The Damage Done By Schwarzenegger’s Infidelity
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
The Daily Mail has this insight into the life of Schwarzenegger’s love child. You should really read the whole thing, but here’s a sample:
Jorge said the whole family feels ‘stupid’ for not realizing Schwarzenegger was the father of Joseph before.
He said: ‘I felt kind of like I should have known something. I feel stupid for believing Roger [Mildred’s ex-huband] was his dad.
‘We would all joke to Joe ‘Arnold’s your dad’ because he just looks so much like him. Joe would just laugh it off.
‘But we never had any idea, we thought it was a funny joke. But it was real. When we said it to Mildred she would brush it off and just say ‘you guys are funny’.
‘We always thought the father was Rogelio. He has some family with blonde hair and blue eyes so we had always thought there was something in his genes.’
And we get to the damage done by his infidelity, as well as Mildred’s (I am not letting her off the hook, although you have to be concerned about what kind of pressure he might have put on her):
Rogelio, estranged from the family for ten years, only found out Joseph wasn’t his child when the shocking news broke.
Jorge said: ‘He had never even questioned Joseph was his. He feels betrayed.’…
And Jorge hopes Schwarzenegger will soon find time to sit down and talk to his son Joseph and give him some kind of explanation for not telling him he was his father.
‘I hope Arnold is going to take him aside and talk to him about all this. He has not done so far as far as I know. But Joseph needs to speak to his dad.’
Jorge is very optimistic about the kid’s ability to cope with it all, and I am hoping he is right. But Schwarzenegger has significantly damaged these lives as well as that of the family he had with Shriver.
And, interestingly enough, his conduct directly touched on Schwarznegger’s job:
The Arnold Schwarzenegger paternity case has revealed a large flaw in California family law, one which, ironically, Schwarzenegger attempted to fix while Governor. The flaw? Schwarzenegger fathered a child with Mildred Patty Baena, who was married to Rogelio Baena at the time. Under California law, Schwarzenegger wouldn’t be obligated to pay a dime in child support–but deceived husband Rogelio Baena would be.
Currently the only person who can be held legally responsible to support the child is the mother’s then-husband, who is presumed to be the father because the child was born into the marriage. Judges routinely (and at times apologetically) saddle such “duped dads” with stiff child support orders. In one paternity fraud case, Arthur Gilbert, presiding judge of the Second District, Division 6 Court of Appeal, wrote:
“I reluctantly concur with the majority. Once again I vent my frustration over the state of [California] law in paternity cases…I would reverse the judgment–if I could. But I cannot…[I] suggest the Legislature reconsider…Is anyone listening?”
So as you can see, right now California follows the rule that if a man is married to a woman, there is an irrebuttable presumption that he is the father of any children she has. So yes, even if you are a man who has clear DNA evidence that the child is not yours, tough crud, you still have to support the child.
Now at first glance that seems like an unjust rule. It certainly is in this case. But there are several arguments to consider on the other side. First, this rule greatly discourages fathers from questioning their blood relationship to their childred. Telling a child that you doubt that he or she is really yours could be emotionally devastating to that child and thus there is an inherent value to discouraging people from even asking the question. Second, it also makes it more likely that a child will receive full financial support. And third, when you get married in California, that is what you are signing up for. You are agreeing to it, whether you are reading that particular fine print or not.
Which is not to say that one side is clearly right or wrong. I am frankly of two minds on this. But there is the argument.
(By the way, thought question: if Proposition 8 is successfully blocked in the Federal Courts, how will this rule apply to lesbian couples? And doesn’t rules like this suggest that the proponents are right about marital law being about procreation?)
But of course a reader might think, “well, at least Schwarzenegger was working to undo that rule—literally working against his financial interests.” And that is true to an extent, but lawyers know that bias cuts both ways. In other words, it is fair to wonder whether Schwarzenegger worked to change that rule despite the fact he was likely to benefit from the old rule, or precisely because of it. Perhaps Schwarzenegger felt it was important to be seen working against this rule because he knew someday the truth might come out and on that day, he might look particularly monstrous to the public at large. But is that a good reason to change the rule? Political embarrassment? I tend to think the reduction of political embarrassment is a poor justification for a law.
