Did One Fly Out of the Cuckold's Nest?

We can read about a small, perhaps even temporary victory for victims of paternity fraud, in this ABC News report from Christina Ng.

A man who discovered that the daughter he raised was not really his can sue the biological father for $190,000 -the estimated cost of raising her for 15 years - the Connecticut State Supreme Court has ruled.

Good for the court!

Eric Fischer saw the red flags. When his youngest daughter was born, his wife Pamela Tournier's close friend and business partner Richard Zollino rode home in the limo with the new parents. For the next 15 years, Zollino was omnipresent at the girl's musical recitals as well as her eighth grade graduation. And his youngest daughter did not look like his other two daughters, including one from a previous marriage.

Fischer decided to confirm what he already suspected. He "surreptitiously obtained" a hair sample from his daughter and sent it to lab with his own DNA sample and in October 2006, he received the results that "excluded the possibility that he was the younger daughter's father," according to a court document.

Fischer confronted his wife and they divorced in 2007.

The couple's separation agreement only listed the couple's elder daughter as issue of the marriage and Tournier testified that she believed the agreement was fair and that "she believed [Zollino] was the younger daughter's father and that he had provided the younger daughter with support since and would continue to do so," according to the court document.

I have to wonder how the marriage was otherwise?

Zollino submitted a DNA sample and it was confirmed that he was the girl's father.

He was the sperm donor. Her father is the man who raised her.

In 2008, Fischer filed a lawsuit against [Zollino] seeking damages on claims of nondisclosure, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

A lower court ruled against Fischer, saying that he "had held himself out to be the younger daughter's father, that he had caused her to rely on him to meet her financial and emotional needs, and that revealing her true parentage after she had been led to believe for her whole life that [Fisher] was her father, would be detrimental to her emotional well-being."

Well hey, that happened anyway, didn’t it? Why can’t the courts quietly and secretly award damages along with an order that the truth not be told to the child under penalty of violating the court order? He held himself out to be the girl's father because he was defrauded. A fraud victim does not lose his or her right to seek recourse just because they were duped. They have to be duped in the first place for the fraud to take place.

Pin the Tail on the Sperm Donor

Sometimes, Dear Abby gets it very wrong. UNSURE IN ILLINOIS wrote in to Dear Abby:

I am the mother of a beautiful daughter who has never met her real father.

You mean the sperm donor?

I wasn't sure about who he was, a fact I'm not proud of.

DNA tests are a must, guys, when it comes to those newborns.

I tried to convince myself that her dad was the one guy I really liked at the time, but as she has grown older, many of her mannerisms and little habits reflect characteristics of the other guy ("Bobby") who was also in my life then. I parted ways with both men while I was pregnant.

Ever hear of... adoption when you were that age? How about, oh, contraception?

I am currently married, although we are struggling. I am now questioning whether I should try to locate Bobby to see if he is the father. I don't expect anything from him, but I would like a resolution.

Hmmmm… she writes "we are struggling" and then writes "I don't expect anything from him." Riiiight.

This could strain my relationship with my husband, but if Bobby is the father, I strongly feel he has a right to know.

Why? Sound like you never told the other guy, either - he had just as much right to know as Bobby, right? Bobby had more of a right to know back when you were on your way to delivering. It is a little late now. Let's get real. She's hoping that Bobby will be rich and more attractive and nicer than her current husband, and that she can leave her current husband for Bobby. She admits it could cause strain in her marriage, and who knows what kind of strain it will cause her daughter and Bobby? She remembers Bobby as the guy she was having sex with all those years ago. He doesn't look the same anymore, and he probably doesn't act the same.

Dear Abby’s response was wrong...

Because you are willing to risk straining the relationship you have with your current husband, explain to him that you need to be sure of the identity of your daughter's father because the man's medical history could one day be important for her to have. It's the truth.

No, it isn't the truth. The girl's real father is the guy who is paying her bills and protecting her (he shouldn't have dated and married a mother of a minor child, and now he's going to suffer for having done so). She can send the daughter to get genetic tests and have medical exams that will determine possible medical issues. No need to contact Bobby.

Then contact both men you were seeing at the time of her conception, explain the situation, and request a DNA test.

Are you kidding me?!? More havoc?!? How about having her husband contact some old flings to check and see if they have any kids that could possibly be his biological offspring?

If you let them know that you don't expect anything from them but their medical history, they may be willing to comply -- and you'll have your answer.

