückung, die gewaltfreie Sexualität mit Kindern wollen, dazu fähig sind und deren gesamte Existenz

von einem Tag auf den anderen vernichtet wird, wenn bekannt wird, dass sie Beziehungen eingegangen sind, die wir alle als für beide Teile angenehm, produktiv, entwicklungsfördernd, kurz: positiv ansehen müssen".

(...) "gewaltfreie Sexualität muss frei sein für jeden Menschen, unabhängig von Alter, Geschlecht oder anderen Merkmalen (...) Daher sind alle Straftatbestände zu streichen, die gewaltfreie Sexualität mit Strafe bedrohen". (dpa 10.3.1985, Bild, 11.3. 1985, FAZ, 16.3. 1985, Die Welt, 20.3.1985).

Wegen der öffentlichen Empörung zogen die NRW-Grünen im beginnenden Landtagswahlkampf diesen Teil ihres Wahlprogramms zurück. Nicht aber Die Grünen in Bonn!

Im April 1985 betreiben auch die Grünen in Baden-Württemberg eine Lockerung des Sexualstrafrechts. " Einvernehmliche sexuelle Beziehungen zwischen Erwachsenen und Kindern müssen straffrei sein. Kinder gehören sich selber." Ferner ist zu lesen: "Da Kinder Menschen sind, hat niemand das Recht, sich unter welchem Vorwand auch immer über ihr Recht auf Selbstbestimmung und persönliches Glück hinwegzusetzen".

Im Jahr 1987 fordern die Grünen:

"Kinder und Jugendliche müssen ihre Sexualität frei von Angst entwickeln können. In der öffentlichen Erziehung dürfen abweichende Formen der Sexualität nicht länger diskriminiert werden. Lesbische und schwule Emanzipationsgruppen müssen gefördert werden." (Alles verändert sich, wenn Du es veränderst; Broschüre zur Jugendpolitik der Grünen 1987).

"Schon in Kindertagesstätten oder Kinderläden ist eine gleichwertige Darstellung lesbisch/schwuler Lebensformen einschließlich der Sexualität erforderlich. Eine von Anfang an offene und hemmungslose Auseinandersetzung mit Sexualität macht eine sogenannte Aufklärung überflüssig."

"Die problematische Sozialstruktur unserer Stadt macht ein breites, aus öffentlichen Mitteln gefördertes Angebot für die 10-14-jährigen Kinder notwendig. Wir setzen uns ein für (...) eine freie Entfaltung der Sexualität."

"Es ist unmenschlich, Sexualität nur einer bestimmten Altersstufe und unter bestimmten Bedingungen zuzubilligen. Wenn Jugendliche den Wunsch haben, mit gleichaltrigen oder älteren außerhalb der Familie zusammenzuleben, sei es, weil ihre Homosexualität von ihren Eltern nicht akzeptiert wird, sei es, weil sie pädosexuelle Neigungen haben, sei es aus anderen Gründen, muss ihnen die Möglichkeit dazu eingeräumt werden." Auszüge aus dem Wahlprogramm der Alternativen Liste Berlin, 1985).

Das Programm der Grünen zur Bundestagswahl 1987 fordert die Herabsetzung des Schutzalters gegen sexuellen Missbrauch auf 14 Jahre.

"Pornoverbot? Ohne mich!... Pornographie lebt von Überschreitungen, auch Frauen mögen das", entrüstete sich die Grüne Bundestagsabgeordnete Waltraud Schoppe im September 1988. Ferner: Die Liberalisierung der Sexualpolitik habe ihren Preis: Die Ausweitung der Porno-Produktion. Das müsse in Kauf genommen werden. Und ihre Kollegin Verona Krieger unterstützte das Konzept einer "erotischen Gegenkultur". Sie befürwortete "erotische und pornographische Bilder" und meinte: "Ich bin sehr für erotische und geile Bilder und Texte." (dpa, 7. Sept. 1988)
1985: Grüne brechen Tabu sexueller Kontakte mit Kindern:

Traditionelle Moralvorstellungen sollen verschwinden. Die Gesetze zum Schutz Minderjähriger §§ 175 und §§ 182 Strafgesetzbuch sollen gestrichen werden. In einem Gesetzentwurf behaupten die Grünen, diese Paragraphen "bedrohen einvernehmliche sexuelle Kontakte mit Strafe und dienen damit nicht dem Schutz der sexuellen Selbstbestimmung. Sie behindern die freie Entfaltung der Persönlichkeit ..." (Bundestagsdrucksache 10 / 2832 vom 4. Februar 1985).

