The black studs of Omaha

Omaha.com reports:

[Norman] Bennett became a reproductive citizen: At age 31, he has at least 13 kids by 11 women.

That’s a tentative tally, because various court records seem to indicate that the Omaha man may have 15 kids by 13 women. Or more. ...

Turns out, Bennett isn’t even Omaha’s most prolific procreator.

Attorney Meagan Spomer, who works in child-support enforcement, told Polk that she has heard of a deadbeat dad with 23 kids by 15 women. ...

Some judges have required deadbeat dads to name each child. Any slip-ups, and certain judges will send dads to jail on the spot.

By law, child-support cases are supposed to stop short of becoming a sort of punitive paternity court. High court rulings have essentially outlawed the concept of a debtor’s prison — where defendants go to jail simply because they can’t pay down their financial obligations such as child support.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that any jail time in child-support cases should be coercive — an attempt to force the dad to chip away at whatever he owes.

One important note: Whether Bennett pays up or not, the women he impregnated are receiving child support through the welfare program formerly known as Aid to Dependent Children.
In other words, state and federal taxpayers are partly footing the bill for Bennett’s brood.
In turn, the State of Nebraska seeks reimbursement from fathers, such as Bennett, who have impregnated the women now receiving welfare.

Do not expect the Obama-Clinton Democrats to do anything about this, because all those kids are likely to become Democrat voters.

To maintain their power, they have to destroy the family and keep a permanent underclass.

Happy New Year. Vote for Donald J. Trump.

California denies fathers rights

A 2014 California case, Adoption of Baby Boy W., found that a father has a right to claim a newborn child, if the mom wants to give him up for adoption. Here are the facts, from the court:

Jacqueline W. and Garrett J. are the unwed biological parents of Baby Boy W. When Jacqueline discovered that she was pregnant, she knew right away that Garrett was Baby Boy W.'s biological father, but she denied Garrett's requests that she sign a voluntary declaration of paternity that would have established Garrett as Baby Boy W.'s statutory presumed father. She then sought to have A.H. and M.H. (the Hs) adopt Baby Boy W. at birth, despite the fact that Garrett had repeatedly stated that he wanted to raise Baby Boy W. himself. Garrett filed a petition to establish his paternity, and Jacqueline and the Hs (collectively, appellants) filed a petition to terminate his parental rights. The trial court found that Garrett established his paternity rights under Kelsey S., denied appellants' petition, and entered judgment in Garrett's favor, thereby halting the Hs' adoption of Baby Boy W.

I would have thought that this would be uncontroversial. An adoption should require both parents to sign off on it.

If the dad is unknown, and only asserts his rights years later, then I can understand reluctance to reverse an adoption that had been in place for years. But this dad vigorously asserted his rights and opposed the adoption before the birth.

The adoption industry was unhappy with this decision, and got California to pass a new law nullifying fathers rights:

A California law passed this week limits the extent to which paternity status can halt adoption proceedings.

Assembly Bill 1049, signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown (D) on Tuesday, clarifies a judge’s ability to consider an offer or refusal to sign a voluntary declaration of paternity as a factor in establishing or terminating parental rights, according to a press release from California Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R), who introduced the bill.

The California Academy of Adoption Attorneys (CAAA) sponsored the bill in the wake of the California Court of Appeals’ decision in a case known as Adoption of Baby Boy W. ...

A judge ruled that Garrett W.’s offer to declare paternity of the child gave him the right to veto the adoption. After the decision, Baby Boy W. was removed from the adoptive parents with whom he was placed, according to a summary of the case.

CAAA Fellow Allison Foster Davis said that Adoption of Baby Boy W. created uncertainty and could lead to more situations in which a mother places her child for adoption and the baby’s father later declares parental rights.

“We want people to know upfront what their rights are, and if the father has veto rights, that baby should not be placed for adoption,” Davis said.

The new law states that “a person’s offer or refusal to sign a voluntary declaration of paternity may be considered as a factor, but shall not be determinative as to the issue of legal parentage in any proceedings regarding the establishment or termination of parental rights.”

“It will not affect the specific people involved in that case,” said Patterson’s communications director, Alisha Gallon, in an e-mail. “However, AB 1049 does overrule the portion of Baby Boy W. that said that any many who offers to sign a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity is automatically entitled to presumed father status.”

In other words, the family court judge can do whatever he feels like doing, without having to respect the parental rights of an unmarried father opposing an adoption.

This law makes no sense, unless you have some sort of leftist-feminist belief that fathers rights should be diminished at every opportunity. If you simply want orderly adoptions, the easiest rule is to require both parents to consent.

The law also says:

This bill would additionally provide that the spouse of a women who conceives through assisted reproduction with oocytes donated for reproductive purposes is treated in law as if he or she were the natural parent of the child, and the woman who conceives the child is treated in law as the natural parent unless the woman is a surrogate mother, as defined.

So two lesbians are to be considered the natural parents, even tho they do not provide the sperm or the egg.

Face it, men do not have any parental rights unless they somehow get sole child custody. Our society is increasingly structured around the idea that men should be financial supporting women who have all the parental rights. I do not see that changing anytime soon. I did not even notice any opposition to extreme anti-father laws like this one.

This is just one of many trends that are making modern civilization worse, in my opinion.k Many of these trends are not fixable, so I am not going waste time and energy trying to fix them.

More on forced paternity

I mentioned an Illinois case of forced paternity via IVF. Robert Franklin attacks the decision here and http://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22450-szafranski-part-two-a-court-ruling-in-search-of-law-to-support-it.

