"Paternity fraud is a criminal offense and those who commit a crime ought to do the time in prison."

Paternity fraud refers to cases where a man, and/or agency, are deceived in order to obtain money from them, for example, by way of the child support system.

Once laws allowed or required mothers with illegitimate children to name the father so that he would support her or recompense whatever organization was supporting her, the opportunity existed for paternity fraud. (Such a law was enacted in 1576 in England.) Unless all of those mothers were honest, some of them would lie or keep secret, their doubts.

The 1834 Act largely removed the opportunity for fraud, and instead of getting financial assistance, a woman with an illegitimate child typically had to go to a workhouse. Alternatively, severe penalties for paternity fraud would reduce the rate in a country, even if the opportunity to commit fraud remained. Use of paternity tests in 100% of child support cases would be another mechanism. (The United Kingdom has one of the worst child support agencies in the world. Paternity fraud is a popular topic in the USA and more recently in Australia, but scarcely gets a mention in the United Kingdom.)

Fraud refers to deliberate deception, and one specifically intended for significant gain. Deception to obtain child support is paternity fraud. Should states make DNA tests mandatory in a hospital when babies are born to prove paternity? What is the harm of men seeking confirmation that the child is legally his before signing the birth certificate? Is it fair that more than 1.6 million men pay child support for children that are not theirs? (www.ifeminists.com - Michigan Reform Plan Fights Rising Paternity Fraud and http://www.rense.com)

Many men are falsely assigned paternity in default judgments and are compelled by the state to pay eighteen years of child support for children whom DNA tests have later proved are not theirs. Many of these men are not properly served notice of the paternity proceedings, never get their day in court and have no idea they are fathers until their wages are garnished.

Females have found a way to make it hard for a father to be "responsible" and at the same time profit from having a baby. It is common that a mother would go to another state (one that the father does not know about) give birth, and then give the baby up for adoption. The adoption agency then pays the mother for selling the baby to them.

There are cases on television of females who appear and tell the men in their lives that the child may not be his. How is it that these women can come on national television (or appear before a Judge) and allege that the men they have slept with are the fathers only to discover that she lied? "You are not the father." Do these deceived fathers have a right to demand a DNA test to prove legally that the child or children in question are legally their children before they are pinned with the responsibility of caring and supporting children that are not their own?

Should legislation consider amending the laws to protect men who are unlawfully forced to pay child support for a child that’s not theirs either biologically or legally adopted? Should females who commit deliberate deception to obtain child support be prosecuted for filing false allegations against innocent men? Where’s the justice in protecting fathers from paternity fraud? How are females allowed to get away with this type of fraud and unconscionable behavior?

They want to prosecute the men, but what about the females who commit paternity fraud, shouldn’t they be prosecuted for fraudulently filing for child support or demanding it when they know full well the child is someone else’s child and not the person they allege and drag into court? In the same breath, these females look for public pity and sympathy when many of them aren’t worth the pity since many of them are scandalous to put themselves on national television only to further embarrass themselves when it is made public that the child or children tested do not belong to the man they’re dating or married to.

It’s surprising that state legislators have not considered enforcing this criminal behavior as a felony. DNA tests should be automatically performed by law at birth to stop women from committing paternity fraud and making them accountable whenever filing false paternity without actual proof. Men ought to have the right to sue women for any back support they paid for a child that’s not legally and biologically their child.

Paternity fraud is just as reprehensible as any kind of fraud from which men need protection. When we condone fraud in paternity DNA cases, we undermine our entire system of justice. It’s time to correct the injustice.

The Law offices of Jeffery M. Leving, Ltd. – "This can happen to married men because many states adhere to a 500-year-old English common-law doctrine that presumes a married man is the father of a child born of the marriage and families. Otherwise, the laws dealing with paternity and child support issues must be changed state by state, which will be unnecessarily time-consuming and will prolong the injustice." (Father Takes DNA Paternity Fraud Case to U.S. Supreme Court - www.usnewswire.com, www.ancr.org)

Paternity fraud is the only crime where the victim is persecuted for the actions of the guilty party, the mother. Making men pay child support for children proven by DNA testing not to be theirs is not in the best interests of children and families. It can also deprive children of ever knowing their true biological fathers.