Hierzu gehört insbesondere die Abschaffung des Schutzes minderjähriger Jungen vor homosexuellen Handlungen: "Die Strafdrohung belastet das konfliktfreie sexuelle Erleben derjenigen Jugendlichen, die sich ihrer homosexuellen Orientierung bereits gewiss sind. Die Strafandrohung, der sich ein zufällig über 18 Jahre alter Partner ausgesetzt sieht, vermittelt eine negative Bewertung der gesamten Beziehung ..." (Bundesdrucksache 10 / 2832 vom 4. Februar 1985).

Hierzu gehört auch die Abschaffung des Schutzes minderjähriger Mädchen vor sexuellem Missbrauch - weil - so der Grüne Gesetzentwurf: "Schutzgüter wie Virginität, Geschlechtsehre und ähnliches sind nur scheinbar individuelle und gehen auf ältere Vorstellungen von 'Marktwert' und 'Heiratschancen' des Mädchens zurück (...) Mädchen wird die Fähigkeit zur Entscheidung über ihre sexuellen Interaktionen abgesprochen, das Vorhandensein einer eigenständigen und selbstbestimmten Sexualität von Mädchen wird geleugnet." (Bundesdrucksache 10/ 2832 vom 4. Februar 1985).

Ob das unsere ausländischen Mitbürger muslimischen Glaubens für die Grünen begeistern wird?

Zu Anfang des Jahres 1985 haben die Grünen einen Gesetzentwurf eingebracht, der die Verführung von Mädchen unter 16 Jahren zum Beischlaf sowie homosexuelle Handlungen an Kindern und Jugendlichen nicht mehr unter Strafe stellt. Begründung: "die Strafandrohung behindere Kinder und Jugendliche beim Herausfinden der ihnen gemäßen Sexualität". (SZ, 12. Februar 1985).

Auf ihrer Landeskonferenz in Lüdenscheid (März 1985) fordern die Grünen in NRW, dass "gewaltfreie Sexualität" zwischen Kindern und Erwachsenen niemals Gegenstand strafrechtlicher Verfolgung sein dürfe. Sie sei "im Gegenteil von allen Restriktionen zu befreien, die ihr in dieser Gesellschaft auferlegt sind".

Der mit Mehrheit verabschiedete Programmteil attestiert zum Thema Beziehungen zwischen Erwachsenen und Kindern denjenigen eine "gesellschaftliche Unterdrückung, die gewaltfreie Sexualität mit Kindern wollen, dazu fähig sind und deren gesamte Existenz

von einem Tag auf den anderen vernichtet wird, wenn bekannt wird, dass sie Beziehungen eingegangen sind, die wir alle als für beide Teile angenehm, produktiv, entwicklungsfördernd, kurz: positiv ansehen müssen".

(...) "gewaltfreie Sexualität muss frei sein für jeden Menschen, unabhängig von Alter, Geschlecht oder anderen Merkmalen (...) Daher sind alle Straftatbestände zu streichen, die gewaltfreie Sexualität mit Strafe bedrohen". (dpa 10.3.1985, Bild, 11.3. 1985, FAZ, 16.3. 1985, Die Welt, 20.3.1985).

Wegen der öffentlichen Empörung zogen die NRW-Grünen im beginnenden Landtagswahlkampf diesen Teil ihres Wahlprogramms zurück. Nicht aber Die Grünen in Bonn!

Im April 1985 betreiben auch die Grünen in Baden-Württemberg eine Lockerung des Sexualstrafrechts. " Einvernehmliche sexuelle Beziehungen zwischen Erwachsenen und Kindern müssen straffrei sein. Kinder gehören sich selber." Ferner ist zu lesen: "Da Kinder Menschen sind, hat niemand das Recht, sich unter welchem Vorwand auch immer über ihr Recht auf Selbstbestimmung und persönliches Glück hinwegzusetzen".

Im Jahr 1987 fordern die Grünen:

"Kinder und Jugendliche müssen ihre Sexualität frei von Angst entwickeln können. In der öffentlichen Erziehung dürfen abweichende Formen der Sexualität nicht länger diskriminiert werden. Lesbische und schwule Emanzipationsgruppen müssen gefördert werden." (Alles verändert sich, wenn Du es veränderst; Broschüre zur Jugendpolitik der Grünen 1987).