The whole IVF (ie, ART, test tube baby) industry is based on consenting adults signing binding contracts regarding the creation and disposition of zygotes. This decision says that a judge can override those written contract based on his perceptions of pre-contract intentions and post-contract needs.

This is just another example of judges choosing to micro-manage people's lives in the most far-reaching ways.

Here is a news account:

Jacob Szafranski will ask the Illinois Supreme Court to overturn their landmark decision granting his ex-girlfriend Karla Dunston custody of their frozen embryos. Dunston, 43, of Chicago, froze the three embryos five years ago, and an Illinois appellate court awarded her custody Friday despite objections from Szafranski, 33, who says the decision amounts to forced procreation.

Dunston, a physician, was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2010. Worried that chemotherapy would make her infertile, she asked Szafranski, with whom she'd just begun a relationship, to donate his sperm to create the embryos. Their conversation took place on the phone, and he agreed, Dunston testified. Both signed an informed consent form with a fertility lab before Dunston's eggs were harvested. They broke up months later, and Szafranski changed his mind about the frozen embryos.

"I don't think anyone should ever have their right to decide when and how they become a parent decided for them, and this is exactly what this is doing," Szafranski told WMAQ-TV, Chicago, Friday.

Dunston, whose cancer is now in remission, doesn't want money or support from Szafranski, her attorney told WMAQ. But the three embryos represent what her attorney, Abram Moore, said is her "last chance to have children that share her genetic material."

She is a 43-year-old physician. Cancer or no cancer, she had to know that the optimal time for having babies was about 20 years ago.

She also had to know that a relationship from a casual phone call to a man 10 years younger was not going anywhere. If she wanted a sperm donor, then I am sure she knows how to get one. They are not that expensive.

Update: A reader points out a similar California case, in the news today:

Stephen Findley and Mimi Lee were quite a couple. He was a Harvard-educated executive at a Bay Area global wealth management firm, worth millions. She studied piano at Julliard, earned degrees from Harvard and became a doctor specializing in neuroscience.

But on the eve of their September 2010 wedding, Lee was diagnosed with cancer, casting a cloud over their dreams of having children. With aggressive treatment expected to render Lee infertile, the couple rushed to UCSF's fertility center, where five of Lee's embryos -- fertilized by Findley -- were cryogenically frozen and preserved for a possible future with offspring.

Now, the couple is in the midst of a bitter divorce -- and those embryos, still stored at UCSF, are at the heart of an unprecedented legal battle that could determine how California deals with such conflicts as fertility technology becomes an increasingly common part of everyday life.

The drama is expected to unfold this week in San Francisco Superior Court, where a judge is conducting a trial set to begin Monday that pits Findley's wish to have the embryos destroyed against Lee's quest to preserve them as her only way to bear a child.

I heard this on the radio this morning, but I assumed that it was another similar case, the Sofía Vergara Nick Loeb case, on which I commented before.

If the moms-to-be win any of these cases, it will complicate the work of the IVF clinics, because then they can no longer rely on the written contracts for authority over the zygotes. I suppose every zygote could get a guardian ad litem to get a court order for whose custody would be in the BIOTCh, possibly after a psychological evaluation.

Okay, I am exaggerating a little bit, but legal uncertainty can screw up the industry. I understand that it is nearly impossible to get a sperm donor in England, because laws have retroactively abolished anonymity.

A comment says:

Legally he would be obligated to pay support for the children even if she signs an agreement not to seek support. The right to support belongs to the children, not her. She can't waive their rights, because the future is unpredictable and no one knows what their future needs might be. If she dies or becomes incapacitated or ends up on welfare, he can be compelled to pay support. If any of the children are disabled or need special and highly expensive care, he can be made to contribute. So what he has going isn't just revenge. It is the potential liability for years of support.

That is true, except that it may be possible, in a separation action, to convince a judge that the man is effectively just a sperm donor, and terminate his parental rights and responsibilities. But there is no guarantee that the judge will do it, and he may say that having a legal father is in the BIOTCh.

Zygote implanted against father's wishes

Women are considered to have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy at any time, but a man can be forced into fatherhood. Here is a case of that, overriding a signed contract requiring the man's consent. E. Volokh explains:

Couple goes through IVF, breaks up. Who decides what to do with the fertilized ova?

The Appellate Court of Illinois chimed in a few weeks ago, in Szafranski v. Dunston, and summarized the precedents. Here’s the fact pattern, which is apparently not unusual: Man (Jacob Szafranski) and woman (Karla Dunston) were dating; woman learned that she had cancer and that the treatments would make her infertile; she wanted to have children, so she and the man went through IVF; but then they broke up. She now wants to have one of the fertilized ova implanted, but he doesn’t. Concern about child support apparently isn’t the main problem.

She offered to waive child support, but that is not so simple. If he is named the father, and she goes on welfare, then he will be forced to pay child support whether the mom asks for it or not.

Perhaps they can eliminate his legal paternity before birth, but I don't think that the court decision covers that.

E. Volokh explains why this court's thinking is contrary to Rule of Law:

So it seems to me that enforcing the contracts, if there are such contracts, is the best solution here. I’m not sure about “balancing” in the absence of contracts, especially when the things to be balanced are so subjective and hard to compare against each other; it would be better, I think, to have a clear rule up front and then have parties contract (or not) with an eye toward the rule. (Compare, for instance, the distribution of a person’s property when he dies. We generally enforce the will and, in the absence of a will, distribute according to a rigidly defined scheme, rather than “balancing” the prospective heirs’ interests in the property.)

