My older brother has gotten around over the years. His life reads like a billboard for unintended consequences and pervasive irresponsibility.
A few months back, he got what has become for him a familiar letter: a court ordered paternity test. I should mention that he’s gotten about ten of these over the years, but only two of them turned out to be his. I’ve always wondered about the other eight. Did they ever find that child’s biological father? How many other guys had to offer up their DNA for those children at the same time my brother was forced to?
He’s in prison, 1,700 miles away, and finds out he has a one year-old daughter. In this reprehensible culture, a woman can apparently go through an entire pregnancy, delivery, and early motherhood without ever having to cop to who the father of her child is, assuming she has a reasonable guesstimate. I can’t attest to the veracity of those talk shows where there’s one mother, one child, and nine or ten different possibles for the father, but seeing what my brother’s been through over the years, it wouldn’t surprise me. I would imagine the most difficult part about rounding up names for the Attorney General’s office would be remembering them.
It almost makes me feel sorry for these ladies. I mean, how many one-night-stands is a girl supposed to be able to keep track of over the short window of time that she can become pregnant? Five? Ten? Getting the first and last names, not to mention contact information, for every Tom, Dick, and Harry you drunkenly stumble home from the club with is asking entirely too much.
Then the state decides to stop giving them free stuff. In every case, including the ones that weren’t his, we weren’t dealing with an newborn or an infant, but a toddler. That’s nine months of pregnancy plus two or more years that the child in question went with a blank space on their birth certificate while their mother soaked up entitlements like a dank, smelly kitchen sponge. It’s only when the overburdened bureaucracy gets around to reviewing the bottomless bucket-loads of free food, medical care, and housing they’ve been blindly throwing at these women that positively identifying their child’s father becomes a priority to them. For if they don’t, the entitlements cease. So they begin the mental calesthenics necessary to remember who and when and how many times, and in at least one case, sent out half a dozen court orders demanding DNA.
It’s amazing to me that the dialogue about dead-beat dads is always turned up to 11, but we almost never hear anything about these women who shirk responsiblity and milk the system while keeping their baby-daddy’s identity a secret, usually either out of shame, or some half-assed reasoning about “not wanting him involved”…because while he was good enough to have reckless sex with, he’s not good enough to even be made aware that he’s a father. Our side of field is flush with stories of men getting billed for a decade of child support for a child they didn’t even know existed, but the same agency enforcing it does nothing to hold these mothers accountable for why they kept their little bundle of joy under the radar for so long.
His new daughter was a different story. The state stepped in and permanently terminated her mother’s rights for incessant crack-headism. This little girl is one of seven children the state has removed from this woman’s custody by force. No one is suggesting that the state force her to get a tubal-ligation. No one is suggesting that she be issued some kind of mandatory birth-control. In spite of a lifetime of making the worst possible choices, over and over again, no one is suggesting that the state interfere with her right to choose. She can continue having children until the coffers run dry, and then maybe have a couple more for good measure.
My niece was in foster-care limbo for a few months while they worked out the adoption process, but she’s here now, safe and sound. Happy, adorable, and getting along splendidly with my own daughter, despite their being two years apart.
It’s a Pyrrhic victory of sorts. We get to raise this child without any interference from her mother or the state, but my brother is now a felon and will have to be a registered sex offender when he gets out, which means he can never live at the same residence as his own child. All because of one woman’s lies, and another woman’s omission.
It isn’t that some women lie about rape or paternity. It’s that they aren’t often held accountable when they do. Men are held accountable, financially and morally, for children they didn’t know about. I’d like to believe that most men, if they’d been made aware, would do the right thing. But it’s impossible to be a father to a child whose existence is deliberately kept secret from you. We weren’t given choice, and because of that, we missed out on the first two years of this little girl’s life.
I’m writing about it because it’s the second time in six months that the state has handed me, a man, custody of a child over the child’s mother. Whether this is objective decency on the part of the court, or the beginning of a shifting trend, I can’t say. But I hope it’s both.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Women are awarded a preference to keep their children because they’re the sacrosanct gestational carrier. Fathers are superfluous interlopers that instigated a “sneak attack” on the innocent, unsuspecting female “victim”. To make matters worse, he undoubtedly enjoyed the experience of procreation, while she may have had sex when she didn’t feel like it or simply succumbed to his advances; what rape culture feminists define as “rape”.
Single motherhood is victimhood – the victim of a man making her pregnant. He owes her for this indiginity, and the State will enforce her will on him.
This is no victory. Not even a pyrrhic one. Behavior is to some degree genetically controlled (how large a degree, nobody seems to know – mainly because this kind of research is Taboo, but think about the silver fox experiment linked in one of the earlier posts and draw your own conclusions). This little girl has a higher chance of following the same behavioral patterns that led her mother to where she is than one who came from better functioning parents. And that is exactly what the state wants, in order to continue society as we now know it into the future.