Attorney Leving believes that the U.S. Supreme Court could bring relief to countless victims of paternity fraud in America and stop the needless suffering of children. "We do not want the standard of dishonesty, fraud and other unscrupulous behavior to continue to be used to obtain child support from non paternal men." (Man falsely accused of fathering child hopes to get payments back. (www.presstelegram.com - Los Angeles Newspaper Group, 6-3-2007.)

Paternity can be established by default when an alleged father fails to attend a scheduled interview or to go for a scheduled genetic test without a valid reason. Paternity can be established by publication of the alleged father’s name in the newspaper. All that a mother is required to do is to select a man who has a reasonable income, place that name on a form and then that man has to prove his innocence against the full force and resources of a state agency. In essence, the man named is guilty until proven innocent or until he reads the local newspaper.

Leving closes by saying that, "We believe that mandatory testing and automatic restitution of property, and assets and cash will put an end to the shameful practice of father shopping; where the mom has intimate relations with two or more males then picks one based on his financial shape or attitude about family responsibility."

Paternity Fraud is an international epidemic. We demand justice for all men. Fathers have a right to know if their child or children are legally theirs, and to know that if a woman uses a baby to seek financial gain falsely should be held liable and prosecuted. (Innocence is now a defense. Ohio Law enables men who can disprove paternity with a DNA test to end child support. It’s time to stop rewarding females around the globe who lie.)

My research studies are supported by men’s and fathers organizations. I am not looking for a statistics war nor have a hidden agenda. Viewing things in black and white is bad for everyone. Paternity fraud is a criminal offense under the Criminal Code not only for the United States but also for Canada.

REFERENCES

http://www.womenagainstpaternityfraud.com - Many articles published on the web have a naive theme. "Stop worrying about biological paternity. What matters is raising children." Many others have a contemptuous theme. "Children need money to be raised - find the nearest man with a wallet." www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk, http://www.veteransfightingpaternityfraud.com, www.veteransfightingpaternityfraud.com, www.checkmate.com, http://www.citizensaga.com, www.4truthidentity.com, http://www.petitiononline.com

A Caption - “While innocent citizens are being victimized by young criminals, those with the power and authority to help resolve this problem, continue to remain silent. It’s time to hold the justice system, family courts, and parents accountable for the actions of their children.”

Recently, a seventeen-year-old boy raped a 9-month-old baby boy.

Some of the children today are simply defective. We can argue endlessly about how they have become monsters, but in the end, they are fundamentally defective, and evil.

James Wamsley (17) of Benton County, Washington agreed to babysit for a neighbor and then raped the 9-month-old baby boy. The infant’s injuries were so severe he was airlifted to Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane.

HISTORY

The increase in crimes committed by juveniles has become a countrywide epidemic that can no longer be ignored. And yet, in spite of this rapidly rising problem, the House of Law remains inactive, impotently alleging that crime among youths is "too puzzling to solve overnight."

(The problem of Society's littlest criminals did not develop overnight. Juvenile felons have been menacing and polluting our communities and committing terrible crimes for years.)

Still, the House of Law continues to make excuses, claiming that they cannot decide on the best possible solutions to end the problem of society's youngest criminals' competence to stand trial.
Incredibly our legal system seems to be swayed toward leniency when dealing with these violent young criminals, and that sadly overshadows the tragic suffering of innocent victims. Instead of carrying out the job of protecting our civilians, they add to their suffering by caring more about the “rights” of minors who have nonetheless committed heinous crimes.

Anyone who has committed a vicious felony belongs in an adult courtroom, placed on trial for committing adult crimes and sentenced to adult punishment. It is society’s belief that our communities have paid too high a price, in terms of being victimized by young criminals who are being shielded by bad policies relating to minors. In other words this false and misguided compassion enables these young criminals to often literally get away with murder.

Our priorities must be corrected to protect innocent citizens, and not the criminals, regardless of their age. Let’s stop the bleeding first, and later attempt to work on finding the root causes of why so many young people have lost their moral compass, to determine what negative influence the mass media may have played in all this, or if these crime waves are related to peer-pressures. Social workers, sociologists, and other professionals should also focus on neglectful parents, and determine what causes families to disintegrate. The Justice System has yet to take a stand and set laws that are critical and timely to help end this horrific modern plague. To make matters worse, we are seeing younger and younger criminals as time goes on. (www.crimesociety.org.uk and www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk)

It is time for the Courts of Law to take real steps to end the epidemic of juveniles committing a global war of serious crimes. The citizens in this country are becoming steadily impatient while their rights get swept under the rug, and seeing their communities become less, and less safe. The Courts of Law dance around the issue, pondering the competency of a vicious felon, rather than focusing on the safety of our streets. Those who have lost loved ones must make their voices heard and demand strict action before we face even higher levels of criminality.