France recognizes test-tube kids

The USA is not the only country with a supreme court redefining the family in order to appease the LGBTQIA activists. Time mag reports:

France’s highest court has granted legal recognition to surrogate children, in a major turnaround that will make their daily lives easier and could lead to greater acceptance of new forms of families.

The Cour de cassation ruled Friday that, while surrogacy will remain banned in France, children born abroad through this practice will now be legally tied to their parents and will be granted birth certificates and immediate means to prove their French citizenship.

Surrogacy can involve a woman carrying an embryo created by in vitro fertilization using another woman’s egg and her partner’s sperm. In some cases, such as those involving male gay couples, the surrogate mother is also the genetic mother of the child.

Until now, surrogate children were deprived of any legal connection to their parents, or any civil status in France. They were considered as children born from unknown legal parents, since their foreign birth certificates weren’t recognized. One lawyer has described them as “ghosts of the republic.”

Unlike other children born abroad to a French parent, these children couldn’t get automatic ID cards or passports, or register for state health care or other services.

This exposed them to frequent problems, because many basic tasks are impossible in France without an ID or authorization from a legal parent.

The previous French position was:

The latest missive comes from Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who argued a few days ago that "France is opposed to surrogacy because she is opposed, in the name of her values, in the name of progress and humanism, to all forms of commercialization of human beings and experimentation in this area." Surrogates are "slaves" with wombs for rent, they argue, exploited by the infertile. France's leadership hides the many happy U.S. surrogacy stories, featuring instead some of Asia's forced baby factories that ensnare poor women.

Children of surrogacy who are born in the U.S. attain U.S. citizenship but not that of their intended French parents. France insists that children conceived in this way should not be recognized as French because of how they came into life. However, in June 2014, a brave decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered France to reverse course and recognize children born of surrogacy despite the French ban.

In France, you are supposed to have a mistress to carry your illegitimate baby for you, and you are supposed to inseminate her the old-fashioned way.

France is no longer a sovreign nation, and takes orders on gay matters from European officials. If the European Convention on Human Rights says that gay men can rent wombs to make babies, then France has to accept it. The case was a couple of gay men who did their baby-making in Russia. The baby had a Russian birth certificate, but not a French one. France has about 1000 of these surrogate babies.

The Europeans are not necessarily accepting all reproductive technologies. They object to Britain's 3-parent babies. That means 3 genetic parents. There could still be the gestational mom, and the intended legal parents.

Going to India for babies

NPR Radio reports:

In the U.S., surrogate parenting is widely accepted. Although no official figures exist, experts believe perhaps a thousand American children are born every year through surrogacy.

A patchwork of state-to-state regulations governs the practice. But the bottom line is if you're an American in the market for a surrogate — and you have money to spend — you can do it.

Things are very different in other parts of the world.

In Europe, for example, it's illegal in half a dozen countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is permitted in a handful of other European nations — though there are major restrictions.

Not really so different. There are many states where the practice is illegal, like Michigan. Yes, you can do it if you are willing to move to where it is legal, but that is also true about Europe and the rest of the world.

No, it is not widely accepted. The term "surrogate parenting" is not even widely accepted. It sounds like using a substitute to bring up your kid, but that is not what it is at all.

It says 1,000 kids a year in the USA, but:

No one knows how many surrogate children are born in India. Kumari's best guess is that the figure is around 40,000 a year — more than half of them to international parents.

In India, the process can cost $60,000, while in the U.S., estimates range to upwards of $150,000.

If that is true, then the USA market is a small fraction of the world market.

Man tries to fake paternity test

When a woman does not want a baby, she can just get an abortion. Or abandon the baby after birth, with no responsibility or consequences.

If a man does not want a baby, he can try to talk the woman into an abortion or giving the baby up for adoption. But she can just refuse, and attach his paycheck for the next 18 years.

Here is a story of such a man.

The London Mirror reports:

Thomas Kenny was in a relationship when his mistress became pregnant but she refused an abortion and the love-rat didn' want to pay child maintenance. ...

The judge said: "You are plainly the author of your own misfortunes. I have read references from people who suggest that you are normally a well behaved individual but the facts show that you can be thoroughly dishonest and highly manipulative.

"I know you are said to be the loving father of two children by your long standing relationship but this case shows you were prepared to disown a child of your own for financial gain. Morally you can not sink lower than that."

For the woman to disown a child is her constitutional right. Even if she is some slutty home-wrecker. If the man tries to disavow financial responsibility, then he has morally sunk to the bottom.

This is sick. No one should be forced to be a parent. The mistress is the one with low morals here.

Man tries to fake paternity test

When a woman does not want a baby, she can just get an abortion. Or abandon the baby after birth, with no responsibility or consequences.

If a man does not want a baby, he can try to talk the woman into an abortion or giving the baby up for adoption. But she can just refuse, and attach his paycheck for the next 18 years.

Here is a story of such a man.

The London Mirror reports:

Thomas Kenny was in a relationship when his mistress became pregnant but she refused an abortion and the love-rat didn' want to pay child maintenance. ...

The judge said: "You are plainly the author of your own misfortunes. I have read references from people who suggest that you are normally a well behaved individual but the facts show that you can be thoroughly dishonest and highly manipulative.

"I know you are said to be the loving father of two children by your long standing relationship but this case shows you were prepared to disown a child of your own for financial gain. Morally you can not sink lower than that."

For the woman to disown a child is her constitutional right. Even if she is some slutty home-wrecker. If the man tries to disavow financial responsibility, then he has morally sunk to the bottom.