I’m going to mention an ugly word next. Eugenics. Something something nazi, but setting history and political correctness aside it is a scientific fact that we are all who we are because of the people that spawned us. If you help the offspring of dysfunctional people survive, thus perpetuating the genes that lead (in part or in whole) to said dysfunction, instead of making your own children and spending your time, energy and resources on them, then you are in the final analysis helping the state and current conditions to continue apace.
I don’t expect this to make it through the screening. Nothing even remotely related to the N word ever does. But it had to be said.
“But it’s impossible to be a father to a child whose existence is deliberately kept secret from you.”
I’m surprised you found out about the kid. Usually they prefer to keep the child in foster care rather than find and notify any of the child’s male relatives, even if they know who they are. It’s so bad that some women’s prisons now have child care facilities, again on the premise that it’s less repugnant than being cared for by a man.
“I’m writing about it because it’s the second time in six months that the state has handed me, a man, custody of a child over the child’s mother.”
Shouldn’t read too much into that. The circumstances under which that happens are so extreme that the operative rule still is “never a man”.
P.S. Not to knock the agency or anything (I was offered the opportunity to get cozy with CPS a few months ago, and I found them to be professional, polite, and with an eye for the truth. At least locally, anyway) but when the CPS agent delivered my niece to my home, she had a case of diaper rash that looked like she’d been sitting in a toxic puddle somewhere just outside of Chernobyl. It was doctor-visit-worthy, lest she get a staph infection.
I don’t know if it’s the fault of CPS or her foster parents, but I just found it odd that the agent for the system that has the legal authority to remove a child for something as ethereal as “neglect” would fail to notice that my niece had what looked like 3rd-degree radiation burns all over a large part of her body. She’s fine now, but still.
ghosting is the only solution. women crave attention like a drug, so don’t supply it.
@Pugs Fugly
That rash could have been eczema — some kids get nasty reactions even to innocuous stuff (my sister used to get it). My son had allergies when he was little and would break out in hives from all sorts of foods — milk, nuts, eggs, you name it. I always had to make sure to tell anyone looking after him to keep that stuff away from him. Took until he was over two before the allergies went away, but to this day he avoids cheese, probably because he remembers those hives somewhere in the back of his mind.
If it makes it any better to know Pugs, time is slowly coming round when all manufactured evils what have befallen you and your older brother will befall those nasty men in suits whom make things this way.
David K Mellor elsewhere echoes my own hunch, that generations of children bred of this nasty miasma of a broken society, will by their self destructiveness and atavistic violent behaviors not forgive us if we don’t knuckle down and devise solutions pronto.
You are doing the best you can for your daughter and nieces in creating better future outlooks for them by your efforts. Efforts that go a long, long way in improving their prospects. Believe me, things could have ended up a hundred fold times worse for them without your intervention.
Another thing. Let no stupid persons create any doubts in your mind to make you out as some stooge. YOUR actions, like the actions of similar big hearted men forming the remaining pillars of this broken society makes YOU and such men the real ALFAS.
Sincerly.
A guy I went to school with here in Washington state had a brief affair right after graduating high school, then never heard from the girl again. She was the one who broke it off.
A few years later he married someone else, the new couple eventually had two children, bought a house, settled into family life.
Fast-forward sixteen years and a summons arrives. He finds out that he’s the father of a sixteen year old boy, courtesy of that post-school fling.
The mother had moved out of state, raised the boy without ever telling the father he had a son. For sixteen years she kept quiet, never letting on who the father was, then suddenly deciding she wanted “reimbursement for raising him” (but apparently having no qualms whatsoever about shutting out the father for all those years). The state demanded back child support for the mother – to the tune of $160,000 plus current child support obligation of an additional $1,200 a month.
And so he was forced to sell the family home, cash in their stocks, borrow money from his brother, and re-start their entire lives. They were lucky to be able to move into a rental home owned by the older brother, otherwise they’d of had to have squeezed into a two bedroom apartment on what was left. Happening in middle age, it completely disrupted the marriage and welfare of the family and they have never financially recovered.
Meanwhile, the state rewarded the mother of his first-born for practicing parental alienation. There should be a law requiring mothers to name the father upon birth (or within the first six months) or waive child support obligations.
@Rus-
There is no victory in this situation? I completely disagree. This case proves several victories, not just for the child, but for men in general. The vast majority of cases like this would have been pushed thru state agencies, when the mother lost her rights, with no desire or attempt to locate the father. They would have thrown the child into a failing foster care system with no regard for his rights or willingness to accept responsibility. In this case, not only did they locate the father, but willingly gave the child to a MALE relative of the family. How many cases do we hear about where the man loses, or never receives, custody of his own children? How can we not view this as a victory for not only men within the family court system, but also for the child who was granted the right to fill in the “father” box on her birth certificate? This is a small victory in the grand scheme of things, but a victory nonetheless.