"Schon in Kindertagesstätten oder Kinderläden ist eine gleichwertige Darstellung lesbisch/schwuler Lebensformen einschließlich der Sexualität erforderlich. Eine von Anfang an offene und hemmungslose Auseinandersetzung mit Sexualität macht eine sogenannte Aufklärung überflüssig."

"Die problematische Sozialstruktur unserer Stadt macht ein breites, aus öffentlichen Mitteln gefördertes Angebot für die 10-14-jährigen Kinder notwendig. Wir setzen uns ein für (...) eine freie Entfaltung der Sexualität."

"Es ist unmenschlich, Sexualität nur einer bestimmten Altersstufe und unter bestimmten Bedingungen zuzubilligen. Wenn Jugendliche den Wunsch haben, mit gleichaltrigen oder älteren außerhalb der Familie zusammenzuleben, sei es, weil ihre Homosexualität von ihren Eltern nicht akzeptiert wird, sei es, weil sie pädosexuelle Neigungen haben, sei es aus anderen Gründen, muss ihnen die Möglichkeit dazu eingeräumt werden." Auszüge aus dem Wahlprogramm der Alternativen Liste Berlin, 1985).

Das Programm der Grünen zur Bundestagswahl 1987 fordert die Herabsetzung des Schutzalters gegen sexuellen Missbrauch auf 14 Jahre.

"Pornoverbot? Ohne mich!... Pornographie lebt von Überschreitungen, auch Frauen mögen das", entrüstete sich die Grüne Bundestagsabgeordnete Waltraud Schoppe im September 1988. Ferner: Die Liberalisierung der Sexualpolitik habe ihren Preis: Die Ausweitung der Porno-Produktion. Das müsse in Kauf genommen werden. Und ihre Kollegin Verona Krieger unterstützte das Konzept einer "erotischen Gegenkultur". Sie befürwortete "erotische und pornographische Bilder" und meinte: "Ich bin sehr für erotische und geile Bilder und Texte." (dpa, 7. Sept. 1988)

You really can't shock me with this sort of thing - it goes on in the US and in every "civilized" country in the world

In cases of divorce and child support and custody - Men are not even second class citizens - that would be a step UP

A man has virtually no rights in court if his ex decides to be done with him

Basically it works like this - if you are married with a house and kids and...

You cheat on your wife and call for divorce -
She gets the kids, the house and alimony

If SHE cheats on you and calls for divorce -
She gets the kids, the house and alimony

If you want to leanr more check out

fathers4justice ( thats the UK Batman site )

If a husband suspects he has been cheated by his wife, he can ask her to agree on a genetic test to find out whether he is the true father of a child. If she denies this, THEN the father can take legal action and go to court to demand an "official" genetic test.

The only thing I'd like to know: is this the way Mrs Zypries wants to go in order to "protect" the family and the child from "emotional strains"? As if German men would invest 700 bucks for a test just because they want to. Most guys who did this did it because they had much evidence that "their" child acutally wasn't their own.

As another poster mentioned, the only reason that makes this scenario plausible are some faceless bureaucrats who want to keep the welfare costs as low as possible. Certainly, the procedure Mrs Zypries desires (she forces people into court) is a much larger strain than a secret genetic test.

Ein Urteil, welches grade gefallen ist, soll Grund für die niedrige Geburtenrate (die es schon seit vielen Jahren gibt) in Deutschland sein ? Was ist das denn für eine Logik ?
Nebenbei: Ich hoffe, Frau Brigitte "Inkompetenz" Zypries scheitert mit ihrem Entwurf, solche Tests auch noch unter Strafe zu stellen. Die gute Frau treibt schon genug Unfug (Urheberrechte, Softwarepatente). Immer reiht sie sich prima in die Reihe der Unfähigen unserer Regierung ein.

Nebenbei: ...Frau Brigitte "Inkompetenz" Zypries ... treibt schon genug Unfug (Urheberrechte, Softwarepatente).

mit dem satz hast du sowas von verdammt recht. ihre vorgaengerin war genauso drauf. alles juristen eben, die sich (als clique gesehen) an softwarepatenten dumm und dusselig verdienen wuerden. 2005, der kampf geht weiter!