This is sick. No one should be forced to be a parent. The mistress is the one with low morals here.

Hollywood zygotes in legal dispute

The popular TV sitcom Modern Family is the modern replacement for older family shows like Leave It To Beaver. The main difference is that we have crazy mixed up gay couples and other weirdos instead of a nuclear family.

Maybe Hollywood is just ahead of us with their anti-family liberal narcissism. A Columbian-American actress in this sitcom, and in a new movie in the theaters this week, has some personal drama that is as ridiculous as the nonsense on the show.

43-year-old Sofía Vergara wanted a husband and a baby, but she didn't want to pregnancy to interfere with her career as an actress playing a domestic role. Her ex-fiance Nick Loeb writes:

When we create embryos for the purpose of life, should we not define them as life, rather than as property? Does one person’s desire to avoid biological parenthood (free of any legal obligations) outweigh another’s religious beliefs in the sanctity of life and desire to be a parent? A woman is entitled to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects. Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects? These are issues that, unlike abortion, have nothing to do with the rights over one’s own body, and everything to do with a parent’s right to protect the life of his or her unborn child.

In 2013, Sofía and I agreed to try to use in vitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent. The form did not specify — as California law requires — what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.

My lawyers have identified 10 other cases in the United States in which a parent tried to have a fertilized, frozen embryo taken to term against the wishes of an opposing parent. In eight of those cases, the parent seeking custody lost. In the other two cases, one in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois, a woman was awarded custody of fertilized embryos over the man’s objections. In both cases, the woman had undergone chemotherapy treatment and the embryos were her last chance to have a biological child; judges ruled that the woman’s interest in becoming a parent outweighed the man’s interest in not becoming a parent. In the Illinois case (now on appeal), the judge found that the form the couple signed was not the binding contract, and instead enforced a verbal promise the man made to help the woman have children.

So the law is a mess. In theory, you could agree to a written contract that anticipates all possible scenarios, and execute it in a state where such agreements are binding, but who can cope with that?

The pro-abortion feminists will argue that the woman should have 100% of the decision about what happens to an embryo, but her body is no longer involved, and the abortion arguments do not apply.

Loeb has his own oddball family background, and became anti-abortion from the religion of his nanny:

My father, whom l love, worked as a financier, philanthropist and diplomat. He was not around much, as work and travel left little time for parenting. It fell to my Irish Catholic nanny, Renee, to raise me. Although my father is Jewish and I was baptized Episcopalian, in my mother’s faith, I spent more time going to Catholic Mass with Renee as a child than being influenced by any other religion.

When I was in my 20s, I had a girlfriend who had an abortion, and the decision was entirely out of my hands. Ever since, I have dreamed about a boy at the age he would be now.

Here is her side:

The agreement signed by Vergara and Loeb in November 2013 when the embryos were created states that "no unilateral action can be taken with regard to the embryos unless both parties consent."

Furthermore, "Vergara has never suggested that she wished to have the embryos destroyed," the statement continues. "She has always maintained that they be kept frozen, a fact of which Loeb and his counsel have always been aware, despite Loeb's statements to the contrary."

What is unusual about this is the possible that a woman might have a child against her wishes. This happens to men all the time, but somehow this is very offensive when it happens to a woman.

Vergara has a new fiance, and says that she may want a baby with him. But she is probably too old by now.

Busted for paternity fraud

Here is another hopeful court ruling. A woman committed paterniry fraud with a non-existent child, and then her lawyer blamed the man for not spending more time with the kid! As quoted here:

A married Maquoketa woman who faked a pregnancy to swindle $95,850 from a man will spend 18 months in prison.

Johna Loreen Vandermore, 34, was sentenced to prison by U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Rose on Friday, and was also ordered to pay back the money she took from the victim. Vandermore pleaded guilty to mail fraud in December. ...

In a sentencing brief, Vandermore's defense attorney wrote that the Maquoketa woman initially really did believe she was pregnant and sought the first payments to help with birth expenses.

The scheme simply continued on its "own inertia" after Vandermore realized she wasn't pregnant, wrote defense attorney Donovan Robertson. The scheme could have been caught quicker if the man had tried to be more involved in his fake child's life, possibly by requesting an in-person visit, Robertson wrote.

Pretty outrageous, but not as illegal as you think. Robert Franklin comments:

But what’s most interesting about this case is the realization that, if we were to simply alter a couple of facts of the case, Vandermore’s behavior would have been entirely legal.

First of course there would have had to have been an actual child. Although I don’t know the details of child support law in every state, my guess is that, in every one, if one person convinces another to pay support for a child who doesn’t exist, that person will at the very least be civilly liable and probably criminally so.

So the first message to future fraudsters is that there has to be a real flesh-and-blood child.

Vandermore’s second mistake was using the U.S. mail to accomplish her scheme. As I said before, using the mail to commit pretty much any crime makes it a federal offense that the FBI tends to take seriously. So, lesson number two is to have the payoffs made some other way. FedEx or UPS would do nicely.

So if Vandermore had just made those two elementary changes in her scheme to defraud, she’d have been home free. She could have had a child with her husband for example, and made some serious bank plus having her own child into the bargain.

All of that is because paternity fraud, unlike all other kinds of fraud, violates no law either criminal or civil in the overwhelming majority of states. To date, only six even recognize a civil cause of action for paternity fraud and none criminalizes the practice.

This problem has a technology fix. Just require DNA tests before any payments.

Sperm deal kids ruined by four-parent feud

There is no need to conform to 1950s family ideals, the LGBTQIA activists keep telling us. People should have the freedom to make their own kinds of families. Here is where that leads.