@ Rus:
The problem with Eugenics is the exact same problem with our current dysgenic society: giving the State waaaay too much power to intrude into people’s lives. The Eugenics movement was counter intuitive because natural selection naturally sorts its self out when allowed to with minimal intervention by the state. Women who ignorantly have kids without securing a man to provide for her are alienated by their female peers and live a life of poverty and men who go around siring a whole bunch of bastards would get their asses linched if men were allowed to ensure the safety of their communities.
Eugenics is something the alt-right needs to stay far away from. Not only is it morally wrong, it goes against the very point of the alt-right sphere: less Government.
This is the no win scenario for men , The state has a win win , since the prison system is the biggest growing business in the country .
The cost to the American people is becoming so great it can no longer be ignored would be the logical thought . But we are talking about people that have no honor and put the people last .
I simply consider the HHS and Family courts as domestic terrorist’s and need to be stopped. This is the biggest threat against freedom in the world ..
Pugs:-
“I’m writing about it because it’s the second time in six months that the state has handed me, a man, custody of a child over the child’s mother. Whether this is objective decency …”
I don’t know whether to commiserate on your bro’s state (I got one not quite as hopeless) , or congratulate on doing the right thing. Kin is kin. End of.
But as far as decency goes, not a chance. It’s the Ultimate Alpha who enables all this nonsense, the State, acting true to type, and desperately weaselling out of being left on the hook for $$$$, as both breeders are a total bust. They’d hand the kid over to Japanese or German internet cannibals rather than pay a single dime more.
Agree with Morrisfactor. Dna test on parturition or GTFO. No bennies. In a LTR? No problemo, no Big Brother scoping yer cucaracha.
Got to agree with Cynical; who’s doing the deciding? Some omega lab dweeb with bottle-bottom eyeglasses and an IQ of 90 squillion, who can’t ride a bike without falling off?
OTOH, I have absolutely no problem with the traditional solution. Wanna be a PITA, and a deadweight?
Fine, how about I leave you, whoever you are, and the brats, whoever the father is, to be eaten by wolves/hyenas?
Evolution, aka a Darwin Award, versus Eugenics (a favourite of the Fabian socialists, and other posh little monsters).
Rus: ” it is a scientific fact that we are all who we are because of the people that spawned us. If you help the offspring of dysfunctional people survive, thus perpetuating the genes that lead (in part or in whole) to said dysfunction, instead of making your own children and spending your time, energy and resources on them, then you are in the final analysis helping the state and current conditions to continue apace.
so, maybe I don’t exactly know what Eugenics is but – Nature (Eugenics) or Nurture (spending your time energy and resources on them) – If Genetics (Eugenics) dictates behavior as you seem to assert, then why would energy, time and resources make any difference? people are going to do what they are genetically predisposed to do – ?
Morrisfactor: ‘The guy’ and the wife of ‘the guy’ in your story, both now have had the red pill injected (not swallowed) into their consciousness like a lot of us men have for years now… The wife/mother – She is now ‘enlightened’ as to the plight of ‘fathers’ in Amerika. Watch for this as the tipping point to the eradication of ‘parental alienation’ and many other feminine ills, when it negatively effects the women, mothers and the wives… these women will demand and get changes ASAP. MOTHERS AGAINST PARENTAL ALIENATION! (MAPA!!!)
Tom Leykis put it succinctly: The solution to deadbeat dads is for women to stop fucking deadbeats.
Morrisfactor: “There should be a law requiring mothers to name the father upon birth (or within the first six months) or waive child support obligations.”
Solves the problem of men getting ambushed years after the fact, but not the problem of men getting indentured. Require the mother inform the father as soon as the pregnancy is confirmed. He then declares his intention to support the mother and child (in which case he also gains the right to see his child regularly), or he declares he wants nothing to do with the child, forfeiting all parental rights. The mother then has the choice of being a heroic single mother without any hope of cash from the baby daddy, or has an abortion. The woman retains the ultimate choice in the matter, so they’ve little to complain about, but now they can’t unilaterally destroy someone else’s life with their choices.
I hope this finely written piece (Pugs) receives wide airing.
Its straight-up style and adept articulation would assist the most skeptical conventional reader to comprehend how beta-femalized this culture has become.
Might even give the live-like-there’s-no-tomorrow partiers some pause to think over that this is what you’re fighting for, paying taxes into supporting and that how this out-of-control socialist paradigm is leading to the hang-over for all to which nobody wants. There’s no sleeping this one off when one has to go back to work on Saturday morning to perpetually support it all.
…this out-of-control socialist paradigm is leading to the hang-over for all to which nobody wants.
