Add to this the fact that in at least several cases, men who have proved by DNA test that the men are NOT the father of a child have been forced by the courts to continue paying child support, because those men at one time agreed to pay child support. Those men at the time had believed the lying mother when told that the father of the child was the man in question.
Let's face it, the very first thing a man ought to do when told by a woman that she is pregnant with that man's son is to order a DNA test.
In every case. And given the treachery being coached into women today by feminism, that would include a man's wife.
Get that DNA test. Always.
w h hall jr
· 6 years ago
You may or may not know any deadbeat 'dads'. I know [of or personally] three. There was no question of paternity. They are deadbeat bastards...............
w h hall jr
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
Married men are the legal fathers of all children conceived during the marriage, so DNA testing in these cases is irrelvent, Paul.
Mr. Hall, your attitude is like that of the Klan lynch mobs who said it didn't matter which negro they hanged, since they're all guilty. I don't agree.
blaster
· 6 years ago
So your argument then is that DC isn't hell because this is the way they run things?
I'm trying to see the good part of the story.
Don McArthur
· 6 years ago
Help! I think I just got spattered with a broad brush!
W.W. Beutler
· 6 years ago
That's right, our moral leaders are upset that Roscoe Grant didn't just automatically start giving $2000 a month to a woman who claimed he was the father of her baby without a DNA test. What gall. It isn't that Grant had to take a blood test first -- that's a prudent move. It's that the court had to force him to comply. Seems more likely that he was well aware the paternity could be his.
...the HIV-positive, bareback riding Mr. Sullivan... One can argue about the medical dangers of this behavior -- and I don't know enough to comment on that -- but at least he's not fathering children and shirking responsibility. Rather, it's just an ad hominem attack.
Rick
· 6 years ago
"For years, the mother and aunt of Octavious Williams tried to get Grant to recognize and then do right by his son, Octavious. They even went to city agencies for help but got nowhere. It wasn't until the family filed a paternity suit against him that Grant paid attention."
Nice try BUT the first two words sum up Mr. Grants position quite nicely. Since he avoided his responsibility for "years" and then had to be brought to court just to have the test makes it clear what his thoughts were about paying support for his child. Of course the fact that this is the second time this has happened with Mr. Grant also speaks volumes about his character.
I wonder which city agency was not helpful in pursuing this matter and if Mr. Grant was a factor in it's reluctance??
Anonymous
· 6 years ago
TO: All Wet RE: What Happens Indeed
"But let's suppose that I'm all wet and this Roscoe Grant character is a scumbag would should be fired from his job in the DC government; what happens to young Octavious and his momma when Roscoe no longer has a paycheck? That's what I mean about the hypocrisy.-- Richard Bennet
What happens, SFB, is that Roscoe goes back to court and pleads that he has had a significant change of income and goes through the proper drill of having his payments adjusted accordingly. [Note: This is the voice of experince(s) speaking.]
Personally, children are a lever used by divorced women to get money out of men. If you doubt that, let me introduce you to a former Mrs. Pelto, a.k.a. Sharon. Supposedly she's in the market again. After raping her second the same way she raped me.
Another observation...
...I notice a lot of people who are complaining about the way Washington DC's government 'works' are 'white'.
I'm beginning to wonder why that is so.
RE: Married Men
"Married men are the legal fathers of all children conceived during the marriage, so DNA testing in these cases is irrelvent, Paul." -- Richard Bennet
Even if they are not the DNA contributors.
Now...
...there's something to rage about. But I don't see you 'raging'.
Regards,
Chuck(le) [Women: The unfair sex. -- The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce]
Mark Wickens
· 6 years ago
... HIV-positive, bareback riding Mr. Sullivan, exemplar of virtue in all things sexual.
What do Andrew Sullivan's sexual habits have to do with this issue? The comment is complete ad hominem. (Secondarily, what is the supposed problem with this behavior when practiced between consenting adults?)
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
For years, the mother and aunt of Octavious Williams tried to get Grant to recognize and then do right by his son, Octavious. They even went to city agencies for help but got nowhere. It wasn't until the family filed a paternity suit against him that Grant paid attention.
This is dubious. If you want child support, there is one and only one agency to see, the Dept. of Child Support. Everyone in the welfare community acutely know this, so the only reason the woman could have gone to other city agencies was to smear Mr. Grant by passing gossip about him.
