A May 2, 2008, article in the New York Post
reported that 34% of the
mothers polled had an extramarital affair after the birth of their
children. There is no reason to believe that the percentage is less
than one-third of married women have an affair before
first child is born.
Census figures show that presently 38% of
children are born out of wedlock and in California it is reported that
two-thirds of children are born to unmarried mothers. And it bears
repeating that virtually every pathology of our society correlates
best with children of single mothers.
12 out of 100 children
are born today to a couple who are legally
married and remain so until their children reach majority. Thus the
potential for paternity fraud is huge.
DNA genetic tests for paternity
consistently show that 30% of the men tested are not the father of the
child in question and there are approximately 400,000 laboratory
paternity tests reported a year, although home testing kits are now
widely available and the total number of paternity tests a year is
unknown. A reasonable estimate is that there are 1.5 million men
in the United States with children under age 18 that they are not the
father of but are probably paying child support for, i.e., victims of
There is no penalty for paternity fraud and
many of the women who practice it have several possible candidates for
"dad" for their child(ren). So it is only reasonable she
will pick the man with the deepest pockets to saddle with paternity
and "child support."
And lest it be thought paternity fraud
is strictly a problem for men, most of the time we hear about a
particular case from a woman whose life has been damaged or destroyed
by this evil.
One might reasonably expect that courts
and legislatures would be doing everything possible to stem this flood
and prevent fraud that often makes adultery, once a capital crime, now
a paying proposition for hundreds of thousands of women. One would be
wrong to make that assumption.
Destroying the patriarchy
Such data as above are exciting to those whose
goal is to destroy the patriarchy and return to the law of the jungle,
otherwise known as matriarchy. And, if you favor a matriarchy, you are
invited to move to any inner city ghetto in a large city, which are
de facto matriarchies.
Patriarchy is an artificial societal
construct that requires that the paternity of a child be unambiguously
established. History clearly shows that patriarchal societies
are an essential component of civilization. Since at least Roman times
in Western society the father of a child has been the man the woman
was married to when the child was born. That worked well when less
than 5% of children were born out of wedlock and there was no better
method of determining paternity. However, times have changed.
Even though it is a feminist goal
to destroy patriarchy, they still want men to support women despite
their adultery and infidelity. The result has been the invention of
"child support" in an amount based on "the best
interest of the child," which need not bear any relationship
whatsoever to actual paternity or income of the man named as
"father." As anyone but a politician, judge, or bureaucrat
quickly realizes, such a system of enslavement isn't likely to work.
The same group, however, are quite unlikely to bow to commonsense.
Thus, they have put in place a gigantic, draconian "child support
enforcement" (CSE) system that has taken us from
welfare to a police state
, as Dr. Baskerville has ably
Of course when Joe Sixpack finds
out Suzy's baby isn't his, and that she has been spreading the good
times around, things are likely to get a little nasty. Who would have
guessed? And, if Joe and Suzy are married, that will soon end. So
enter the "domestic violence" industry that allows Suzy to
call 911, or get a protection order and toss Joe out of his own home,
then move her new Boy Toy in, all the while collecting "child
support" from Joe as a reward for her adultery.
All this enforced at public
expense, of course. And if Joe doesn't want to pay Suzy "child
support" for little Johnny ? then he will lose all his licenses,
his job, and, ultimately, go to jail. Sure sounds like slavery to
Roughly 12% of men who refuse to
pay child support do so because they are not the father. A good place
to meet these rebellious slaves is in your local jail where they are
imprisoned under the category of "Deadbeat
Before the Civil War slaves were
often required to work to support children their wives bore that were
sired by overseers and their masters. What is the difference today
between that and a woman who has an affair, divorces her husband, and
the court requires the cuckolded husband to support the child of her
Condoning slavery under color of
The Equal Justice Foundation has
been fighting these insane policies for years and our formal efforts
began in March 2004 in support of HB04-1083 sponsored by Rep. Bill
Sinclair (R-El Paso) and Sen. Ed Jones (R-El Paso). That bill was
passed by the Colorado House by one vote but failed in the Senate
judiciary committee. We have documented the problems since then in a
series of twelve newsletters, Condoning
Slavery Under Color Of Law
, and a chapter describing the Paternity Fraud
Instead of recognizing the
problems, in 2005 the then Republican-dominated Colorado legislature
began a series of bills that made the problem worse. Today, as
evidenced by the Bush Administration, any jackass can call themselves
an elephant and the party of Lincoln has become, by and large,
pro-slavery. The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) has been widely
used but these rogue pachyderms seem to have taken over the Grand Old
The best evidence for that is the passage in 2005 of SB05-181
by Colorado Senator Steve Johnson
(R-Larimer) that made it impossible for a man to use DNA evidence to
prove nonpaternity of his wife's child after the divorce. For that the
North Carolina group Drop the
named Steve Johnson the Single Biggest
Idiot on Earth for 2005
. In 2008 it is reported Johnson is leaving
the Colorado Senate to run for county commissioner in Larimer County.
Pity the citizens there!