The consequences of printing money and borrowing almost half of what we spend is a right-wing myth meant to scare people from voting Democrat.
So what if our children’s standard of living is more Euro-centric; little flats with IKEA modular themes and public transportation to get around, retiring at 72 with a byzantine healthcare system that would horrify even the Brits, an education system that only the elites can afford, inner city “‘hoods” where the cops or ambulances won’t even go, having to rely on government food pantries to make ends meet, because a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs is more than $10. The federal VAT tax of 2% and top tax rate of 63% will seem normal, and “justified”…along with government regulations of “pay check fairness” guidelines for men, women and identifiable minorities who work in similar positions and “disparate impact” programs in management.
As long as the government keeps spending our economy will eventually recover and we’ll have higher tax revenues again for a “balanced approach” to recovery. The debt doesn’t matter because it’s not real anyway. $20,000,000,000,000? $25, 000,000,000,000? ….doesn’t really matter how big it gets because it’s all just paper. We can write it off eventually.
I watched the movie “Les Miserables” and was reminded of the differences between modern society and the way things used to be.
19th Century Story:
A young girl, Fantine, rode the carrousel hard. Got pregnant. Bad boy leaves. Things get bad and she hands her daughter to someone to raise her while she ends up working somewhere else and sending them the money. She ends up becoming a prostitute. Valjean meets her when she is terribly sick. He takes her to a hospital and promises to take care of her daughter Cosette. Fantine dies. Valjean does find Cosette and raises her as his daughter. He fulfills his vows. Cosette marries well. She and her kind husband are with Valjean when he is dying and they proclaim their love for him. End of Story
21st Centure Realistic Version:
A young girl, Fantine, rode the carrousel hard. Gots pregnant with bad boy. Gets an abortion. Finishes college and keeps riding the carousel. Hits 30 years old. Goes to church and decides to become a Born-Again virgin. Marries a beta-male who decides to “man up” (Valjean). Gets pregnant and has a daughter (Cosette). Lives with hubby for 4 years. Becomes unhaaaapy and at one time even calls the police because of “domestic violence” Valjean spends some time in jail. Fantine leaves hubby and collects money and prices. She keeps daughter in daycare and with babysitters while she goes back to riding the carousel. Meets alpha-male. Gets pregnant but alpha male leaves. Gets another abortion. Finds out that she picked up some disease. Calls ex-hubby while dying and he promises to take care of Cosette. Fantine dies. Cosette goes to live with Valjean who raises her. Cosette has a hard life as a child and accuses Valjean of mistreating her and of sexual abuse. Child Protective Services are more than happy to charge Valjean with a crime and he gets put in jail. Cosette goes to a foster home where she really is abused. Valjean dies in prision with a broken heart. Cosette dies at the age of 17 from a drug overdose. End of Story
Everyone must realize is that the “naming” of suspected dads is ONLY about the money for “big daddy” government. The feminists care about nothing else but that as well- in spite of their protestations (i.e. that it’s about the best interests of the child, that it’s about a dad’s responsibility, etc.) They care not a whit about what happens- even if mistakes are made.
And what happens when a mistake is made? Who suffers- it’s likely the child and the “potential” (but not actual) father. And there’s no remedy for this.
Think about this situation: mom names one potential dad (i.e. government came and threatened her benefits). Given that the cost of the DNA test was going to be taxed to him, potential dad admits paternity. For years potential dad pays child support and sees the child (he acted as a father).
Potential dad gets it together. He realizes how bad baby momma is, and tries to get the child out of baby momma’s custody. During contested custody proceedings, baby momma gets some other dude to get a DNA test. Unfortunately it turns out “acting dad” is not the genetic dad.
In this situation does the government apologize?- NO. Does it give “acting dad” a “refund” with interest?- NO. Does it pay for the child’s therapy?- NO. (After all, it will be traumatic for the child to learn that the “dad” he/she had been visiting was not the “real” dad.) Will the baby momma be forced to make a “refund?”- NO. Do you think the government will help “acting dad” get a “refund?”- Of course not.
Who suffers? Not the government, not the baby momma- the aggrieved parties were the acting dad and the child. The very people the court ought to protect. The result- potential financial loss for the acting dad along with the ability of the baby momma to sever his relationship with the child- hardly meets the “best interests of the child” standard.
To avoid this possibility, if you’re accused of being a potential father, get a DNA test. Tell the government you will only pay the cost of the test if it turns out you’re the dad. Otherwise (and assuming you’re not the dad), request that the court order either 1) the government be forced to pay the cost of the testing or 2) the girl be ordered to pay the cost of the testing.
Given the long term costs to you- child support, etc.- the cost of the DNA test is minimal. If the government wants to subsidize irresponsible female behavior, it should have to pay the bill- ALL of it, which includes supporting the single moms (with children) AND being sued for damages in the event a potential mistake like this is made.