If it took the woman years to do this, she obviously wasn't hurting for money or on welfare.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
...there's something to rage about. But I don't see you 'raging'
Then you aren't paying attention. I sponsored the bill in the California Legislature would have relieved men misidentified as fathers from the child support obligation (to someone else's children).
The governor vetoed it, so I'll pass it again. Stay tuned.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
What do Andrew Sullivan's sexual habits have to do with this issue? The comment is complete ad hominem. (Secondarily, what is the supposed problem with this behavior when practiced between consenting adults?)
If you're going to condemn others for their sexual practices, as Sullivan does with Grant, your own had better be pure.
Since there is more than one strain of the HIV, bareback sex is inappropriate for HIV-positives, even with other HIV-positives.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
... it's that the court had to force him to comply...
That's what courts are for, dude.
Mark Wickens
· 6 years ago
Since there is more than one strain of the HIV, bareback sex is inappropriate for HIV-positives, even with other HIV-positives.
It's nice of you to be concerned with the health of Mr. Sullivan and his partners, but the appropriateness of a behavior is rightly determined by those whom it affects.
gary thomas
· 6 years ago
It's got nothing to do with sex - it's about evading responsibility. In this light, Andrew Sullivan's personal life is irrelevant; by your ad hominem attack, you undermine your own arguments.
Joanne Jacobs
· 6 years ago
According to this news story, Octavious is 20 years old. His mom, a cocaine addict, and his older sister, who appears to be the substitute mother, says Grant gave the mom money for Octavious till he was 5 or 6 years old, then stopped. (He claims he didn't know the kid was his until last March when the test was done.) The mom gave welfare his name, she says, but they didn't follow up. His older sister filed the paternity suit to get money for Octavious' college expenses.
Grant is paying only $300 a month (salary of $100,000 a year) for his 5- year-old illegitimate daughter; I suspect the $2,000 a month ordered for Octavious includes back child support.
I have sympathy for some fathers who don't pay child support, but not this guy. He obviously thought the kid might be his, even if he wasn't sure. He could have volunteered for a test to decide the issue when the boy was a baby. But nobody made him, so he ducked out. And now he's making the kid, who grew up destitute, wait more than six months to get any help.
The mother is a complete jerk too, but she's not on the city payroll.
Richard Riley
· 6 years ago
In California it's very common for an unwed mother wanting welfare to pick a man with a good income as the named father, even if she's never met him. She provides a false address for him (often her own). He never receives anything from the court, so he doesn't show up for the paternity hearing and looses by default. A few months or years later he's notified that he owes this woman 20% of his gross income - and there's no appeal, no way to overturn it even if he does prove beyond doubt that he isn't the father.
Eric E. Coe
· 6 years ago
The mom's a coke addict? Then that is a different story. Probably the dad noticed that little or none of the money he was giving at first was actually being used for the child's benefit - more likely it it went up her nose or got smoked in a crack pipe. And so he stopped making wasted payments.
But the law does not care if the "child support" is really supporting a child. The law is a blunt instrument.
tom brennan
· 6 years ago
Started with Sullivan? It started with a little neighborhood daily called the Washington Post. Why didn't you attack Colbert King with such spite? It's his column Sullivan linked with a brief comment. "Dim bulb" is the best you could do? What's the matter, don't know any good slander about King's sex life?
But you only write this crap because "there are cases where hypocrisy crosses a line and becomes obscene and therefore worthy of mention." And the "obscene" hypocrisy is that Andrew Sullivan, an OPENLY HIV+ man who has in the past sought sex with other HIV+ men, linked to a story about a government official whose private affairs appear to clash mightily with his public duties? There is obscenity on display in your post, but not it's not in the direction your index finger points. Three fingers on your hand are pointing in the right direction though.
The navel of the blogosphere, Mr Bennett? Go a little lower on the body, male and female , front and rear. Your retread slurs against Sullivan are scabby enough but to pretend that real concern lies behind your dishonest shorthand for Sullivans's circumstances is a breakthrough in scumbucket polemics. You should add it to your resume.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
The mom stopped working in 1987, and the dad stopped paying her about 1988 or 1989, according to the other story in the Washington Post.
I wouldn't pay an unemployed crackhead either, but that's just me.
Some time after that, an aunt took custody, which means that mom has an obligation to pay child support as well. I don't see anybody complaining about her.