It is time for the Courts of Law to mandate rules and policies to fit the heinous adult crimes committed by a minor. The Courts of Law need to recognize that age is a poor indicator of whether a twelve-year-old or sixteen-year-old is the legitimate age to understand the difference between right and wrong. Most adolescents have a clear, moral understanding of the difference between right and wrong. Certainly, teachers, guidance counselors, other family members, especially parents must have witnessed the strange or deteriorating behavior of the adolescent’s felons. The responsibility does not lie upon society to have to deal with the predictable criminal behavior, that job belongs to the parents, who have neglected to take appropriate action.

It is the parent’s responsibility to be supportive of their children and protect them while developing into adolescents. Parents with criminally-minded children must be investigated. The lifestyles of the parents and standing in the community both play a pivotal role in the lives of these criminal youths. Statistically, the majority of serious and repeat offenders are from troubled families. Their backgrounds tend to be characterized by violence, substance abuse, inconsistent parenting, weak attachment to family and school, poverty, poor housing and neighborhoods with limited resources. These troubled kids do not go to school, parents do not care to supervise or discipline them, and instead neglect the child. Mentor programs seem not to work for the most part, and many of these troubled adolescents resort to selling, or using drugs. Authorities are not holding parents sufficiently accountable whenever their children stop attending schools. This also helps create a situation where unsupervised children are having children, and the cycle becomes bigger and more difficult to deal with.

On the other hand, there are many kids who survive broken homes and they do not commit crimes. It may be beneficial to all if these cases were studied and analyzed carefully to pinpoint the reasons why these youths do not fall prey to criminal tendencies.

Many young offenders have also been victims of physical and sexual abuse, which leads to poor school performance, drug and alcohol abuse, and association with delinquent peers. Assistance for this group should prevail to prevent them from becoming hardcore incorrigible criminals. The juvenile system authorities must set stricter rules and stronger punishments for the hardcore criminals amongst them.

There are juveniles who are committing violent felonies. Some of them are the worst predators in the country, and they happen to be under the age of eighteen. Many are repeat offenders who do not understand the difference between right and wrong. The Courts of Law must set firm rules and should refuse these youths back into society.

Violent and repeat offenders generally have histories of aggressive, disruptive and antisocial behavior often beginning in early childhood. It must be the responsibility of the parents or the courts to have experienced psychiatrists evaluate and keep the child away from the streets. If the Courts feel that they need to tiptoe this issue, and the luxury of time is on their side, they ought to consider, while they "figure out" the best option and solution, hard juvenile criminals can serve their time in strict detention facility until they become eighteen. In this manner the House of Law will keep them from the streets, have them treated and evaluated, and thus keep our communities safer. While in detention, the appropriate clinicians, mental health examiners, psychologists and/or psychiatrists can also take the time to evaluate and with steady monitoring of the disturbed ones, can be made competent to stand trial. At the same time it is important to restore the faith our communities have lost in the incompetent court appointed officials.

The biggest problem with these officials is that they are creating a revolving door policy where the juvenile offenders are released if they are judged to be unfit to stand trial. These young offenders must be restored to a level where they should be present during trials, instead of simply being released to commit further or worse atrocities. It seems that if the Courts release these young criminals because an examiner decided that he or she is not fit to stand trial, this enables another crime to occur down the line, and thus the dysfunctional cycle repeats itself with more suffering and tax payer expense at every turn.

For troublesome, first-time delinquents of misdemeanors, Judges must take a strict stand up-front and give the juvenile some kind of punishment, warning the delinquent that his act was wrong and "severe punishment will follow if he or she appears in the courtroom again." If those running the Legal Playpen were strict and far from lenient, society would indeed have more faith in them, and believe, without a doubt that the House of Law in this country is for the People first. A clear and serious message must be given to these youngsters before the infectious problem increases and we end up living amongst juveniles who pull the trigger when they get a gun in their hands, mindless of the consequences because the drill in the House of Law is weak, ineffective, and delivers punishments of little consequence.

Despite the hypocrisy within the Juvenile Criminal System, society is constantly being shortchanged whenever the justice system and juvenile courts pause to transfer minors to adult courts. Most of us will agree that the juvenile justice system is broken. And, of course, something broken cannot work, especially if nothing is done to overhaul or correct it.

