This story doesn't surprise me:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WRONGFULLY_JAILED?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
So in 2001 they find out after the second DNA test proves he is not the father and the courts still require him to pay back child support.
Not only is this story insane and a clear violation of a persons rights, but to then acknowledge that this man has no relationship to someone and must still pay?
And why wouldn't the woman who received the support be ordered to pay back the support she got and be penalized for giving false information?
The Civil Liberties challenge of our (and our children's) generation will not be terrorists' rights in Guantanamo Bay. It will be about the rights of ordinary citizens against the State Security Apparatus known as the Family Courts. Welcome to the U.S.S.A.
ReplyDeleteYour right Puma.
ReplyDeleteYa know as much as I dis-like Islam men's rights is the one issue I actually admire about it. Not that they arent over the top opressing women but damn to have rights again is very tempting.
We can speculate on how that state of affairs for women in Islam came to be. I.e. It may have been an arrangement reached through darwinian trial and error, with the patriarchal tribes winning over the wimpy/matriarcha ones in the desert. Perhaps the matriarchal ones self-imploded.
ReplyDelete"And why wouldn't the woman who received the support be ordered to pay back the support she got and be penalized for giving false information?"
ReplyDeleteI've often wondered why that isn't the norm in divorce cases as well. If a woman marries a man for his money and then divorces him after a few years, especially if she never provides him kids - shouldn't she be made to pay him back everything, plus interest?
Ya instead of getting half of everything liquid, the cars the houses and then alimony.
ReplyDeleteI mean really I could see just cutting her loose but this support thing is insane.