With the interest charged on unpaid child support, and the fact that money paid without a court order is not considered child support under the law, Mr. Williams will be paying the mom at least until the boy is 35 or 40; is this "child support" or "mom support"?
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
Colbert King is a regular fill-in guest on Inside Washington, when one of the regulars can't make it. You only have to watch him once to know he's not the brightest light on the tree.
harmon
· 6 years ago
This whole discussion points to how messed up things have become as a result of the changes in our sexual morality over the past thirty years. We are operating out of conflicting beliefs & understandings about what the proper responsibilities of men & women are when they have children.
I'm a traditionalist in this area, & have for many years thought that men should be held strictly responsible for supporting their children, out of wedlock or otherwise. But the law in so many areas - abortion is the most obvious - has reached the conclusion that women are autonomous in all their sexual decisions, regardless of the interest of the man, even if they are married (to each other) that I have strong doubts whether the traditionalist view makes any sense any more. It surely does not make sense to a lot of women when it comes to regulating their sexual behavior - but of course, when it comes to paying over some money, they are all traditionalists!
So I've about reached my own conclusion that the law should be radically simplified - if a woman has a child by a man to whom she is not married, it is her problem, and not the man's responsibility.
The objection will be raised that this hurts the kids, but that might not prove true. In the first place, it looks like the kids are being hurt anyway. And in the second place, maybe women will get their heads screwed (pardon the pun) on straight and stop doling out free sex to any guy that comes along.
I don't think that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the results of all these sexually irresponsible people. And the outcome of welfare reform seems to me to suggest very strongly that if we stop paying women to support out of wedlock children, they will stop having them.
blaster
· 6 years ago
I am still looking for the good part of this story. Sometimes divorce and paternity cases are troublesome. Sometimes women will lie to injure a man or go after his income. However, in this case, the woman was correct.
Why did Grant pay for the first few years - because he didn't think the child was his?
Do you not see a problem with a man with two illegitimate children he does not care for being in charge of the Department of Child Support? Sure, he has experience, but that means you should make a lifer the warden, too.
Jeez, might as well pick a convicted crack smoker for the mayor. Oh, wait...
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
Why did Grant pay for the first few years - because he didn't think the child was his?
Maybe he was just trying to be a nice guy. I don't think, however, that this good beahvior should be held against him, because there are lot of men paying money for children they didn't father - probably 20% of child support orders have misidentified the father.
As to whether the father of an out-of-wedlock child should be allowed to work in the child support agency, I have to say that it's been my experience as a child support agency overseer that a large number of child support recipients are employed by these agencies, and that's not held against them. So sauce for the goose, etc.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
It's interesting to note that the bloggers who're all over this story, with the exception of Bareback Sullivan, all link to the racist Gene Expression web site, and that the man in question happens to be black.
Take that for what it's worth.
Joanne Jacobs
· 6 years ago
1. If Grant thought the money he was providing was going for coke (probably true), he should have taken custody of his son, not abandoned him with no money and no contact.
2. The child support will be paid -- if Grant ever does pay -- to Octavious, since he's now over 18. It will not go to his mother.
3. It's not true that a welfare mother can stick some guy with child support obligations by giving a phony address. A husband is presumed to be the father of his wife's child unless he proves otherwise. There's no such presumption if the couple isn't married and the man hasn't voluntarily declared himself to be the father. A paternity test is required before support can be ordered.
Making a false statement to collect welfare -- such as lying about the father's identity -- is a federal crime. As a reporter, I sat in on welfare intake interviews. Pregnant women are warned that their statement will be investigated, and that it's a crime to lie about anything. Almost always, of course, they're claiming not to know who the father is because they don't want the boyfriend to have to pay.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
Joanne, you're dead wrong on all points.
1. You don't know what happened with respect to custody and contact, and neither do I. But it is not the case that some guy can just "take custody" of a child without a court order. It's called kidnapping.
2. Child support is never, ever owed to the child directly - it's a debt that as a matter of law belongs to the custodial parent, regardless of the child's age. This is such a bizarre claim that it makes me shudder that a former journalist who's covered this issue could make it.