Others say the broken system is overworked. We have fewer probation officers, Judges and detention facilities. We do not have an organized lobby for this problem. We can speak many words about what is wrong with the system, but if nothing is done at some point to correct the problems, then the system will collapse, and society tends to fragment, distrust and fear become the norm. (www.crimeandsociety.org.uk)

There is no one to take a firm stand, a leader to address the problem before we have to contend with more criminals like, Abraham Nathaniel, Nathaniel Brazill, Lionel Tate; who have caused injury of enormous proportions, causing death and violence, perhaps repeating what they see on television screens, or video games because they cannot distinguish the difference between portrayals of violence and the real thing? Among other troublesome cases is the nine-year-old habitual housebreaker who shoots an unexpected occupant or dweller, or the eleven-year-old who killed his parents because he claims they were too strict with him.

The state of Georgia has addressed the question of appeal. For example, a twelve-year-old boy who was charged with aggravated sodomy of two younger boys was diagnosed for being mentally retarded and therefore could not communicate a coherent or orderly account of the event, which prevented his defense attorney from obtaining information critical for the boy’s defense. Although the Judge in this case denied the motion on account of developmental delays, actions committed that depict mental illness and emotional immaturity, he should have demanded placement in a mental facility and carefully evaluated and not allowed him to run free in our society, to possibly commit the same crime again with other children.

No one has asked, What is his upbringing like? What have his parents done in aiding their child to cope with reality, society and decency? Is there something wrong in the life of this boy to have learned such evil acts of violence on two younger boys? Where has he learned the act of sodomy? Has he been sexually violated or perhaps been exposed to pornographic materials? (www.ingentaconnect.com/content)

The time is now to stop focusing on the criminal's right. Let's focus on protecting our communities, and the People's rights. It is time for the Justice system, Courts of Law, policy makers, clinicians, mental health examiners to finally "figure out" the root of this problem. Let's stop treating the criminal as if he is more important than the victims. The American legal system is overdue for a serious wake-up call to realize that juvenile criminals are a blight upon society and their approach must be modified to serve and protect innocent citizens, and then prepare these young offenders for trial.

The presumption that adolescents should not be held to adult-like accountability because of their incapacity to participate in their defense implies to most of us that the integrity of the legal system has failed us. It's been said that the biggest responsibility of any government is to protect its citizens. Many states had legally and firmly decided to authorize juvenile court judges to extend sentences so that young criminals serve well into their adult years.

In Massachusetts, juvenile court judges may sentence youths that are convicted of murder in either juvenile or criminal court law. A youth found guilty of murder in juvenile court may serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Massachusetts does not play with serious crime and is more fitting and stronger in handling the overwhelming and uncontrollable problems of juvenile criminals.

Virginia is the only state that requires that the question of juveniles' competency to stand trial as an adult must be decided at the hearing on a waiver to criminal court. Because of increasing juvenile cases, Arizona and Florida have amended their rules and definitions regarding competency to stand trial in juvenile proceedings that are almost identical to those in criminal codes.

Today society is producing violent youths, and crime rates doubling. Everything in life changes with time, and this means that the case laws should also change, or else we will face more kids committing violent crimes in this country by 2012. (www.sagepublications.com)

The question now is, How can the justice systems allow the littlest criminals back into society? Justice is better served when the protection of Society is above the Protection of a Criminal, age notwithstanding.

A CORNERSTONE - A PLACE REVISITED

Eight years past, former Attorney General, Janet Reno was interviewed on public television. She discussed how crack cocaine, other drugs and alcohol abuse, and the proliferation of guns, gangs and family violence lead to a deadly mix threatening the safety of communities.

At that time, Inside the Law host, Jack Ford of NBC News conducted the interview during which the former Attorney General presented a possible frightening scenario for the future. She suggested then that the beginning of the 21st century might be dominated by violent crime that is more prevalent, random and vicious "unless we make an impact now. Offenders are much more dangerous now. The juvenile justice system does not have the tools to deal with the scope of the problem, to reach youths at younger ages to interrupt the cycle of violence early on."

In Chicago, Illinois, 1998, two boys age seven and eight molested and beat to death an eleven-year-old girl with rocks, before they suffocated her with her panties. Their motive was her shiny blue bicycle.