She can say whatever she wants. A lawyer can still sue for back and future child support, and inheritance, on behalf of her daughter.

Guys, if you know you don't want (more) children and are fairly certain that will not change, and you're going to have sex with your wife or fornicate with women who are not your wife, get a vasectomy and have it verified with two sperm counts. Make deposits in a sperm bank first if you think you might change your mind about kids.

Don't Assume Monogamy

ScienceDaily.com reports on a study out of Oregon State University that, in a significant number of couples, there is either a false belief by one partner that there was a monogamy agreement, or amnesia on the part of the other parther regarding that agreement.

A new study of 434 young heterosexual couples ages 18-25 found that, in 40 percent of couples, only one partner says the couple agreed to be sexually exclusive. The other partner said there was no agreement.

And in those 40 percent, was the partner who believed there was a monogamy agreement always the female? We're not told.

Okay, first of all, 434 couples is a small sample.

Second, consider the ages.

I've said many times before that I believe sex is for the marriage, so strictly speaking, the unmarried couples should be "non-ogamous" in terms of having sex. But I also deal in reality. And the reality is, nobody should ever assume they are in a monogamous relationship unless it has been clearly discussed and there is a mutual agreement that it will be monogamous. Even then, people lie. But don't assume monogamy just because you're having sex, or going steady, or using the "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" label, or you're expecting, or shacking up.

Sexually active or not, most people should not be in exclusive relationships at that age. They should be focusing on education and career and they should be dating many people to learn more about themselves and others.

The results are in a forthcoming article published online in the Journal of Sex Research.

That's gotta be good reading.

Even among those who agreed they had an explicit agreement to be monogamous, almost 30 percent had broken the agreement, with at least one partner having had sex outside the relationship.

And here's something to keep in mind- you're not really monogamous if you do threesomes, swinging, or swapping. Or if you have sex with someone else who is a stripper. Or someone else while on vacation, or drunk.

The couples surveyed included both married and non-married couples. Interestingly, couples with children were less likely to have a monogamy agreement in place.

That's because one person is more likely to just assume it goes without saying.

Married couples were no more likely to have an explicit monogamy agreement in place than other couples.

Uhm, what about "forsaking all others"? Married people should demand monogamy. They should also provide monogamy- not "non-ogamy".

Men and women literally hear and think differently, so it is not surprising that one partner in a relationship might have assumptions that the other does not. Some women also have this script for their lives, and as long as the person one of these women has cast as her man doesn't say or do something in front of her that explicitly contradicts that script, she just assumes everything is like she hoped it would be. Monogamy may be part of that script. But guys should not be fooled into believing that just about all women demand monogamy in order to keep providing sex. For many women, the opposite is true. If she suspects a guy is having sex with other women, she tries to win him over by being "better" – being more sexually available and adventurous. She wants a man that she believes other women want. Some of these women are the ones who lose interest once a guy really does commit to them. This is one reason why unmarried guys who are sexually active, when asked by a woman "What are you doing this weekend?", should answer "having sex". This will drive away a woman who is looking for marriage and family, and it will prompt other women to be the person with whom he is having the sex.

Hey, Trust Me!

I'm fascinated by con artists, fakes, frauds, and scammers who mostly rely on human nature to pull of their scams. For example, they simply behave as though they belong some place that they don't and thus gain access they shouldn’t. Perhaps they’ve created a false background for themselves, especially with apparent connections to the rich and powerful. Sometimes, they "fake it until they make it". I've actually encountered a few con artists of this sort in-person – thankfully, I haven't lost any money or credibility to them.

I know of one that got caught in his lies and exposed and disappeared off the face of the planet, but only after gaining access to restricted properties and rubbing elbows with industry titans.

I know of another who is still going strong. He sells stuff online, and most customers seem to be happy, though every now and then I'll come across someone who didn't get the products for which they paid. This guy used a fake background and nonexistent business partners to launch his business. Actually, as far as I can tell, he is doing some good work, but I can't help but look at his work and think about how it was all enabled by fraudulent claims this guy made about himself.

Another person I know creates different personas for himself and appears on game shows, "reality" television, and entertainment news segments where he can keep his face concealed (providing "scandalous" information). I already knew to be skeptical about what I see on television that is supposedly "real", but now I know even more.