3. A husband is ALWAYS presumed to be the father of the issue of the marriage, EVEN if he can prove he's not the biological father. This has been the case for hundreds of years. It is also NOT the case that a paternity test is required in order to establish a child support order: a voluntary declaration on the man's part will do, as will a declaration by the woman that isn't challenged in 90 days. I know you covered a bill on this subject matter at the Merc, because I sent you the info on it.
It's also the case that false statements about paternity are almost never followed-up by prosecution. If you can find even one case in California where this has happened, I'll eat Rushton's research on head size and IQ.
Mason
· 6 years ago
I came across the original Washington Post article a day or two ago and happen to agree with most of your points, Richard. I don't see how bringing up Andrew Sullivan's HIV status or sexual preferences has any bearing whatsoever to this story -- paragon of sexual virtue or not, he's not the one in charge of any programs.
Don't think I'll be back for a second look at your site. Oh well.
blaster
· 6 years ago
Maybe he was just trying to be a nice guy. I don't think, however, that this good beahvior should be held against him, because there are lot of men paying money for children they didn't father - probably 20% of child support orders have misidentified the father.
Please. You are just being silly now. He had sex with the woman, so he had knew he was a candidate for fatherhood.
The child support orders have nothing to do with anything, since he was doing it voluntarily.
And if it was good behavior to pay, wasn't it bad behavior not to pay?
And the bottom line is, he turns out to be the father.
I don't see where any of it makes him out to be a good guy.
DC gets the government it deserves, I guess.
Ole Eichhorn
· 6 years ago
I don't think referring to Gene Expression as racist is fair. To me the term means "unrationally prejudicial". Seems like the posters are uniformly logical and rational, and if the conclusions are politically incorrect, well, so be it.
Andrew Chin
· 6 years ago
Yeah Richard, bad form. Gene Expression has every ethnicity you can think of posting over there, including people who are south asian, east asian, white, and black. You can disagree with them, but it hardly makes sense to accuse a blog with every race present to be racist. Racist means "hatred".
Julia Mittros
· 6 years ago
Gene Expressions favorite writer on race is Rushton. Guess who else cites Rushton favorably for his views on race? Just about every racist or eugenics organization you can think of, that's who. For example you can read Rushton postulating on "Race and crime" on David Duke's website. http://www.duke.org/library/race/rushton-crime....
Rushton's funding comes from the Pioneer Fund, a neo-fascist eugenics-supporting organization.
Given that kind of intellectual company I'd have to conclude that, yeah, they are indeed racist.
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
Here's a comment that was directed at me by one of the regulars at Gene Expression:
The reason why the black illegitimacy rate has worsened faster than that for whites or orientals since WW2 is easy. The same environmental or cultural shift in the USA- loosely, towards "permissiveness"- has impacted more on the tribalistic phenotype of the Negroid (whose living conditions have converged with those of other Americans since desgregation) than on the more civilised phenotypes of Caucasoids and Mongoloids.
Is this racist, or not? We report, you decide.
David
· 6 years ago
Richard. The black illegitimacy rate has always been higher than the white rate in the USA. In 1900, in 1950, in 2002.
The rates for all races has been rising, but the black rate went from, in Moyniham's famous report (in 1964), from 25% to the nearly 70% today. The white rate in 1964 was much smaller, and, as you know, is still smaller today (about 20-30%, in my recollection).
No, blacks aren't genetically all that different than they were 50 years ago. But the differences in the illegitimate birth rate continues.
You can argue whether that's genetic or social in origin, but it's dishonest to make the claim you did, and you know it.
David
the alpha male
· 6 years ago
The invective some of you direct at members of Gene Expression amounts to nothing more than ideological chicanery. Gene Expression is open to all points of view in regards to Human Biodiversity. My advice to anyone interested is to go see for your self what Gene Expression is all about. Check out the archives, read the posts, and the responses for a few weeks and come to your own conclusions. Only someone deeply committed to a particular ideology would be so closed minded as to characterize individuals who are genuinely interested in individual and group differences out of curiosity as racists. You seem to like to bifurcate the world into two camps. Those who are open to possible population differences are labelled as racists and those who are closed minded to the possibility of ethnic differences as non-racist.