In a November 1998 article of the Washington Post, a Barbara Vobejda reported on a Peter Wallis suing a Kellie Smith for becoming pregnant against his will, accusing her of "intentionally acquiring and misusing" his semen while having intercourse.

Although that single line sounds somewhat funny, the details of the "breach of contract" are less so, and Peter Wallis is perhaps less crazy than he might at first appear. Whereas his girlfriend (with whom he shared an apartment) had promised to take birth control pills, she later quit without telling him, forcing him into a role he did not choose (fatherhood and the child support that goes with it).

When he discovered she was pregnant, he said, "I felt shocked, overwhelmed, and rather betrayed." He asked her to marry him. She said no. He urged her to have an abortion. She refused.

… "My daughter was born into a broken home," he said. "That's something I really have a problem with. I know I'll never collect money, but I hope that because of what I do, maybe people will give a second thought before they commit fraud."

With every example given above there is one missing component - the notion of right and wrong simply isn't there in all of these examples.
Decisions that lead to divorce have consequences.
For example: Alimony. If a man supported a woman materially, why dpoes this make her incapable of ever supporting HERSELF? What entitles her to anything further from him if there are no children to have custody of? Oddly enough, alimony still exists in many places.
The consequences are huge. ESPECIALLY to women hurt by women. While the divorced women can elect to stop getting alimony if there is another man or a new husband in her life, the 1st husband must still pay. Meanwhile the 2nd WIFE is trying to make a life with a man who's having his pocket picked by the ex- and the court.

"As far as I know the law was brought in to stop for example employers collecting chewing gum or hair samples of employees and checking them. German companies pay a substantial ammount towards the health insurance of their employees and so finding out whether employees may have genes that make them more likely to get certain diseases could have some nasty consequences. Hence the law that you cant use genetic material without permission and may be punished if you do."
Doughnut Boy Andy

Auf der anderen Seite sind für bestimmte Arbeitsstellen medizinische Untersuchungen gesetzlich vorgeschrieben (Arbeitsmedizinische Untersuchung).
Der Arzt teilt dem Arbeitgeber zwar nicht die genaue Diagnose mit, wohl aber ob der Bewerber aus medizinischen Gründen für den Job ungeeignet ist, bzw welche Maßnahmen der Arbeitgeber ergreifen muß um den Arbeitsplatz an den Mitarbeiter anzupassen.

Das ein Bewerber der eine Mehlallergie hat in einer Bäckerei schlechte Chance hat ist also Fakt- der Arbeitgeber muß also gar keinen heimlichen Gentest machen sondern nur die gesetzliche Vorschrift befolgen um legal zu testen.

Damit geht natürlich Zypris Argument ziemlich den Bach runter.
Natürlich sind "heimliche" Gentests um den "UNTERMENSCHEN" auszufiltern eine Horrovorstellung, aber die meisten Arbeitgeber handeln wirtschaftlich, warum also unnötig heimlich testen & zahlen wenn die nötigen Untersuchungen eh gesetzlich vorgeschrieben sind.

Die wahre Gefahr geht eher davon aus das im Zuge der Terrorabwehr genetische "Fingerabdrücke" Standartprozeduren im Bereich der polizeilichen Ermittlungen werden.
Schon jetzt werden MassenDNA Tests bei spektakulären Sexualstraftaten angeordnet.

Die Vorstellung fälschlich angeklagt zu werden weil ich an der falschen Stelle einen Kaugummi oder Zigarettenstummel fallengelassen habe und meine DNA seit einem Massentest vor 20 Jahren im Computer ist beunruhigt mich mehr als die Angst keinen Job zu bekommen weil mein Arbeitgeber mich heimlich testet.
(Ich hab eine Nickelallergie und arbeite mit Nickel- denoch hat kein Arbeitgeber es bislang abgelehnt mich einzustellen, da ich sehr gute Qualifikationen und Arbeitszeugnisse habe...)

@ Sock Puppet and others:

It is true, nameless bureaucrats are making poor unsuspecting fathers pay child support for kids they did not father. However, these are guys that usually have been adjudicated the father: they either had a trial (before DNA evidence was available) that produced evidence they were the father, or they admitted they were the father. (TS that the woman lied. If you are that naive, you deserve to pay.)

But the other dimension is the kid. Imagine after 10, 15 or 20 years, your dad sues to declare that he is not biologically your father. It would be devastating to the kid.

I usually take the Red State side. But in this case, the Courts have it right.

