2009 Shows

(Original Air Date: 10/22/08) Once a woman has a baby, the biological father is legally bound to provide financial support for the child. But what should a man do if he discovers he's responsible for a child he didn't know existed? Two years ago, Matt appeared on the show to discuss his court case dubbed "Roe vs. Wade for Men." Since then, Matt's case has been thrown out of court multiple times. And his mom, Diane, says the state has made an example out of her son and destroyed him financially and emotionally. Joining Matt and Diane is Mel Feit, Matt's advocate and director of the National Center for Men, and Gloria Allred, president of the Women's Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund. Don't miss the lively debate that ensues! Next, Nicol says she thought she and her husband, Noel, had the ideal family life with a happy marriage and two children. Her dream shattered when Noel's ex-girlfriend called and requested that he get a DNA paternity test for a baby he never knew existed. Find out how the test results have changed Noel and Nicol’s lives. And, you won't believe what the baby's mother has to say! Then, what happens if a man becomes a sperm donor for a friend and years later she takes him to court for child support? Attorney John Purcell represented a man in a similar case which changed the law in Pennsylvania. And, TV and radio star Jay Thomas was contacted by his biological son 18 years after he was placed for adoption. He shares the story of their meeting. Find out if it's been a smooth reunion for Jay and his child or if they've hit rocky patches. Talk about the show here.

Find out what happened on the show.
Replied By: noapollonia on Apr 28, 2016, 12:39PM
On the Noel and Nicole case, I honestly am on their side - why should the other woman be allowed to come back years later and demand support money? She made a conscious decision to keep the child and then not tell the guy when the kid was born.

I do have a solution that should be placed as a law that I think would be fair to both the guy and the girl in the situation. As soon as the mother finds out she is pregnant, she gets a couple weeks to make her decision whether to keep it or have an abortion. It is her body, so she gets the first decision. So if she chooses not to abort, by the end of the couple weeks she must tell the father of the pregnancy. At that time, he gets the same couple weeks to make his decision - he either gets on board at least to the extent of child support or signs a form in front of a judge waiving his parental rights and having a financial abortion. If he chooses to be on board, great - if not, the woman again gets the choice to abort, keep it, or put it up for adoption once it's born. So at that point, it's the woman still choosing whether or not to bring the baby into this world, but the guy does get an out if he honestly does not want a child.
Replied By: felix83 on Jun 14, 2015, 9:26PM
Here are the facts: Women can choose to become pregnant or not become pregnant and men can choose to impregnate or not impregnate.  If a woman chooses to become pregnant she has many options; however, if she chooses not to become pregnant she has only one method that is 100% effective.  The other methods carry some risk of pregnancy and health risks.  If a man chooses to impregnate a woman he has many options; however, if he chooses not to impregnate a woman he too has only one method that is 100% effective.  The remaining options (and I think that there are only two---prophylactics and vasectomies) carry some risk of pregnancy and I don’t think either one carries any health risk.

So, let’s get real, it is the 21st century and all adults living in America know how NOT to get pregnant or how NOT to impregnate.   But that is not the issue.  The issue is…who is responsible for a pregnancy?  And what is repeatedly coming up as a part of this conversation both directly and indirectly is that it is women who are responsible or have power over human reproduction.  Whether it is in the form of having a planned pregnancy, creating a deceptive pregnancy, terminating a pregnancy, giving away a child or requesting child support, it comes across that women have all of the responsibility/power. 

So here is the bottom line…American women do have the responsibility/power over human reproduction.  Why?  Because men give it to them.  Not because of Roe v. Wade or because of “The Pill” but because the men who are in the position of having an unwanted child gave away their power by not exercising THEIR birth control options.  And yes, having only three choices sucks!  But anytime a man relies on a woman to be the responsible one for preventing a pregnancy he is giving away HIS POWER and yes, HIS CHOICE to that woman! And it does not matter whether a woman tells you that she is using protection, anytime anyone tries to control the behavior of another person by placing responsibility on that other person (and yes, that is what this is); it is always a tricky proposition.  And this how the courts view it, power and choice were given away.  The only way to guarantee 100% that an individual will have the outcome that they desire (especially in this situation) is to control their own behavior or their own birth control.  

But not paying for child support is not okay…it is not the kid’s fault.  Instead, and this is just a recommendation, how about pushing for more contraceptive choices for men?  I find it interesting that the greatest achievement over the past 40 years in male reproduction is ED medication…how is that going to give men greater power and choice in NOT having a child?