I cannot for the life of me, think of anything more obscurantist than to oppose ideas that may interfere with one?s beliefs. As someone who has always supported the goal of one-man one vote and equality before the law in South Africa, and is opposed to discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender, I am rather perturbed by your ignominious accusations of racism. I also happen to firmly believe in the way in which science operates. And right now, the weight of the evidence is clearly leaning heavily towards ethnic/population differences in a wide variety of abilities, traits, and aptitudes. The only way I would shift my views from the views I currently hold (and I am assuming most if not all of the members of Gene Expression would do the same), would be if there were a shift in scientific evidence supporting the absence of ethnic/population differences. If you don?t like Rushton?s or Jensen?s work because you feel it is tainted by their prejudicial, racist views, then conduct your own studies and have them peer reviewed in a respected journal. Perhaps you are afraid what you may find.
You're taking one person's views (W.J. Phillip) as representative of the views of the entire blog. W.J. has had disagreements with other members of Gene Expression in the past, mostly in regards to religion. When I read what W.J. had posted, in regards to the black illegitimacy rate, I knew that it would be taken by Richard Bennett as an example of Gene Expression?s ecumenical view on the matter. Why is it inconceivable that those opinions stated by W.J. are just W.J.'s opinions? I don?t necessarily agree with W.J.?s view 100%, especially the way he characterizes it as a fact, but it is a plausible explanation nonetheless.
Julia Mittros: You are setting up a Straw Man when you say, ?Gene Expressions favorite writer on race is Rushton?. In fact, he is not their favourite writer on race. I have read a few posters comment on some of Ruston?s theories that are positive and I have read comments that view some of Rushton?s theories in a negative light. And just because white supremacist groups happen to quote Rushton?s work because it is inline with their ideology doesn?t discredit Rushton. Marxists are firm believers in egalitarianism, but it would be wrong of me to assume that everyone who is egalitarian is a Marxist. Most Canadians are in favour of public health care (a socialist program), but they are, for the most part, neither socialists nor Marxists.
If there were a favourite writer among Gene Expressionists, Jensen would seem to be your man, at least in terms of writing on intelligence. If Jensen is such a racist, why is he always touting the benefits of miscegenation? Hybrid vigour, also known as heterosis is, in Jensen?s view (pages 196, 327; Jensen, ?The g Factor?) a eugenic outcome of race mixing.
razib
· 6 years ago
remember when people were getting on LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS for the comments that were being posted on its message boards by some persons? smearing that blog because of the message boards was asinine in my opinion. what next? attack blogs where one might sumrise that people might have salacious thoughts? perhaps readers of ANDREW SULLIVAN fantasize about bareback sex-eeewwww....
quote me all you want-i'm sure you can find all you want to 'incriminate' me richard-but don't EVER expect me to go around banning people if they are stating their opinions and avoiding personal attacks. (i have a pretty high tolerance of attacks directed at me-as you might have noticed since you told me take my penis out of [my brain] on my own blog-i tend to ban people only when they attack others on the message board).
Richard Bennett
· 6 years ago
I'm less permissive than you, Razib. Because you made a libelous statement in your last comment (which I've corrected), you're banned from posting comments on this site.
Free Speech doesn't mean I have to provide you with the means to break the law.
David
· 6 years ago
Always easier to prevent someone from talking than to address the "libel," eh, Dick?
David
Diana
· 6 years ago
LOL! What? You've banned Razib after one comment while you've put half a dozen on his blog???
"Have you no shred of decency, sir? Have you no shame?"
Of course, you know where _that_ quote is from!
(I have responded to your weak objections to my post about Ashkenazi Jews and HBC on Razib's blog, and I look forward to reading your responses, which I am sure Razib will allow.)
Razib, "intelligence" is contextural. For example, in the context of a literate environment, a person who uses the word "effect" when the proper term is "affect" is subnormal. Speaking as a person who has in his life earned all the requisite labels - scholarships, SAT scores, the works - in the top 99% from start to finish - let me tell you that life has taught me that the smartest person around is usually the one who works the hardest.
That's why I find all this pseudoscientific discussion of "race" & "intelligence" to be so much bunk. It always hides some other agenda. It is, I suppose, a discussion that interests those without much experience of life.
All Comments
Let's face it, the very first thing a man ought to do when told by a woman that she is pregnant with that man's son is to order a DNA test.
In every case. And given the treachery being coached into women today by feminism, that would include a man's wife.
Get that DNA test. Always.
w h hall jr
Mr. Hall, your attitude is like that of the Klan lynch mobs who said it didn't matter which negro they hanged, since they're all guilty. I don't agree.