It is true, nameless bureaucrats are making poor unsuspecting fathers pay child support for kids they did not father. However, these are guys that usually have been adjudicated the father: they either had a trial (before DNA evidence was available) that produced evidence they were the father, or they admitted they were the father. (TS that the woman lied. If you are that naive, you deserve to pay.)

ONE SUPPOSES WE CAN APPLY THE SAME STANDARD TO SAY SOME BLACK MAN IN JAIL FOR LIFE FOR RAPE
SEE- HE DID HAVE A TRIAL AND WAS FOUND GUILTY
OR MAYBE HE GOT DRUNK AND WAS ACCUSED OF IT AND DIDN'T PROTEST ENOUGH BECAUSE HIS ACCUSER WAS LYING

TOUGH SHIT FOR HIM EH

But the other dimension is the kid. Imagine after 10, 15 or 20 years, your dad sues to declare that he is not biologically your father. It would be devastating to the kid.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAW? IF A MAN HAS ACTED AS A FATHER TO A CHILD - AND IS NOT ACTUALLY THE FATHER - HE CAN CONTINUE THE RELATIONSHIP OR SEVER IT A 20 YEAR OLD? THAT WOULD BE AN ADULT - OR DO YOU RECOMMEND WE FORCE THESE MEN TO CONTINUE TO GO TO BALL GAMES WITH THEIR 20+ YEAR OLD "NON-CHILDREN" BECAUSE IT WOULD DEVESTATE THEM TO LOSE THIS RELATIONSHIP

I usually take the Red State side. But in this case, the Courts have it right.

YOUR LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE FACTS AND INTEREST IN THE "FEELINGS" OF ONE SIDE ONLY MAKES IT CLEAR YOU ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT RED STATE MATERIAL

I've always held that wherever abortion is legal, child support ought to be voluntary.

Now, in the case of a divorce where the child has already been born, that's is a different matter. Also, once the man agrees, he can't simply change his mind after the child is born.

Anything else is utterly preposterous.

@Pogue
All CAPS is a little shrill, but you speak from my heart.

@scum of the univ
When the man has agreed based on deception, then he hasn't agreed to anything. This concept is certainly understandable to grade school children.

There are legitimate reasons for preventing perfect strangers from digging around in someone's DNA, and I would hope that the German and American governments see fit to take steps to protect individual privacy not just from individuals, but from the government as well. That said, we are talking about children here. And the idea that the state can decide whether or not the father can take a saliva sample from his child and have it tested to determine if he is truly the father (imagine how a man must feel if he feels compelled to take such a measure) is a concept that is deeply reprehensible to me.

Everyone who contributes comments to this site is old enough to know that all children have biological fathers. That may change in ten or twenty years, but it is true for now. If a guy has a test done, secret or not, that shows he is not the father of the child, then the mother is free to identify the true father (prior to serving the jail time she so richly deserves of course).


@Pogue:

American/Anglo common-law has a unique aspect to it. It is called equity. Equity is the principal of doing what is fair rather than following what the law normally requires. Most of your divorce and family law falls under this category.

Your hypothetical regarding the black dude deals with fundamental rights. The Courts and the Constitution would consider this a principal of law. He would always have a chance to introduce new evidence to prove his innocence because being locked up in prison is the loss of liberty.

A guy who has acknowledged fatherhood for 10 or 15 years and who feels compelled to introduce evidence to prove that he is not the father, mainly for the purpose of getting out of child support obligations, falls under equity. Equity is doing what is right: Not necessarily what the law requires.

Use small letters when you are upset next time or else I'll have Teddy Kennedy call YOU Ossma Bin Laden!

@beimami

I figured deception invalidating the agreement went without saying. That's how the courts interpret almost every contract (verbal or not) I've ever come across, even if it is not expressly stipulated in the contract terms.

As an aside, there was some study on inherited diseases in the US that had all sorts of problems with it's data. So they checked the bloodlines, and came up with the estimate that 10% of children (!) are not actually children of their putative fathers. The study wasn't set up to test that conclusion, and may thus have been working from a seriously flawed sample population. But the number is still far, far higher than I would have guessed.

I'd need to dig a bit to find a supporting link for that fact. I've no idea where I came across it, but it wasn't a blog. It might have been some place like Anonova, which collects peculiar stories from at least somewhat reputable sources.