When crazy violent lesbians need to get inseminated, where do they go?

The UK Telegraph reports:

Two young girls born through an informal sperm donation deal between a gay couple and a lesbian couple have been scarred for life by a bitter six-year feud after their two fathers and two mothers fell out, a judge has warned. ...

But he said the emotional and psychological wreckage “illustrates all too clearly” the problems “unleashed” by such informal arrangements between friends or acquaintances. ...

It discloses that the couples, who are both separately in civil partnerships, ran up more than half a million pounds in legal costs in a case involving more than 30 separate court orders and a string of judges.

The judge ruled that the girls should remain living with the mothers – despite serious problems at home including domestic violence between the two women at times – because to move the children would have an even more “devastating” effect on them.

He ruled that the mothers would be supervised by social services and that the fathers would have contact with the younger daughter – known as B – but only write to the older girl – known as A – because she had become convinced she did not want to see them. ...

The judgment details serious domestic problems between the women. The biological mother – known as M1 – was in and out of hospitals and clinics for mental health treatment and became heavily reliant on her partner, known as M2. But she was described as “controlling” and, at times “callous and uncaring” towards M1. ...

But the judge said the fathers were also guilty of “raising the temperature” in the dispute, upping their demands and claiming that the girls’ treatment amounted to torture and even that their lives were at risk.

“It will be apparent from reading this, and my previous judgements, that the litigation has had a destructive effect on the parties," he said.

In the old system, the parents register their marriage with the govt and then the govt leaves them alone to rear the kids. In the new system, anything goes, no one criticizes anyone's morals, and the govt micromanages your lives while you spend a fortune in legal fees.

The judge blames the parties, but why can't the judge make decision without 6 years of hearings? It should not be that complicated to determine the legal parents, and let them rear the kids.

Non-dad must pay $30k child support

Men get stuck with paternity claims all the time, but the guy here has air-tight alibis. First, a DNA test proves that he is not the father. He could still lose in court if he failed to show up in court. But here, he can prove that he was never served with court papers, because he was incarcerated at the time. Here is the Michigan story:

In child support cases, courts sometimes force people to pay back the government’s welfare contributions to a child, even in scenarios when the person being ordered to pay support is not actually the child’s parent. According to WXYZ-TV ABC 7 Detroit, Detroit man Carnell Alexander is facing that exact situation after an ex-girlfriend of his listed him as the father of her child on an application for welfare benefits. Despite the facts that a DNA test proved that he is not the father and his ex-girlfriend agrees that he should not have to pay support, the State of Michigan is ordering him to either pay back the nearly $30,000 worth of welfare contributions it paid to the child’s mother or go to jail.

In 1991, Alexander was informed during a routine traffic stop that there was a warrant out for his arrest due to his failure to pay support for a child that he had allegedly fathered back in 1978. However, Alexander had no children. In a court hearing, the state claimed that he was listed as a child’s father on a welfare benefits application and that too much time had passed for him to request a DNA test to contest its paternity claim. The court argues that he knowingly ignored a court order requiring him to pay support and that he should have raised the issue when that order was given to him. In the late ’80s, a process server signed a document alleging that the court order was delivered to Alexander at his father’s house and that he refused to sign it. However, WXYZ-TV ABC 7 Detroit made contact with the Michigan Department of Corrections and confirmed that Alexander was incarcerated at the time of the delivery of the court order, meaning it was impossible for him to have seen the order and refused to sign. Alexander maintains that he never saw the order and knew nothing of the alleged paternity dispute until he was pulled over and informed many years later.

Allegedly fathered in 1978? Such a child would now be 36 years old! That fact alone should be enuf to dismiss the case.

Facebook message is not legal notice of pregnancy

UCLA law prof. E Volokh writes:

When a man and a woman have a child out of wedlock, and the woman puts up the child for adoption, the man is entitled to an opportunity to object and to raise the child himself (unless he’s found to be an unfit parent). “[N]atural fathers … are denied due process when their parental rights are terminated despite them never being given a chance to pursue their opportunity interest because they were never given notice of the child’s existence.” But if the man knows about the pregnancy and the adoption plans and does not object to the adoption in a timely way, he waives his rights.

Then he gives an Oklahoma supreme court court where the father won paternity because the only notice was some Facebook message that he never got.

The vote was only 6-3, with the dissent saying:

The duty of the male who has sexual relations with a female is (1) to be aware that a pregnancy might occur and (2) to inform himself. He cannot complacently wait for the female to find him in the event of a pregnancy. In this case the Mother tried to inform the father. There was no evidence that he attempted to learn anything. After the legislature had made its intent known, the majority opinion still maintains that the responsibility of informing a father lies fully with the female.

The Father’s testimony reveals that during the times they were having intercourse, the Mother was seventeen years old and he was twenty to twenty-one years old. He testified that he knew where she lived, knew her full name and had her telephone number. When asked, “What steps did you take to determine that she wasn’t pregnant after you had intercourse the last time?” His answer was “None.” He was also asked, “[D]id you ever attempt to contact her and she denied contact with you?” He answered, “No.”

I had no idea that it was previously the duty of the man to keep tabs on the woman and inform himself of his pregnancy status. Was he supposed to stalk her, or what?

The law might have once said that the man has no rights unless he marries the girl. And now it says that she has the unilateral right to get an abortion whenever she pleases. But saying that he has to follow her on Facebook? I get maybe a dozen Facebook messages a day, and I rarely read any of them.