I'm trying to see the good part of the story.
It isn't that Grant had to take a blood test first -- that's a prudent move. It's that the court had to force him to comply. Seems more likely that he was well aware the paternity could be his.
...the HIV-positive, bareback riding Mr. Sullivan...
One can argue about the medical dangers of this behavior -- and I don't know enough to comment on that -- but at least he's not fathering children and shirking responsibility. Rather, it's just an ad hominem attack.
Nice try BUT the first two words sum up Mr. Grants position quite nicely. Since he avoided his responsibility for "years" and then had to be brought to court just to have the test makes it clear what his thoughts were about paying support for his child. Of course the fact that this is the second time this has happened with Mr. Grant also speaks volumes about his character.
I wonder which city agency was not helpful in pursuing this matter and if Mr. Grant was a factor in it's reluctance??
RE: What Happens Indeed
"But let's suppose that I'm all wet and this Roscoe Grant character is a scumbag would should be fired from his job in the DC government; what happens to young Octavious and his momma when Roscoe no longer has a paycheck? That's what I mean about the hypocrisy.-- Richard Bennet
What happens, SFB, is that Roscoe goes back to court and pleads that he has had a significant change of income and goes through the proper drill of having his payments adjusted accordingly. [Note: This is the voice of experince(s) speaking.]
Personally, children are a lever used by divorced women to get money out of men. If you doubt that, let me introduce you to a former Mrs. Pelto, a.k.a. Sharon. Supposedly she's in the market again. After raping her second the same way she raped me.
Another observation...
...I notice a lot of people who are complaining about the way Washington DC's government 'works' are 'white'.
I'm beginning to wonder why that is so.
RE: Married Men
"Married men are the legal fathers of all children conceived during the marriage, so DNA testing in these cases is irrelvent, Paul." -- Richard Bennet
Even if they are not the DNA contributors.
Now...
...there's something to rage about. But I don't see you 'raging'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Women: The unfair sex. -- The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce]
What do Andrew Sullivan's sexual habits have to do with this issue? The comment is complete ad hominem. (Secondarily, what is the supposed problem with this behavior when practiced between consenting adults?)
This is dubious. If you want child support, there is one and only one agency to see, the Dept. of Child Support. Everyone in the welfare community acutely know this, so the only reason the woman could have gone to other city agencies was to smear Mr. Grant by passing gossip about him.
If it took the woman years to do this, she obviously wasn't hurting for money or on welfare.
Then you aren't paying attention. I sponsored the bill in the California Legislature would have relieved men misidentified as fathers from the child support obligation (to someone else's children).
The governor vetoed it, so I'll pass it again. Stay tuned.
If you're going to condemn others for their sexual practices, as Sullivan does with Grant, your own had better be pure.
Since there is more than one strain of the HIV, bareback sex is inappropriate for HIV-positives, even with other HIV-positives.
That's what courts are for, dude.
It's nice of you to be concerned with the health of Mr. Sullivan and his partners, but the appropriateness of a behavior is rightly determined by those whom it affects.
Grant is paying only $300 a month (salary of $100,000 a year) for his 5- year-old illegitimate daughter; I suspect the $2,000 a month ordered for Octavious includes back child support.
I have sympathy for some fathers who don't pay child support, but not this guy. He obviously thought the kid might be his, even if he wasn't sure. He could have volunteered for a test to decide the issue when the boy was a baby. But nobody made him, so he ducked out. And now he's making the kid, who grew up destitute, wait more than six months to get any help.
The mother is a complete jerk too, but she's not on the city payroll.
But the law does not care if the "child support" is really supporting a child. The law is a blunt instrument.
But you only write this crap because "there are cases where hypocrisy crosses a line and becomes obscene and therefore worthy of mention." And the "obscene" hypocrisy is that Andrew Sullivan, an OPENLY HIV+ man who has in the past sought sex with other HIV+ men, linked to a story about a government official whose private affairs appear to clash mightily with his public duties? There is obscenity on display in your post, but not it's not in the direction your index finger points. Three fingers on your hand are pointing in the right direction though.
The navel of the blogosphere, Mr Bennett? Go a little lower on the body, male and female , front and rear. Your retread slurs against Sullivan are scabby enough but to pretend that real concern lies behind your dishonest shorthand for Sullivans's circumstances is a breakthrough in scumbucket polemics. You should add it to your resume.