@beimami

The problem being is that what you say makes sense. In a recent court case in Wiesbaden Germany a judge despite DNA evidence passed down a judgment that the pay dad was permitted to continue to pay, the reasoning went something like the dna evidence was of no import, the pay dad took the responsiblity and now he's stuck with it.

Germany's law system is based on the contract. What's in it stands. The problem with your deception arguement is the part about intent or error in law or mistake in law. That's the wiggle room. Then there is the issue of the judge's discretion in making the judgment in the first place. Common experience is used as one of the basises for making the judgment. The common experience up until now is the guy who takes the responsiblity is the guy who gets to pay. Whether he was deceived or not. To make this stick all the judge has to do is say that he has no doubts about his decision. An appeal of the verdict will have little chance of success in that case. Ergo the laws have to change and that has to be done by the legislature. Equal protection under the law for the baby, the pay dad and the paternal dad.

It is the batmans of this world who will end up making the difference. They need all the help they can get. Like I said before men and babies need equal protection under the law. It cannot stand that a women's right to inform (which no law explicitly states but the verdicts support) is higher than a man's and a baby's right to know, let alone the rights of the paternal father.

I guess we could call this no-fault pregnancy. The essence of which is as long as some man takes financial responsibility for the baby the state is of the hook.

In the end, whatever system you figure on has to produce 2.1 children per female on average over the long run or you demographically implode and the system dies for lack of people. In this the US is a little failure (we're about 2.0 and immigration assimilation makes up the difference) and the EU states are huge failures because their birthrates are very low and they're not that good at assimilation. Russia and most of the CIS is beyond pathetic.

The kid's got to get raised. He's got to have the best shot at continuing society. That's the underlying reality why fake fathers get roped into paying even after they've found out the deception.

@Trish
Agree for the most part. My deception argument was a moral and logical argument that clearly carries absolutely no weight in the courtrooms of many "enlightened" western societies.

I don't personally have the problem, so I can only imagine how I would feel if I was raising or paying for a child I wasn't certain belonged to me, but I know I would suffer immensely. And the idea of being forced by a court to pay for the child even though I knew for certain it wasn't mine really just blows my mind. That such human suffering is allowed and to some extent even promoted by the state contradicts the "human rights" pretensions of liberal societies. The argument that someone has to be responsible for the kid (best interests of the child argument) just doesn't hold water here: In all but a very small number of cases, the mother knows who the real father is and should be compelled to reveal that information. It is obscene for the state to argue - as it does - that it would be a violation of the mother's rights to compell her to reveal the real father's name, but then to turn around and compell some poor guy to provide support for a child that is provably not his - going so far as to treat him like a criminal if he tries to contest the injustice.

@beimami

well said.

"It is obscene for the state to argue - as it does - that it would be a violation of the mother's rights to compell her to reveal the real father's name, but then to turn around and compell some poor guy to provide support for a child that is probably not his - going so far as to treat him like a criminal if he tries to contest the injustice."

The odd thing is that I have heard men argue that the present system is in the best interest of the child. I don't understand how a man could argue against his own best interests. The child and the pay-dad are the ones being dupped here.

I know of husbands who adopted children who are the result of their wives extra-marital affairs. Its above board and fair. Everyone is in the know and everyone had a chance to deal with the facts.

I just hope that the laws change here. People should only be held accountable for their own actions and not for the actions of others.

Right on, Trish.

@George

Sorry for the CAPS - just trying to distinguish my comments from others

To your points

----------------------------------------------

American/Anglo common-law has a unique aspect to it. It is called equity. Equity is the principal of doing what is fair rather than following what the law normally requires. Most of your divorce and family law falls under this category.

--------------------------------------

YOU Couldn't be more wrong if you tried George. After all - what is equitable about a situation where a mother decides to end a marriage, for whatever reason or none at all, and walks away with the primary custody of the kids and the right to recieve full child support from the father - even though he is now a 14% Dad ( he gets the kids every other weekend - unless Mom is in a bad mood and they are "sick" )

This is how it works in practice George - regardless of the circumstances of the divorce the Court awards custody to the mother 90%+ of the time - and requires the father to pay up and become a visitor in their lives

If equity applied - surely the Court would demand that every effort be made for the parents to live in the same community and raise the children with equal sharing of time to the best degree possible. Its honestly not that hard to do but the missing element is that the Court DOES NOT demand this solution and finds it easier to just award custody to the mother regardless of the circumstances of the divorce

Is that what you mean by equity?