Chelsea Clinton gossip

Chelsea Clinton says that she does not care about money, now that she makes $600k a year in salary plus $60k per speech.

The National Enquirer reported in April:

In a desperate bid to have twins, CHELSEA CLINTON underwent secret fertil­ity treatments, sources tell The ENQUIRER.

After four years of marriage, the 34-year-old former first child decided to speed up the clock and com­plete her family in one fell swoop, say insiders, adding that her decision was sparked by Bill’s and Hillary’s medical problems as well as their burning desire to become grandparents.

And in June:

Exposed! Bill Clinton Paternity Bombshell: I’m Not Chelsea’s Real Dad!

IN A revelation that could shatter Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House, former President Bill Clinton once admitted he wasn’t the biological father of the couple’s only child – daughter Chelsea!

And currently:

Exclusive Interview! Clinton Paternity Bombshell Explodes!

The identity of CHELSEA CLINTON’s “real” father was best unkept secret in Arkansas, family insider tells The ENQUIRER.

The bombshell that Chelsea Clinton is not the biological daughter of former President Bill Clinton was widely regarded as gospel truth in Clinton’s home state of Arkansas!

That’s the claim of a man who’s the former brother-in-law of Chelsea’s alleged daddy – her mother Hillary’s longtime law partner, Webster Hubbell!

All of this would be boring gossip, except that Hillary Clinton is now the favorite to be the next USA president.

If the above is true, then it is 100x worse than the Lewinsky scandal. A wife who bears another man's child is unfit for a position requiring public respect.

These rumors were around when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, but Hillary was not on the ballot

The Clintons could silence these rumors with a simple DNA test. Barack Obama eventually released his short-form revised birth certificate in order to squelch some rumors.

Hillary has many other flaws. She saw a marriage counselor about divorcing Bill in 1998, and it is obvious that she thinks that Bill is not good enough for her. She spent 6 months recovering from a brain injury in 2013. Her foreign policy positions have been horrible.

Woody Allen replies

I posted the Creepy Woody Allen story when I saw it in the NY Times, not realizing that it was going to be a huge national story, and a repeat from 20 years ago.

The publicity forced Allen to reply in the Sunday NY Times:

TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. ...

Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.”

Many things are weird here. Allen and Farrow were never married, and kept separate apartments. They adopted kids together, but they are named Farrow, not Allen. They supposedly had one biological kid together, but now that is in doubt:

In a 2013 interview with Vanity Fair, Farrow stated that Ronan could "possibly" be the biological child of her first husband Frank Sinatra, with whom she claims to have "never really split up."[141]

Allen addresses the issue:

I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.

In my opinion, paternity fraud is a serious crime.

Ronan Farrow is now 26 years old, and that is his picture above. For 26 years, Allen thought that he had a son, and this boy thought that he had a dad. But look at his picture above. I do not see any resemblance to Woody Allen. He looks like Frank Sinatra. No DNA test has been done. Even if Mia Farrow is unsure about paternity, as she now says, she is a monster for her infidelity and deception. How does a woman even keep such a terrible secret for 26 years? Apparently they do, as it happens on the TV show Paternity court all the time.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a 5% chance that Allen did something inappropriate or abusive or criminal. He was not charged with a crime. He was allowed to adopt more kids. He lost his child custody battle, but many good parents lose those battles without ever being guilty of anything.

If you believe in "innocent until proven guilty", then you should just disregard the unproven allegation

As a comment said, if a man can be ruined by such flimsy accusations, then no man is safe and we have a system that encourages false and vindictive allegations.

To me, Mia Farrow's paternity fraud does not matter toward Allen's guilt or innocence. Mia Farrow is more evil than Allen, but that does not make Allen innocent. What makes him innocent is that the allegations were never proved.

Update: NPR radio reports:

FOLKENFLIK: McBride has written extensively about the coverage of sexual abuse.

MCBRIDE: Because Woody Allen has a reputation out there, we somehow feel like his right to protect his reputation trumps her right to tell her story. And I don't think it does.

Yes, I do believe that slander and libel laws have a good purpose, and that is that his right to protect his reputation does trump her right to tell an apparently-false story.

Kansas sperm donor is legal father

The Topeka newspaper reports:

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law.

“Kansas law is clear that a 'donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman,' ” Mattivi wrote.

This case is getting a lot of publicity as being unjust and anti-father, but I don't have a problem with it. California has similar rules. Whether these are the best rules, I don't know, but it seems proper for the state to set rules on such matters, and the Kansas man would be in the clear if he had followed them.

The man is appealing:

William Marotta, the Topeka man who answered a Craigslist ad from a lesbian couple seeking sperm to conceive a child, will appeal Wednesday’s court ruling that labeled him a "presumptive father" and not a sperm donor.

"We have every intention to appeal," his attorney, Benoit M.J. Swinnen, said Thursday. Swinnen said the decision finding Marotta the presumptive father was a surprise to him, noting the key decision said his client didn't meet the definition of a sperm donor.

"If there is a definition, I haven't read it," Swinnen said. ...

Swinnen questioned whether the timing of the court decision had a political edge to it, noting there was an anti-abortion rally and discussion in the Legislature dealing with changing how Supreme Court justices are nominated and surrogate mothers.

"It begs the question of whether the decision was political," Swinnen said.

Here is that political story:

The chairwoman of the Kansas Senate's health committee marked the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision Wednesday by introducing a bill that would ban surrogate pregnancies in Kansas and invited two women to undergo sonograms in front of legislators.

