House of Eratosthenes

“We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding,” writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the [Florida Supreme] court.

“We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized,” he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: “While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present.”

Huh. It’s the guy’s fault for trusting his wife.

So…as more and more men marry later or not at all, and as their mothers and sisters and girlfriends cluck their tongues at them for holding fast to bachelorhood, and womankind in general gets all cheesed off about this trend — link, link, link, link — it’s nice to have Florida’s highest court tell us that’s exactly the way it’s supposed to be.

We need a new legal term to describe the affront to justice taking place here. It’s not limited to the simple tried-and-true “rule against whoever has a penis” thing. It’s a subset of judicial activism, and it has to do with declaring that justice can be upheld while one person’s rights are unapologetically denied, by pronouncing those rights to be mutually exclusive from, and subordinate to, someone else’s rights. In effect, saying, “As a judge I can’t be fair to everyone…so I’ll just do my duty to the benefit of this person over here, and not for that person over there — day’s work is done! Sucks to be you!”

Selective justice, I suppose you could call it.

Flashback to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black’s comments in Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) regarding Japanese internment:

We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier.

Now reviled as a low nadir in the annals of Supreme Court common sense. But the logic is exactly the same.

Not sure what the best language is to use here, since I’m not a lawyer. But surely there is an implied contract here that is being abandoned; a contract that says when you’re a judge, there are things you’re supposed to be doing. Most of us have the expectation that when we go to court, at the end of the trial it ought to be said that the outcome wasn’t necessarily pleasant for all concerned, but it was — something else. Like fair. Just. The redress of grievances was fulfilled. All parties extracted from the situation what they got comin’ to ’em, whether they liked it or not.

This practice is quite plain and simply a deviation from that contract. Mutual exclusivity says everyone can’t possibly get what they rightfully deserve…so as a judicial officer, that lets me off the hook, and I’m just going to give some of the participants what they rightfully deserve and thumb my nose at the rest.

Regarding the paternity issues, there’s an interesting school of thought at work here. It has merit…but in my lifetime, I’ve never seen it quite get the thoughtful inspection I think it deserves, before our entire system of family law is surrendered to it.

The idea behind the deadline is that any action taken in a marriage breakup should be completed while the child is as young as possible to avoid a major disruption during the most formative years.

“We don’t want a system where a child is 10 years old and you have people who come in and undo what has been put in place many years before,” says Susan Paikin of the Center for the Support of Families in Silver Spring, Md.

Ms. Paikin says that it is up to the adults in the relationship to thoroughly investigate any paternity issues at the time of the divorce.

We really don’t want that kind of system? Gee, I dunno. Mr. Parker’s kid is three, not ten. Formative years? Certainly. But…the issue is who’s going to take on the role of Dad, not who is going to be stuck with the bill. Those are two different things. We seem to be presuming one course of action will have some devastating effect on the child’s status quo under the most beneficial circumstances, and the other course will have none at all. I find both of those premises to be on the shaky side.

Might they be opened to inspection sometime?

Here’s a thought. Hire a private investigator. Obviously, finding a biological dad is not a task that can be guaranteed a successful completion in all cases — but try. The gumshoe wouldn’t be needed unless the Mom refuses to say who the real father is. Or does not know. She has control over the situation. So if you need to bring in a P.I., charge the bill to her.

Just like an insurance company giving up after some point, and eventually settling on a building they “know” was burned deliberately just to make the whole thing go away. Fine, there’s a point of diminishing returns, and after awhile you give up. But first, try to find him.

Try, to the tune of…let’s say, five thousand dollars. If she doesn’t work and is depending on her ex-husband’s alimony, give the ex-husband credit on the alimony. She’ll just have to go with basic cable for awhile, until the court finds out what she doesn’t want to tell them. Meanwhile, the jilted husband can go on being “dad” — should he want to — so the kid’s life isn’t disrupted. What would be the problem with that?

Some cock-and-bull story about hurting the kid? Or, it would tick off the wrong people?

Judges and lawyers are often heard to say that the justice system is a vital underpinning to a civilized society. If “justice” is a term that stipulates Mr. Parker should be stuck with the tab, then someone needs to sit down and have an open discussion about what the word means.

There is justice; there is anarchy. Contrary to popular belief, both may be dispensed in doses large and small; you can have little teaspoon-sized servings of anarchy. Does that mean a little bit o’anarchy will send us down a slippery slope, to a Mad Max type of society? Maybe not — but I think most people would agree when a judge makes a decision about whether to serve justice or anarchy, is oath should be compelling him to opt for the former. Regardless of which activist groups want to use the “FOR THE CHILLLLLDDDDDRRRRREEEEENNNN…!!!” meme to allow their constituents to get away with deliberate fraud.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Dad Wasn’t Dad But Must Pay Support AnywaySaturday, February 10th, 2007

Dad Wasn’t Dad But Must Pay Support Anyway
Saturday, February 10th, 2007