This is a case in tort for fraud, not an issue of child support or parental obligation.

Assume the facts of the suit to be true: woman meets man for sexual intercourse upon which both consent. Man's consent is conditioned on no pregnancy. Woman states that no protection is necessary as she is sterile. At the time she makes this assertion she knows she is actually fertile and makes such statement in order to gain a benefit from the man (a child and support) and such statement acts to the man's detriment (obligation to pay support).

That is the legal definition of fraud. Man is entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages.

Let us set aside the issue of punitive damages and consider the compensatory damages.

Each state sets rules and standards for child support depending on each party's relative incomes. Depending on the state, man here may be required to pay some amount of child support until the child attains 18 years of age, graduates from high school or is otherwise emancipated. One exception is relinguishing his parental rights, but that cannot be done unilaterally unless the mother and the state agree. Assume they don't. Man is now suffering child support expenses due to woman's fraud.

The issue is not over the support obligation. The obligation of support is not to the mother, but to the child. The child here is an innocent party (or a BFP in commercial transaction cases). No court, let alone the Supremes is going to challenge this premise. The child needs to be supported as a minor. It took both parties to conceive the child, and both are equally responsible to support the child relative to their respective incomes and each state's support guidelines.

The real issue is whether the father's support obligations should be reimbursed by the mother due to her fraud. That is, should he be compensated for his support as damages resulting from the fraud she committed.

Of course he should.

Now dumbass dad here, if he really wanted to get relief, would have brought this action in fraud. He did not, probably because she is judgment proof. While the state can array quite a formidable legal team against the father to collect support, complete with the threat of incarceration, all the father can go against the mother is engage in an endless, costly, and often fruitless chase against her probably limited assets, ones she can easily hide or avoid through bankruptcy.

Not fair, eh? Yeah true, but that is an issue of civil versus family financial legal obligations and powers of collections. The point is, this case is fraud. So long as some baby pops out of a womb and asks "Where's dinner?" courts are not going to cut loose anyone responsible for their obligation to support the child.

This is a true life imitates art story. Check with your fellow writers who have tabs on porn movies starring Ron Jeremy, because I recall from my college years seeing a certain stag film starring Ron Jeremy in which his secretary shuns his leering and clumsy advances. Then, one day he meets a young blond and performs oral sex on her. Later when he returns to work, his secretary smells her vulvic presence on his face and succumbs to his every angled blandishments. The rest of the movie details finding this woman and collecting her vulvic excretions for sale as a men's cologne. I don't know about you, but if I was the maker of this movie I'd be suing for damages. The funny thing is 1) why would any man want to attract women by slathering their nether scents on his face, or 2) why would any woman pay for such a fragrance when it would be much cheaper to insert finger, rub a few minutes and dab behind the ears?

As for a male counterpart? Honestly, you jest! As soon as I'm done snorfing my pizza bagel bites through my nose I'll try to explain how male "essence" is to perfume what "wet dog in heat" is to air freshener.

Let's see, Dick Cheney appointed himself in charge of selecting the veep for Bush. He then personally selects himself above all other candidates as the veepest with the mostest. Now he claims that he did not volunteer for the job. Only in Deadeye Dick's world could this statement be "basically correct." What I don't know is if he is mentally disturbed or just likes to get his jollies lying to a fawning uncritical press.

I can just picture Karl Rove standing offstage loading up the Thorazine dartgun.

Dick Cheney says he didn't chose to be veep, it was thrust upon him. Karl Rove says Bush didn't chose to invade Iraq, it just happened on his watch. Katrina? Who could possibly expect a hurrican would hit New Orleans and breach it's levees? When these yahoos harp and rant againts the Baby Boomers and their '60's mentality of do what feels good whithout accepting any responsibility, well, we know now they know of what they speak.

I was raised a Catholic. I became an agnostic when the virtues they tought me at St. James, tolerance, virtue, love, sacrifice and acceptance of others, came to sharp blows with a church that demanded intolerance, virtuousness and sacrifice only to the church and acceptance of only the church dogma. I suspect most secularists and agnostics came to their state for the same reasons: they chose to embrace their religion's values over their religion.

I work for the govt. and can't afford TiVo. Would you please, please, pretty please, put up the video (or find me a link) of the Bush montage (from the same show) of his justification for the Iraq War. The one that ends "by repeating the same thing over and over again." That is a classic that should be the Dem's first attack ad of the 06 election.