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, a Shawnee Republican who leads the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, said her bill would mirror prohibition on surrogate pregnancy imposed in the District of Columbia.

Surrogate pregnancy is legal in some states, and illegal in others. In most states, there is a legal uncertainty.

This blog opposes giving judges the discretion to arbitrarily run peoples' lives. Paternity should be decided by marriage licenses, birth certificates, and DNA tests. I do not want some judge deciding five years later whether the man intended to be a father, or whether the lesbians have a happy home, or whatever else would drive the judge's decision if the rules are not followed.

Here is a stranger court decision:

The common legal principles that have been developed by case law to resolve difficult questions of property law within the context of a divorce action are singularly unhelpful in this case. The petitioner clearly owned, prior to the marriage, the egg from which the fetus developed. On the other hand, the respondent impregnated the petitioner with sperm he acquired after the marriage.

[Footnote:] The general understanding is that the female of the human species possesses at birth all the eggs that will ever be available for reproduction. This a very simplified description of the process as only one mature ovum is produced during each menstrual period from an un-matured egg called an oocyte. The male of the species, on the other hand, produces sperm cells each day which mature over a period of about 90 days and, if then not ejaculated, are reabsorbed into the body.

UCLA professor Volokh criticizes this as bad law, assuming that the science is correct. But the science is not even correct. Recent research showed:

Women may make new eggs throughout their reproductive years—challenging a longstanding tenet that females are born with finite supplies, a new study says. The discovery may also lead to new avenues for improving women’s health and fertility.

A woman has two ovaries, which release eggs during her monthly ovulation.

Previous research had suggested that a woman is born with all the egg cells she will ever have in her lifetime.

But in recent experiments, scientists discovered a new type of stem cell in the ovaries that—when grown in the lab—generates immature egg cells. The same immature cells isolated from adult mouse ovaries can turn into fertile eggs.

It seems pretty crazy to try to decide a legal case based on whether certain human cells had divided recently. I am surprised that this case was not severely criticized.

Do you just want to believe it

I just watched the 1971 western film Shoot Out. It had this conversation:

Woman: Is Decky your daughter?

Clay Lomax (played by Gregory Peck): Well, looking at her from over there, what would you say?

Woman: One minute, yeah, but the next minute, (shakes head).

Lomax: Well I'm not sure myself.

Woman: Is any man ever sure?

Lomax: Oh well, with some women, -

Woman: (laughs) Do you really believe that? Or do you just want to believe it?

Yes, a man can be now sure with DNA testing.

There is also a scene where both of them show that they would save the life of their own natural child over a step-child or anyone else. Makes sense to me. I've heard people claim that a step-child gets as much love as a natural child, but I do not believe it.

Lomax would have been killed, but the crazy bragging hired gunman was told not to kill him:

When you buy a killing, Bobby Jay, you sell yourself. Now a reliable professional killer is a closed-mouthed man. Me, I'm a businessman with a reputation to protect, or is that putting it too bluntly for you?

The gunman shot a cup off the head of Lomax's daughter, and Lomax eventually turns the tables on the gunman. These old western movies have lots of quick-draw duels. And then Lomax goes back to the woman who offered to take care of his alleged daughter. I guess a happy ending requires him to find a wife to help rear a daughter.

Is Forced Fatherhood Fair?

Women's studies professor Laurie Shrage writes in a NY Times op-ed:

Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture. In places where women and girls have access to affordable and safe contraception and abortion services, and where there are programs to assist mothers in distress find foster or adoptive parents, voluntary motherhood is basically a reality. In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility.

If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Do men now have less reproductive autonomy than women? Should men have more control over when and how they become parents, as many women now do?

The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory.

One proposal is that if the woman has a positive pregnancy test and has a unilateral right to choose an abortion, then fairness should require that the man have a right to disavow paternity. Likewise, if the mom has the right to give up the baby at birth, then the dad should also have a similar right.

Feminists have long held that women should not be penalized for being sexually active by taking away their options when an accidental pregnancy occurs. Do our policies now aim to punish and shame men for their sexual promiscuity? Many of my male students (in Miami where I teach), who come from low-income immigrant communities, believe that our punitive paternity policies are aimed at controlling their sexual behavior. Moreover, the asymmetrical options that men and women now have when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy set up power imbalances in their sexual relationships that my male students find hugely unfair to them. ...

Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These “fathers” are not “dead-beat dads” failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on — they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child. We need to respect men’s reproductive autonomy, as Brake suggests, by providing them more options in the case of an accidental pregnancy.

I am not sure about her reasoning, but we should have policies that assure that kids have parents who have voluntarily accepted the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. That system used to be called marriage. Even as the feminists and gays destroy marriage, we still need a system to make parenthood work.

Louisiana approves surrogate mothers

Wash. Post Kathleen Parker writes:

Feminists, traditionalists, Catholics, evangelicals, ethicists and atheists alike have united to combat what many convincingly view as the exploitation and commodification of women and the violation of human rights even as perfect babies and happy families are formed.

Speaking of quagmires.

Latest to the arena is Louisiana, where a pro-surrogacy bill creating a regulatory structure for surrogate parenting passed both legislative houses with few dissenting votes and now faces a possible veto by Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). A thumbs-down from Jindal would constitute an act of principled courage, ...

Really, all those people are against it? I thought that this was one of those esoteric issues that no one wants to talk about and no one cares.

Mitt Romney had 2 grandkids that way during the last election campaign, and no one cared.

Parker wrote a 2008 book on Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care, so she is not a man basher.

The rich take advantage of the poor for designer babies, Caucasian features for carrier preferred.

