I was reading some court cases. Lots of fraud going on. Watch out.
If a guy challenges paternity at or before birth, or rather before he signs the paternity paper for the birth certificate, he can get the DNA test, or else she can't say he is the father. But as soon as he signs that piece of paper, he then needs a court order to get a DNA test later. And depending what state he is in, he only has so long to do it.
If a guy does not know if a child is his, and he requests a DNA test when the woman is being nice to him, she may feel insulted by the request. If he signs it, he signs his rights away. I think DNA testing should be the mandatory default whether the guy wants it or not, so he is not put on the spot like that.
Yeah, there is a 1-4 year statute of limitations after which a guy can't even get a DNA test. So if a woman wants $200,000 from him over 18 years, she just acts nice to him so he thinks she is into him. Then she acts very offended if he even suggests a DNA test, since him asking would imply she cheated. He does not want to risk a break up, so he never asks. Once the statute of limitations passes, she shows her true feelings, and either divorces him, or threatens to, since she would then get the child support, which is 30% of his take home income. That can easily pass $200,000 over 18 years.
She can then move back in with the biological father she wanted in the first place, or someone else she prefers, and live more comfortably off the first guy's income, even though it is not even his kid. Courts allow this because they say it is important to look out for the child's best interest, even if an innocent guy is hurt bad. They say the guy has the power to request DNA testing early, but the kid does not, so it is better for it to fall on the man. OK, but why not have manditory testing in the first place?
I hate these default marriage rules and such, where the default is that in the case of a divorce, the guy, or the wealthier partner, is totally ripped off. So if the ask for a pre-nup, then they look like they are saying they don't trust their spouse to be. The default should be a more reasonable agreement.
Is it reasonable that a woman get money from a guy she divorced, even though they never had kids, just because she is used to that standard of living? What if he is used to getting sex from her? The deal should stay the same. If she wants that standard of living the easy way, she stays with him. Now if she quit her good career to raise kids, that is a different issue, and I think that should be the only allimoney allowed.
Then there is wealth division. I think after 10 years or so it should be 50-50. But before then, it should be closer to what they went in with, and should have a gradual move to 50-50 with time married. If a guy lets a woman spend him into debt over the years, he must be getting something out of it. We can't prove what really went on in court, but I say all debts incurred more than a year before the divorce are 50-50 debts. Within a year, we need to look for evidence of who caused them and who benefitted.
If a guy challenges paternity at or before birth, or rather before he signs the paternity paper for the birth certificate, he can get the DNA test, or else she can't say he is the father. But as soon as he signs that piece of paper, he then needs a court order to get a DNA test later. And depending what state he is in, he only has so long to do it.
If a guy does not know if a child is his, and he requests a DNA test when the woman is being nice to him, she may feel insulted by the request. If he signs it, he signs his rights away. I think DNA testing should be the mandatory default whether the guy wants it or not, so he is not put on the spot like that.
Yeah, there is a 1-4 year statute of limitations after which a guy can't even get a DNA test. So if a woman wants $200,000 from him over 18 years, she just acts nice to him so he thinks she is into him. Then she acts very offended if he even suggests a DNA test, since him asking would imply she cheated. He does not want to risk a break up, so he never asks. Once the statute of limitations passes, she shows her true feelings, and either divorces him, or threatens to, since she would then get the child support, which is 30% of his take home income. That can easily pass $200,000 over 18 years.
She can then move back in with the biological father she wanted in the first place, or someone else she prefers, and live more comfortably off the first guy's income, even though it is not even his kid. Courts allow this because they say it is important to look out for the child's best interest, even if an innocent guy is hurt bad. They say the guy has the power to request DNA testing early, but the kid does not, so it is better for it to fall on the man. OK, but why not have manditory testing in the first place?
I hate these default marriage rules and such, where the default is that in the case of a divorce, the guy, or the wealthier partner, is totally ripped off. So if the ask for a pre-nup, then they look like they are saying they don't trust their spouse to be. The default should be a more reasonable agreement.
Is it reasonable that a woman get money from a guy she divorced, even though they never had kids, just because she is used to that standard of living? What if he is used to getting sex from her? The deal should stay the same. If she wants that standard of living the easy way, she stays with him. Now if she quit her good career to raise kids, that is a different issue, and I think that should be the only allimoney allowed.
Then there is wealth division. I think after 10 years or so it should be 50-50. But before then, it should be closer to what they went in with, and should have a gradual move to 50-50 with time married. If a guy lets a woman spend him into debt over the years, he must be getting something out of it. We can't prove what really went on in court, but I say all debts incurred more than a year before the divorce are 50-50 debts. Within a year, we need to look for evidence of who caused them and who benefitted.