----------------------------------------

Your hypothetical regarding the black dude deals with fundamental rights. The Courts and the Constitution would consider this a principal of law. He would always have a chance to introduce new evidence to prove his innocence because being locked up in prison is the loss of liberty.

----------------------------------------

And one doesn't have a fundamental right not to pay for someone elses children?

---------------------------------------------

A guy who has acknowledged fatherhood for 10 or 15 years and who feels compelled to introduce evidence to prove that he is not the father, mainly for the purpose of getting out of child support obligations, falls under equity. Equity is doing what is right: Not necessarily what the law requires.

------------------------------------

Being somewhat familiar with Anglo/American "common law" let me see if I understand here - what is "right" in your view is that the innocent party in this case - the decieved father - should continue to pay this "tax" on his income because he was decieved.

Why isn't it right to correct the original injustice?

Shit - he should by rights get back all the monies he has spent as the "father" of said child when it is proven at a later date that he never was in fact the childs father.

He did NOTHING WRONG - he was decieved and tricked out of tens of thousands of dollars - and emotionally manipulated - and indeed rather than suggesting he is due some restitution for this wrong - you argue that what is "fair" is that he continue to pay these bills for being so foolish as to accept the word of a woman who cheated on him with the plumber

You'll pardon me if I don't agree that is fair


The whole arguement here seems to be more about the impact on the child should the now "not-father" be released from his obligations

I assume you mean financial impact, since no law you will pass will force a man to accept and love a child he does not feel attached to ( yet - maybe people are working on it now )

So - here we have a case with a wronged party - a man who was lied to and has already paid more than his fair share toward raising a child who is no relation to him whatsoever - how about this for a novel idea

The mother can now pay all the costs - or the state can pick up the difference - or lets put all our names in a hat and just pick some other poor un-related schmuck to pay for the next 10 years, it would be as fair as making the same innocent dupe continue to pay up

Presuming this thread isnt dead yet and I thought Id post this on the Fathers4justice. Its from the Guardian which seems to be against the concessions for the fathers that batman has gained although the article seems to conclude that these are necessary. Perhaps I dont get it or perhaps I am expecting too much from the Guardian for the article to make any sense.. Any ways here is the link : By caving in to Batman, a real opportunity has been missed and here the first few paragraphs:

"Batman will soon claim his first maternal scalp - to the good of no one, least of all the children. Today three cabinet ministers, led by the education secretary Ruth Kelly, will announce concessions to groups, such as Fathers4Justice, campaigning for greater rights of access to their children.

Divorced mothers who defy court orders will be tagged and kept to a night-time curfew. They may be fined - a great help to children probably already reared on a much reduced family budget. Or ordered to spend Saturday afternoons doing community service while dad has the offspring (as if mothers need to be reminded what it means to give selflessly).

Fathers4Justice isn't happy because it still means mothers will escape jail, while its demand for 50:50 custody has also been ignored. Still, in terms of children's welfare and family law, these proposals are disastrous. Far from easing the relationship between father and child, they will turn mothers into martyrs, adding to a child's guilt. This policing of family life is all the more reprehensible because a constructive alternative is available. It is one that could genuinely improve life for the children of parents who live apart. Except that the scheme, the Early Interventions project (EI), has now effectively been buried as a result of Whitehall turf wars and civil service infighting.

EI, based on a successful model used in Florida, has three key features. First, in families where the child is not at risk from a parent's behaviour, it is automatically assumed that he or she will spend between 70 to 100 nights a year with the non-resident parent. Second, couples attend mandatory courses that help them to understand the impact if a child is turned into a weapon in a post-matrimonial war. Third (and rarely employed), if a parent persistently refuses to comply with contact arrangements, then punishment follows. "

Of course I wouldnt expect the Guardian to lower its guard and condone a method that is succesful in Florida!

leave it to the Guardian to come up with several reasons why enforcing the law is a bad thing eh

None of the penalties described would apply to any mother who simply obeyed the law and did not interfere with the visitation schedule approved by the courts

If she breaks the law - she now gets penalized

One marvels at the idea that this is a bad thing

Imagine if the same sentiment were applied to say Fox Hunters - could you hear the Guardian complaining that fining those who break that law imposes an unfair penalty - hardly


The law should be about EQUALITY - 50/50 should be the norm in custody - not the exception

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31