I wouldn't pay an unemployed crackhead either, but that's just me.
Some time after that, an aunt took custody, which means that mom has an obligation to pay child support as well. I don't see anybody complaining about her.
With the interest charged on unpaid child support, and the fact that money paid without a court order is not considered child support under the law, Mr. Williams will be paying the mom at least until the boy is 35 or 40; is this "child support" or "mom support"?
I'm a traditionalist in this area, & have for many years thought that men should be held strictly responsible for supporting their children, out of wedlock or otherwise. But the law in so many areas - abortion is the most obvious - has reached the conclusion that women are autonomous in all their sexual decisions, regardless of the interest of the man, even if they are married (to each other) that I have strong doubts whether the traditionalist view makes any sense any more. It surely does not make sense to a lot of women when it comes to regulating their sexual behavior - but of course, when it comes to paying over some money, they are all traditionalists!
So I've about reached my own conclusion that the law should be radically simplified - if a woman has a child by a man to whom she is not married, it is her problem, and not the man's responsibility.
The objection will be raised that this hurts the kids, but that might not prove true. In the first place, it looks like the kids are being hurt anyway. And in the second place, maybe women will get their heads screwed (pardon the pun) on straight and stop doling out free sex to any guy that comes along.
I don't think that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the results of all these sexually irresponsible people. And the outcome of welfare reform seems to me to suggest very strongly that if we stop paying women to support out of wedlock children, they will stop having them.
Why did Grant pay for the first few years - because he didn't think the child was his?
Do you not see a problem with a man with two illegitimate children he does not care for being in charge of the Department of Child Support? Sure, he has experience, but that means you should make a lifer the warden, too.
Jeez, might as well pick a convicted crack smoker for the mayor. Oh, wait...
Maybe he was just trying to be a nice guy. I don't think, however, that this good beahvior should be held against him, because there are lot of men paying money for children they didn't father - probably 20% of child support orders have misidentified the father.
As to whether the father of an out-of-wedlock child should be allowed to work in the child support agency, I have to say that it's been my experience as a child support agency overseer that a large number of child support recipients are employed by these agencies, and that's not held against them. So sauce for the goose, etc.
Take that for what it's worth.
2. The child support will be paid -- if Grant ever does pay -- to Octavious, since he's now over 18. It will not go to his mother.
3. It's not true that a welfare mother can stick some guy with child support obligations by giving a phony address. A husband is presumed to be the father of his wife's child unless he proves otherwise. There's no such presumption if the couple isn't married and the man hasn't voluntarily declared himself to be the father. A paternity test is required before support can be ordered.
Making a false statement to collect welfare -- such as lying about the father's identity -- is a federal crime. As a reporter, I sat in on welfare intake interviews. Pregnant women are warned that their statement will be investigated, and that it's a crime to lie about anything. Almost always, of course, they're claiming not to know who the father is because they don't want the boyfriend to have to pay.
1. You don't know what happened with respect to custody and contact, and neither do I. But it is not the case that some guy can just "take custody" of a child without a court order. It's called kidnapping.
2. Child support is never, ever owed to the child directly - it's a debt that as a matter of law belongs to the custodial parent, regardless of the child's age. This is such a bizarre claim that it makes me shudder that a former journalist who's covered this issue could make it.
3. A husband is ALWAYS presumed to be the father of the issue of the marriage, EVEN if he can prove he's not the biological father. This has been the case for hundreds of years. It is also NOT the case that a paternity test is required in order to establish a child support order: a voluntary declaration on the man's part will do, as will a declaration by the woman that isn't challenged in 90 days. I know you covered a bill on this subject matter at the Merc, because I sent you the info on it.
It's also the case that false statements about paternity are almost never followed-up by prosecution. If you can find even one case in California where this has happened, I'll eat Rushton's research on head size and IQ.
Don't think I'll be back for a second look at your site. Oh well.
Please. You are just being silly now. He had sex with the woman, so he had knew he was a candidate for fatherhood.
The child support orders have nothing to do with anything, since he was doing it voluntarily.
And if it was good behavior to pay, wasn't it bad behavior not to pay?
And the bottom line is, he turns out to be the father.
I don't see where any of it makes him out to be a good guy.
DC gets the government it deserves, I guess.
http://www.duke.org/library/race/rushton-crime....