These boys committed first degree murder in the killing of 11-year-old Ryan Harris, who disappeared while bicycling around the neighborhood with the seven and eight-year-old boys. She was found a day later, her skull fractured, her panties stuffed in her mouth and leaves in her nose. Her body had been molested with a foreign object.

Florida, 2001, Lionel Tate, 14, was sentenced to life without parole March 2001 for first-degree murder. Tate beat to death a six-year-old playmate when he was 12. Nathaniel Brazill, 14, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. When he was 13, he shot and killed a teacher who would not allow him back into class after he had been suspended for throwing water balloons.

In 1999, Manny, 17, and two other gang members attacked a family in his neighborhood. One of the victims, a six-month pregnant woman, was repeatedly hit in the stomach with a baseball bat. Four men were assaulted and two of them stabbed. In the summer of two thousand, Manny pled guilty to seven counts of assault with a deadly weapon. On January 22, 2001, Manny was sentenced to a mere nine years at state prison in California.

We must all contribute somehow to stopping or reducing this very real nightmare that is plaguing us by writing to our media and contacting politicians who can help change things for the better.

I look up at you
No matter how grown-up I am
I look up to you
No matter how fast the hands of time passes on
I look for you all the time
Whether my heart or spirit feels high or low

I look at, up and for you
Because you have shown me all along
The special Lady I can truly count on
Since the day I was born
With you, I know I am not alone

I am blessed to have you by my side, in my life
The one person I will always adore
Because of whom you are to me
How can I not love you more and more?

copyright - Lady_Rm

It may not matter if the person you minimally like lies to you. You may not expect much more than a lie. Or, you may say at this moment, “I’d rather have nothing than to accept a lie no matter what.”

Do we tell, even small white lies, to the people we trust, feel close to and secured with? Is there a big difference between a white lie and boldfaced one? Are lies just lies no matter how you look at it, excusing neither a small lie and a large lie?

Mostly, people can distinguish the liar from the truth-teller by the person’s genuine or false smile, by their body movements and speech content. As individual in nature as we are, each person of course shows different signs of deceit. But before you accuse someone of lying, check out some of the clues to look into when judging who is lying.

In view, little white lies told to friends benefit the friend and are harmless. To spare another person’s feelings and to make them feel good is okay. The desire not to hurt another person’s feelings that you care for is generous. If we all chose not to tell a small white lie to avoid hurting others’ feelings, women and men would not get along at all and the world would become a miserable and noisy place to live in. In this situation, sparing feelings is understandable and kind. To tell bold-faced lies to deceive is another.

Tragically, brazen liars often distort us in their eyes and cripple self knowledge and prevent us from satisfying our deepest needs. Sensitive and compassionate people tell minuscule lies to protect us from truths that we are not ready to hear and at the same time help us to get on with our lives. They kindly shield us from unnecessary pain because they love us.

Then, there are people who generally lie in social interactions with the intent to mislead. Because social lies are usually automatic and not premeditated, except for the tendency to bend the truth, therefore, making the lies much more revealing. Those people are basically manipulative by nature. They make use of their lies to manipulate the person before them to do what the liar wants knowingly hurting the other person.

There is also the group that allows lying to become an insidious part of their character because of their personal obsession with their image and sociable status (or lack thereof and in search of respectability.) Genuine, sociable people do not need to pretend and deceive because, by nature they have developed the kind of character that projects responsibility, therefore, they enjoy more gratifying relationships in the long hall, both professionally and personally.

Closing Message -

We have all experienced, at one time or another, a situation of people asking us for our opinion on personal/intimate issues. We advise them the best that we can, only to end up unintentionally hurting the person. Plenty of people will agree that there is a price to pay when telling people the truth. And since we cannot always distinguish those who can and cannot accept or face the truth, at times it’s better to remain neutral.

The bottom line is that we need to know how to distinguish the occasional white lies and the pathological liars. We need to know when to walk away from people who lie about feelings, emotions and their opinions of people. We need to know when to stay away from people who deliberately lie about their situations, lifestyle, beliefs, the going-ons in their life and what their basic plans may be in the future. Chronic liars cannot help but continue, out of habit, to cover up failures, shortcomings, and enhance misdeeds and actions.

Not everyone on this planet wants complete honesty, or to take a good healthy dose of reality. Not everyone wants to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Do you?

Honestly, most people are dishonest.

Oscar Wilde - “If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later to be found out.”