But the Colorado legislature is not
renowned for learning from its mistakes. So in 2006 HB06-1267 was introduced at the behest of the Dept. of Human Services(DHS)/Child
Support Enforcement (CSE) and
sponsored by Rep. Jim Riesberg (D-Weld) in the House and by
Senator Shawn Mitchell (R-Adams, Broomfield, & Weld) in the
Senate in an attempt to correct some of the obvious blunders with
Johnson's SB05-181. That bill quickly passed the House and Senator
Mitchell couldn't be bothered to read a six-page letter
detailing page-by-page and
line-by-line some of the problems with this
bill. Despite the fact that at least one other citizen and EJF member
repeatedly emailed him, Mitchell, had not felt it was worth his time
and effort to actually read our comments and suggestions before it was
heard by the Colorado Senate judiciary committee. Thus, HB06-1267
passed into law, further encouraging paternity fraud and making it
more difficult for men to prove their innocence.
not take kindly to criticism
. But several attorneys pointed
out that HB06-1267 is a Bill of Attainder
and, as such, is an odious law by any
Mitchell does learn from his mistakes and the next year he introduced
a bill, SB07-056, to try and remedy some of the mistakes in 2006-2007.
But public disgust with Republicans in general, and RINO's in
particular, had resulted in both the Colorado House and Senate being
dominated by Democrats after the 2006 elections, and he was unable to
get that bill passed.
There are good
Republicans, and Senator Mitchell came back in 2008 with another
bill, SB08-183 (as introduced), to try and remedy some of the problems with
With only a minor amendment that added a
filing fee to make it revenue neutral, that bill passed the Colorado
The clear intent of SB08-183 was
that when DNA testing found that a man was not the father of a
child for whom he was required to pay child support, that the court
"shall modify or set aside" such payments, thereby ending
his enslavement, unless the man had willingly and knowingly adopted
the child, acknowledged paternity knowing he wasn't the biological
father, or the child was conceived by means of assisted reproduction.
Simple and just you might think. But a House pachyderm hadn't yet
stuck his trunk into the picture.
Another nail in the coffin of
After passage by the Colorado Senate
HB08-183 was referred to the House judiciary committee and sponsored
by Rep. Nancy Todd (D-Arapahoe & Denver), another legislator who
seems to have learned from her mistakes, e.g., SB05-181
. With her able help and
guidance, SB08-183 was passed by the House judiciary committee on
April 29, 2008.
bill was amended to put a time limit of just two years, down from
five, to file for a modification of the child support order, which is
quite unrealistic as many men don't find out about the child support order for several years after it is
entered, or don't begin to question
the paternity of a child until many years after the divorce. Also, any
man whose child support order was entered before August 15, 2008, must
provide DNA evidence showing he is not the father before August 15,
Note that SB08-183
does not give a man any means of obtaining the requisite DNA evidence,
a slight handicap if he doesn't even know who the woman is, where she
is currently living, has a restraining order against him preventing
him from contacting the child(ren), or help proving the child(ren) are
presently corporeal or in her custody, etc. But he can file a motion
for relief if, under the strict chain-of-evidence requirements for DNA
testing in Colorado statutes § 13-25-126, he can establish he is
excluded as the biological parent of the child(ren). One might
cynically note that the man is still presumed guilty and that the
legal system provides every possible protection for the perpetrator of
the fraud but why complain, SB08-183 is a step forward and a small
On a positive note the
amendments did allow a judge to vacate child support arrearages
although restitution for the fraud is, realistically, not possible.
And, except if the arrearages were the result of welfare payments made
by Colorado, it isn't clear that a court can forgive these arrearages
under the Bradley Amendment.
For years the Equal Justice Foundation has
been pointing out that under current law a man has to be functionally
insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child. Thanks to
(R-El Paso & Fremont), an
attorney whose district lies along the western flank of Fort Carson in
Colorado Springs, and whose competence is no greater than 99 out of
100 others of his ilk, SB08-183 as passed by the House reinforces that statement.
If a man is
married to the mother he is, presumptively and by ancient tradition,
the father of any child born to his wife during the course of the
marriage. If the couple divorce, child support is determined under the
Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act § 14-10-101 et seq. What
Gardner, a donkey in an elephant suit, did was
introduce an amendment during floor debate in the Colorado House that
a husband could only be freed from his slavery to pay for his wife's
proven adultery if, and only if the judge determines "...it is
just and proper under the circumstances and in the best interest of
the child." I need not elaborate on the
judicial bias against men in family courts today.
Thus what Bob Gardner has done is to put
another nail in the coffin of marriage, promote adultery, and make it
profitable by supporting paternity fraud. It is also obvious that
military men are particularly vulnerable to paternity fraud,
particularly when they are repeatedly deployed. One of the largest
concentrations of military families in the United States lives in or
alongside Mr. Gardner's House district and his contribution to our
national defense is obviously to help demolish it.
May you rest in hell, Mr. Gardner, for you have
done your part to help destroy civilization.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.,
NOTE: If you would like to be removed from
our mailing list please respond to this message with REMOVE in the
subject line. Comments or criticisms of our policies or Web sites
should be addressed to mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org.
You are receiving
this message because (1) you asked to be added to our mailing list;
(2) you sent the EJF an e-mail or requested help from us; (3) you are
known to work on issues related to human rights; (4) you are known to
be interested in civil liberties and equal justice; (5) your name and
address appeared as an addressee on email sent to us; or (6) you are a
member of or contribute to the Equal Justice Foundation.
Issues of interest to the Equal Justice Foundation
Courts and Civil Liberties
Against Men in Colorado http://www.dvmen.org/
Prohibitions and the War On Drugs
Vote Fraud and Election
The Equal Justice
Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity supported entirely
by members and contributions. Dues are $25 per year and you may join
Contributions are tax
deductible and can be made on the Web at http://www.ejfi.org/join2.htm
or by sending a check to the address above.
Federal employees can
contribute through the Combined Federal Campaign. The EJF is listed in
Colorado , Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming #18855.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
Equal Justice Foundation
455 Bear Creek Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820
Personal home page: http://corry.ws
men may do separately is small compared with what they may do