Rushton's views on race are also considered favorably by the Aryan Nations:
http://www.twelvearyannations.com/thefacts/fact...
Rushton's funding comes from the Pioneer Fund, a neo-fascist eugenics-supporting organization.
Given that kind of intellectual company I'd have to conclude that, yeah, they are indeed racist.
The reason why the black illegitimacy rate has worsened faster than that for whites or orientals since WW2 is easy. The same environmental or cultural shift in the USA- loosely, towards "permissiveness"- has impacted more on the tribalistic phenotype of the Negroid (whose living conditions have converged with those of other Americans since desgregation) than on the more civilised phenotypes of Caucasoids and Mongoloids.
Is this racist, or not? We report, you decide.
The rates for all races has been rising, but the black rate went from, in Moyniham's famous report (in 1964), from 25% to the nearly 70% today. The white rate in 1964 was much smaller, and, as you know, is still smaller today (about 20-30%, in my recollection).
No, blacks aren't genetically all that different than they were 50 years ago. But the differences in the illegitimate birth rate continues.
You can argue whether that's genetic or social in origin, but it's dishonest to make the claim you did, and you know it.
David
I cannot for the life of me, think of anything more obscurantist than to oppose ideas that may interfere with one?s beliefs. As someone who has always supported the goal of one-man one vote and equality before the law in South Africa, and is opposed to discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender, I am rather perturbed by your ignominious accusations of racism. I also happen to firmly believe in the way in which science operates. And right now, the weight of the evidence is clearly leaning heavily towards ethnic/population differences in a wide variety of abilities, traits, and aptitudes. The only way I would shift my views from the views I currently hold (and I am assuming most if not all of the members of Gene Expression would do the same), would be if there were a shift in scientific evidence supporting the absence of ethnic/population differences. If you don?t like Rushton?s or Jensen?s work because you feel it is tainted by their prejudicial, racist views, then conduct your own studies and have them peer reviewed in a respected journal. Perhaps you are afraid what you may find.
You're taking one person's views (W.J. Phillip) as representative of the views of the entire blog. W.J. has had disagreements with other members of Gene Expression in the past, mostly in regards to religion. When I read what W.J. had posted, in regards to the black illegitimacy rate, I knew that it would be taken by Richard Bennett as an example of Gene Expression?s ecumenical view on the matter. Why is it inconceivable that those opinions stated by W.J. are just W.J.'s opinions? I don?t necessarily agree with W.J.?s view 100%, especially the way he characterizes it as a fact, but it is a plausible explanation nonetheless.
Julia Mittros: You are setting up a Straw Man when you say, ?Gene Expressions favorite writer on race is Rushton?. In fact, he is not their favourite writer on race. I have read a few posters comment on some of Ruston?s theories that are positive and I have read comments that view some of Rushton?s theories in a negative light. And just because white supremacist groups happen to quote Rushton?s work because it is inline with their ideology doesn?t discredit Rushton. Marxists are firm believers in egalitarianism, but it would be wrong of me to assume that everyone who is egalitarian is a Marxist. Most Canadians are in favour of public health care (a socialist program), but they are, for the most part, neither socialists nor Marxists.
If there were a favourite writer among Gene Expressionists, Jensen would seem to be your man, at least in terms of writing on intelligence. If Jensen is such a racist, why is he always touting the benefits of miscegenation? Hybrid vigour, also known as heterosis is, in Jensen?s view (pages 196, 327; Jensen, ?The g Factor?) a eugenic outcome of race mixing.
quote me all you want-i'm sure you can find all you want to 'incriminate' me richard-but don't EVER expect me to go around banning people if they are stating their opinions and avoiding personal attacks. (i have a pretty high tolerance of attacks directed at me-as you might have noticed since you told me take my penis out of [my brain] on my own blog-i tend to ban people only when they attack others on the message board).
Free Speech doesn't mean I have to provide you with the means to break the law.
David
"Have you no shred of decency, sir? Have you no shame?"
Of course, you know where _that_ quote is from!
(I have responded to your weak objections to my post about Ashkenazi Jews and HBC on Razib's blog, and I look forward to reading your responses, which I am sure Razib will allow.)
That's why I find all this pseudoscientific discussion of "race" & "intelligence" to be so much bunk. It always hides some other agenda. It is, I suppose, a discussion that interests those without much experience of life.