The United States is second only to India in providing surrogates, according to Sloan, who also works with the United Nations on human rights.

Technically, she is correct that women in India are Caucasians, but I don't get her point. Presumably people go to India because it is legal and economical there, not because Indians are Caucasian.

Here in America, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently vetoed a bill similar to Louisiana’s upon learning the darker details behind the family portraits.

While no one wishes to cause pain to people who, for whatever reason, can’t have a child on their own, there are more compelling principles and consequences in play. Human babies are not things; their mothers are not ovens. But bartering and selling babies-to-order sure make them seem that way. By turning the miracle of life into a profit-driven, state-regulated industry, the stork begins to resemble a vulture.

We still have laws against bartering and selling babies. The Louisiana bill would not change that. She complains about the business being profit-driven and state-regulated, but that could be said about the whole health care industry, about maternity wards.

I am still not seeing how human rights are violated. I don't see how it could be any worse than single moms having kids.

How the court created illegitimacy

Dalrock has an excellent article on How we came to embrace illegitimacy. There has been rapidly increasing illegitimacy (births to unmarried women), and public acceptance of it, but nearly everyone ignores some crucial court decisions.

One case was Levy v. Louisiana - 391 U.S. 68 (1968), about whether an illegitmate child can file a wrong death suit in behalf of his dead mother. The US Supreme Court ruled:

However that might be, we have been extremely sensitive when it comes to basic civil rights (...), and have not hesitated to strike down an invidious classification even though it had history and tradition on its side. (Brown v. Board of Education,...). ...

Legitimacy or illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong allegedly inflicted on the mother. These children, though illegitimate, were dependent on her; she cared for them and nurtured them; they were indeed hers in the biological and in the spiritual sense; in her death, they suffered wrong in the sense that any dependent would.

While that may sound reasonable, should a plaintiff have to prove dependency, caring, nurturing, biology, and spirituality? No, the state defines legal relationships to simplify the law and make it unnecessary to prove those other things.

The dissent said:

The Court today, for some reason which I am at a loss to understand, rules that the State must base its arbitrary definition of the plaintiff class on biological, rather than legal, relationships. Exactly how this makes the Louisiana scheme even marginally more "rational" is not clear, for neither a biological relationship nor legal acknowledgment is indicative of the love or economic dependence that may exist between two persons. ...

The rights at issue here stem from the existence of a family relationship, and the State has decided only that it will not recognize the family relationship unless the formalities of marriage, or of the acknowledgment of children by the parent in question, have been complied with. There is obvious Justification for this decision. If it be conceded, as I assume it is, that the State has power to provide that people who choose to live together should go through the formalities of marriage and, in default, that people who bear children should acknowledge them, it is logical to enforce these requirements by declaring that the general class of rights that are dependent upon family relationships shall be accorded only when the formalities as well as the biology of those relationships are present.

At first glance, this case seems to be just a good civil rights decision that bastards have full rights as persons under the law. But no one ever denied civil rights to bastards. The issue was whether the state can codify family relationships. That is, can the state require registering a relationship before allowing a lawsuit based on that relationship? The court said no.

The next case, Gomez v. Perez - 409 U.S. 535 (1973), directly concerns child support:

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the laws of Texas may constitutionally grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to support from their natural fathers and at the same time deny that right to illegitimate children. ...

Under these decisions, a State may not invidiously discriminate against illegitimate children by denying them substantial benefits accorded children generally. We therefore hold that, once a State posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers, there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married its mother. For a State to do so is "illogical and unjust." Id. at 406 U. S. 175. We recognize the lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity. Those problems are not to be lightly brushed aside, but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination.

The dissent said:

With the issues so vaguely drawn and the alleged discriminations so imprecise, I would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

This decision was a direct blow to the ancient idea that a man marries a woman in order to take responsibility for the resulting kids, and to the advice that woman should get a ring before having kids.

The upshot of these cases is to destroy the state's ability to use its laws to discourage out-of-wedlock kids. The states are prohibited from making that distinction, and women are assured that they will get just as much child support money if they never marry.

My guess is that these court decisions did not get much attention because people foolishly thought that they were humanitarian and harmless efforts to avoid stigmatizing illegitimate kids. But the decisions really help the single moms, and encouraged a whole lot more illegitimate kids. This is another example of the law of unintended consequences.

Dalrock has more data on the rise of illegitimacy. He shows that histories of child support, such as here and here, ignore the above court decisions. An exception is this 2007 paper by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers:

Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and 1970s also changed the nature of family relationships by eliminating many of the legal distinctions stemming from the marital status of a child’s parents. ...

Currently all but five states have some form of unilateral divorce and two-thirds allow unrestricted unilateral divorce.

These legal changes fundamentally alter the basis of the marriage contract. They remove the ability to make intertemporal contracts within marriage — one spouse cannot promise not to leave his or her spouse in the future. They shift the right to divorce (and hence bargaining power) from the party most interested in preserving the marriage to the person who most wants out of the marriage.

Thus these changes mean that a marriage cannot be a binding union (either spouse may unilaterally divorce), cannot offer legitimacy benefits to kids (the state cannot discriminate), and cannot provide for support of the kids (state child support obligations are independent of any marriage contract).

Libertarians sometimes talk about letting people have the freedom to write their own marriage contracts. The concept of people voluntarily taking on the rights and responsibilities of marriage seems to great to me. But it is a legal impossibility unless a whole list of laws and court decisions are reversed, and I never hear about any libertarians or LGBTQIA advocates pushing for those reversals.