You see these tactics to a lesser extent with guys who are just looking to score with some woman they don't know. For example, my father told me of a guy who would go shoot pool with a buddy and would talk with his buddy as if he was a gynecologist. Women he didn't know would approach him to discuss their personal situations, and of course one thing would lead to another...

I bring this up because recently, Richard Winton had an article in the Los Angeles Times about a con artist.

Los Angeles police detectives said a smooth-talking con artist has used an elaborate scheme to steal thousands of dollars in cash and belongings from a salsa band, one of Israel's top basketball teams and Mexico's Chivas soccer team.

Investigators allege that the man used websites and social media to learn about visiting teams, artists and tourists' movements in downtown Los Angeles, then charmed his way into their private hotel rooms and suites when the visitors were away.

"These out-of-town visitors are often unfamiliar with their surroundings and are often carrying lots of cash," Police Lt. Paul Vernon said.

And, of course, the visitors think the con is with the facility or host, and the facility or host thinks the con is with the visitors.

This is a little like crashing a wedding. The groom's guests will think you know the bride, and vice-versa. I heard a caller to a radio show say he and his buddies would hook up with women by noting in the news when a young person around their ages had passed away, showing up at the services, and then pretending to have been friends of the deceased. Grieving young women, already emotional and looking for comfort, feel a connection to another mourner. And how many of us know all of our friend's or coworker's or cousin's friends?

These people take advantage of people having their guards down, confusion, and unfamiliarity – as well as people wanting to believe well of others and not wanting to seem rude or mean or step on the wrong toes. Sometimes, like a lot of "psychics", these people are very good at reading body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and taking hints from your appearance, and picking up things you've said in front of them that you don't even remember you said.

Whether meeting a potential love interest, going on vacation, throwing a party, or hiring someone, there are ways to safeguard against this sort of thing, and sometimes, we should. Con artists range from silly to murderous.

Nervous About Tests?

Imagine if your whole life really did rest on the results of a test. Alan Zarembo of the Los Angeles Times had an article on how DNA testing is revealing lies and secrets, including adoptions and paternity fraud.

In one case, two brothers were surprised to discover they had different fathers. They confronted their elderly mother, who denied the most obvious possibilities -- that she had been unfaithful to her husband, the man they had always known as Dad, or that one son was adopted.

Perhaps she was raped. Or maybe she is an adulterer and a liar.

How many of us are not our fathers' children?

The question has fascinated researchers as a window into the gap between a society's stated values and its behavior. A 2005 analysis of 17 studies -- based on blood and DNA tests of various groups -- concluded that the answer varies depending on country and culture. But the average rate is 4%.

Some studies show as high as 20%. But even at 4%, that means one in twenty-five kids are assigned to a man who isn't really the father and wasn't given the choice.

Breaking the news falls to genetic counselors, who often must balance competing ethical imperatives.

How ethical is being complicit in hiding the truth from a victim?

Ana Morales, a genetic counselor at the University of Miami, recalled the case of a child diagnosed with a type of albinism that can be accompanied by lung and kidney disease.

The mother "told me she was having an affair," Morales said.

"She said she would be in physical danger [if her husband found out]. He had threatened her if she was unfaithful."

Morales did not tell him.

If she was truly scared that he would be violent, she wouldn't have had the affair in the first place. If she wasn't scared enough to refrain from adultery, then the counselor should not be too scared to tell the guy he is a chump who is being defrauded. The adulterous woman can go to a shelter. She shouldn't be with a man who is violent anyway. Where is the proof that he is violent?

But withholding the information means that the woman's husband lives with the false belief that he is a carrier of a genetic disorder.

That sort of information is far from benign, said Dr. Wayne Grody, a UCLA geneticist. It could convince him to give up on the idea of having children. And in the event that the wife becomes pregnant by her husband, perpetuating the lie could require unnecessary prenatal testing.

"Why would you expose the next fetus to the risk of amniocentesis?" Grody asked.

To protect a woman's prerogative to cheat, of course.

DNA testing for newborns should be mandatory unless there is a sworn statement of it being against both "parents'" conscience (religion). If the DNA matches, assign paternity to the man. If it doesn't, give the man the choice of denying paternity.

Men can now get DNA testing kits and find out for themselves. Ah, how sweet it is. Unfortunately, even if he finds out that his wife is cheater and a liar, in most places and in most cases, he'll still have to pay her alimony and pay child support for another man's child should there be a divorce – even if she is the one to file.