Paternity 'Pre-Crime' is the Next Inevitable Phase

Why are fathers expected to kill the mother of their child in California?

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 07-13-03

The Justice Department may soon entertain the idea of considering paternity establishment as a motive for murder in some states. Not unlike the movie "Minority Report", a suspected father of a baby may be taken into custody by the authorities, forced to wear a "halo", stuck in a clear plastic tube, and then programmed to act passively when he is sentenced to indentured servitude for 18 years and denied contact with his child.

Paternity "pre-crime" could have possibly saved the life of Sandra Levy, Bonny-Lee Bakely, and Laci Peterson. The California Attorney General reports that 26% of all female homicide victims were killed by their spouse statewide. \1 Perhaps the homicide statistics would be even more telling if it related males and females who were parents of the same child, regardless of whether they were married.

What is the public's perceived motive for a father to murder the mother of his child in California? Did Gary Condit and Scott Peterson successfully "Throw Momma from the Train", since we know Robert Blake was in jail? Why was Dan Rather the only member of the media who didn't believe Gary Condit was guilty? How far away did Brothers have to go to exonerate himself, and why would he kill his children? Why did Mark Furman beat a path to O J Simpson's house after Nicole was found brutally murdered?

The fathers (or alleged fathers) mentioned above have yet to be convicted of a crime, but the public seems to assume they are obviously guilty. Gone are the days when a spouse kills a spouse when one of them is having an affair, in this age of "no fault" divorce. Now "the straw that breaks the camel's back" is when the dependent parent informs the family breadwinner: "I will kick you out of your house, force you into bankruptcy, and make sure you never see your kids again". Not because it is a terrorist threat, but rather because it is absolutely true. If a guy in a biker-bar holds a lotto ticket over his head and announces to the crowd: " Check it out you losers, I just won the 5 million dollar lotto and I haven't signed the ticket yet", who could resist the temptation to take advantage of the situation, or blame anyone who couldn't?

A breadwinner involved in a California custody battle can only hope to receive 50% custody of the children. The spoils of this miraculous accomplishment would allow this "deep pockets" parent to establish a new residence, care for the children half the time, and pay 19% of net income for 1 child, 30% for 2, and 38% for 3. A custody battle is hardly worth waging when shared parenting only reduces the support award by 6% of net income for 1 child, 10% for 2, and 12% for 3. \2

California led the nation in 2000 accumulating 987,267 paternity establishments (3,466 increase from 1999) and represents 15% of the national total of 6,535,116 (548,200 increase from 1999). \3 California paternity establishments represent 4% of the state's adult population of 31,171,082, but exceeds the entire adult population of the state of Idaho.

California led the nation in 2000 accumulating 1,527,959 out-of-wedlock births (107,172 decrease from 1999) and represents 15% of the national total of 10,098,357 (138,712 decrease from 1999). \3 California out-of-wedlock births represent 5% of the state's adult population, but exceeds the entire adult population of the state of Mississippi.

The difference between paternity establishments and out-of-wedlock births represent fathers who have yet to be identified by the state. Governor Gray Davis should have been arrested for inciting a riot, when he arrogantly forced paternity on innocent bystanders in the state's desperate attempt to find over half a million more. \4 540,692 outstanding out-of-wedlock births in California exceed the entire adult population of the state of South Dakota.

These sleepers are out there, and they may know they are being hunted, and many may wonder what they will do when they are force-fed family law injustice in the name of a child they never met. These ticking time bombs will become isolated and alienated by a family law system that exploits children for money, with the mother of their child as the only target for retaliation, if a vain attempt to disarm their assailant is planned. The true assailant is the family law system, the civil court, and the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies that portray themselves as an extension of the federal government.

The Legislative branch seems to be getting serious about the importance of fathers in the lives of their children. The findings that are put forth in the "Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2003" \5 seem to challenge family courts that recklessly segregate fathers from their children without justification. The laws are in place to protect NCPs from employer discrimination due to family law proceedings or judgments which seems to challenge employers to resist the temptation to interrupt child support payments to families by terminating employment without justification. \6 The legislative branch, at the state \7 and federal \8 level, has been guaranteed that all state's child support guidelines are less than the state's maximum welfare benefits. \9

The Legislative branch of our government is now in a position to rise up and demand "Let my people go". The Legislative branch must demand that the Judicial branch stop denying shared parenting without cause, and must limit child support awards to the maximum welfare benefits provided by their state. The Legislative branch must demand that the Executive branch must enforce the laws uniformly throughout each state, rather than imposing the laws that persecute NCPs while ignoring the laws that protect them.

The Judicial branch sets the stage for violence against mothers while the Executive branch is forced to somehow justify it. The Legislative branch is the only branch of government that the people control, but can the Legislative branch control the other two? This is exactly how revolutions begin, when the checks and balances, that are the foundation of a government, are somehow lost due to public apathy. As a father of 3 daughters, I refuse to expose them to a system that puts them in harms way, and I'm sure I don't stand alone.


\1 CA Dept. of Justice - Homicide in California, 2000, Chart 15 - "Gender of Victim by Relationship of Victim to Offender"
\2 California Family Code, CAFC 4055, "The statewide uniform guideline for determining child support orders"
\3 Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Table 58 "Paternity Establishment (PEP)"
\4 Jasmine Lee, Daily Breeze, 09-28-02,"Davis vetoes tests to ID dads", "PATERNITY: Men forced to support children not their own say bill would have offered relief. They vow to fight on"
\5 US Senate, Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2003 (S.604)
\6 USC 42 666 (b)(6)(D) - Provision must be made for the imposition of a fine against any employer who -
(i) discharges from employment, refuses to employ, or takes disciplinary action against any noncustodial parent subject to income withholding required by this subsection because of the existence of such withholding and the obligations or additional obligations which it imposes upon the employer; or
(ii) fails to withhold support from income or to pay such amounts to the State disbursement unit in accordance with this subsection.
\7 Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office Of The Courts, Chapter 3, "Monthly Child Support Order"
\8 US House, Ways and Means Committee, 2000 Greenbook, Table 8-2, "Interstate Child Support Guidelines For Various Cases"
\9 US House, Ways and Means Committee, 2000 Greenbook, Table 7-9, "Maximum Combined TANF And Food Stamp Benefit For Families Of One To Six Persons"

Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507,,

Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.