Replied By: truljames73 on Apr 29, 2015, 10:55AM - In reply to bdycus
I agree with you and the 2nd couple the man said he didnt use a condom so that was his fault he didnt take the percautions just becuz she said she was on birth control. So now this poor kid has to suffer no he has a responsibility to make sure if he doesnt want kids to wrap it up. And ususally thats the problem the man doesnt take responibility and he then says he didnt want to have a child. Just becuz a woman says shes on birth control doesnt mean u shouldn't protect yourself cuz in the end its your responsible for your own actions.
Replied By: birger on Jul 28, 2014, 7:34PM
Gloria Allred spun her position with double standards.  On the one hand she railed against the father because he didn't want to be financially responsible for the child, but on the other hand defended the mother's right to chose whether she wanted to be a mother or not.  I am a woman, but I have to say that I do believe in the rights of both parties regarding reproductive rights.  If women want to be able to go after men for support, then men should have equal rights regarding whether a child is brought into the world.  We can't have double standards regarding reproductive rights.
Replied By: lizawren on Oct 2, 2013, 1:26PM - In reply to bdycus
Kudos to you for a great reply and for you and your husband for ultimately being the kind of people your kids are/will be so proud to call their parents
Replied By: lizawren on Oct 2, 2013, 1:21PM
Rarely have I seen a person as ugly on the inside as that woman from the second couple. With all her talk about 'our perfect circle' and how news of the half-sibling will 'devastate' her kids, she makes it plain that her values are incredibly superficial. The news won't devastate her kids, but her poisonous attitude certainly might. Life isn't perfect, and it's not supposed to be; we wouldn't learn much then, would we? Sometimes God throws a wrench into our 'perfect' plans that seems like a terrible misfortune, but turns out to be our greatest blessing because of the lessons in compassion, humility, and love that we've gained from the experience.
Replied By: qtherapist on Dec 2, 2011, 9:45AM
I'm a marriage and family therapist and I try to see both sides of the issue. It's obviously very heated. I don't mean to throw in a wrench but I'm curious about something if you all could give feedback about this scenario:

What if a woman takes a man's sperm after some form of consenting act, and takes it to the fertility clinic to get herself impregnated later. The man does not know about this. When the child is in elementary school, she sues for child support money but doesn't want father to visit. There's retroactive child support to be collected and he pays.

In terms of visitation - since the child is older, the court orders it so that the mother must supervise the visits with the father. She had turned the child to "against him" and the father has difficulty trying to establish some relationship with the child. There already is another man that the child has been calling "daddy. "

Isn't there an exploitive or fraudulent factor in this kind of situation?
Replied By: juniejones on Aug 20, 2011, 2:11AM - In reply to tyme4jack
Father's do not have a right to force a woman to have an abortion. This is because it is an invasive, traumatic procedure that a WOMAN must undergo. Period. No one can force a woman to do this. However, once the baby is in the world, the court is concerned about the baby's rights...not the father's. So yes, the father must pay up to help support an innocent child. A woman should't have to put her baby up for adoption b/c the baby's father doesn't want to pay. If you are male and don't like it, don't have sex. And I think the stories of women trapping men to get child support are a joke. It cost far more to raise a child per month than most men pay in support. Most people walking around complaining about child support are not millionaires that woman trapped. Please.
Replied By: juniejones on Aug 20, 2011, 2:00AM - In reply to cta2000
The double standard argument is a joke. There isn't a double standard in the law. The fact of the matter is that it is basic human anatomy. Women have more control over the pregnancy b/c they carry the child. Men can walk away and be footloose and fancy free for 9 months...and then cry in their beer when they have to pay child support. Wear a condom! The father on that show and his horrible wife made me sick. Take some responsibility. No one tricked you. We all learn that if you have sex a pregnancy can result. It is the chance you take.
Replied By: cta2000 on Aug 19, 2011, 8:38PM
There is clearly a double standard in our laws.  As a woman, I believe in equal rights, however in the case of reproductive choice, the rights do not seem to be equal at all.  If a man and a woman choose to have sex and that act results in the birth of a baby, the man is financially responsible for that child even if he makes it very clear that he does not choose to be a father.  This doesn't sound that crazy until you look at the woman's options.  If a woman chooses to have sex with a man and that act results in a pregnancy, she then has the option of terminating the pregnancy if she does not feel ready to be a parent.  The man does not have that choice.  Then if she decides to go through with the pregnancy, she has another option to give the baby up for adoption.  So in short, if a woman chooses to have sex, she has two chances to change her mind about being a parent.  If a man chooses to have sex, he has no chances to change his mind about being a parent.  I completely agree with the men's rights advocate on the show today.  The man should be given a short window of time during which to make his choice known.  Then the woman can make her choice, knowing exactly where the man stands when doing so.  I was really upset by the behavior of the women's rights activist on the show and how she treated the men like heartless, selfish jerks.  Would she speak that way to a woman who chose abortion or adoption?  I doubt it...
Showing 1-10 of total 1007 Comments