So people, like Lawrence O’Donnell, think that sex scandals just don’t matter…
..but they do real damage to the people around you, including people you claim to love and it is fair to ask, if that is how a person treat his or her family, how will that person treat a stranger like you? Of course Schwarzenegger’s political career was over before this scandal broke, but its worth remembering when confronted with other Weinerish situations.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Hi Aaron, it’s already been decided in California courts that a lesbian second-parent can be held responsible for child support after the couple splits up.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/2/2011 @ 2:05 pmwhy was Mr. Arnold unable to change the law?
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/2/2011 @ 2:12 pmhey it looks like there’s a small asterisk on the dealio
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/2/2011 @ 2:12 pmhappy, interesting. i will look at that later and amend the post as appropriate.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/2/2011 @ 2:13 pmThere is evidence that a significant proportion of children born in wedlock are not the offspring of the husband. The estimated proportion is on the order of 10%.
Another interesting fact is the result of a poll of medical workers. They were asked what they would do if, in the course of treatment of a child, they found irrefutable medical evidence that the child was not sired by his putative father. Nearly all (>90%) said they would not inform the putative father.
Rich Rostrom (1e3f90) — 6/2/2011 @ 3:49 pmMaybe this very incident will make a just change in the law more likely. “Arnold’s Law.”
Suck on that, horndoggenegger.
Mitch (890cbf) — 6/2/2011 @ 3:59 pmYet another good reason to make adultery a crime. Not sure what the penalty should be, i havent thought it out. Two years is not enough time to determine paternity, unless there is a substantial racial difference between the husband and the child. There was a case in Southern California where a man had a one night stand with a woman who became pregnant and listed him as the father. She moved to Texas and died when she was stabbed. The child is in Texas living with his grandparents and the man has to pay child support. He got a DNA test after more than 2 years and the judge said he still has to support the child even though he isn’t the father. He had to drop out of school because he can’t afford it and is not even allowed to see the child who lives in Texas.
He should’ve kept his pants zipped and she should’ve kept her legs closed but that doesn’t mean he should continue to be the victim.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 6/2/2011 @ 4:18 pmWith the California legislature the justice is a lie undiscovered.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 6/2/2011 @ 4:45 pmWhat do you think of a petitioning a change with Jerry? Experience shows he’s not adverse to bucking the system in favor of justice when the end result is no skin off his nose.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 6/2/2011 @ 4:47 pmAlso, thanks to the LBGT lobby, the California constitution was amended to ban discrimination on the basis of gender.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 6/2/2011 @ 4:53 pmWhat can we call the Ca marital laws except discrimination on the basis of gender?
oops – didn’t read all the way to your prop 8 section.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 6/2/2011 @ 4:54 pmlooks like Perry just recently signed a bill what will get non-biological dads off the hook
it was passed unanimously by both chambers
this confirms that Perry signed it – and this is a sort of interesting story about a judge who lost reelection cause the dirty socialist Dallas Morning News editorialized…
that’s sort of a new twist on judicial activism – I’d be curious to know what all the facts were in that case but it’s six minutes to 5
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/2/2011 @ 4:54 pmMr. Feets, I can envision reasons based on due process for that judge to rule as he did, although I have no idea of the actual facts of the case, so I can’t say if they might have actually applied to that case.
But Joseph needs to speak to his dad.
kishnevi (827a72) — 6/2/2011 @ 5:30 pmMeme to Jorge Rogelio: You’re his dad. If he needs to speak his dad, he needs to speak to you. Arnold was merely the sperm donor and financial patron. At some point, the boy should speak to his sperm donor/financial patron, but Arnold will never be his “dad”. Who taught the kid to ride a bike”? Jorge or Arnold?
I’ve always considered situations like this, when a known non-bio dad is still on the hook, to be akin to slavery. Anyone aware of the deception should be charged with fraud. Marriage is a contract, there should be penalties for breaking the contract.
MIchael (b8323a) — 6/2/2011 @ 6:12 pm/yawn
more crotch-sniffing.
wheeler's cat (ce6ac6) — 6/2/2011 @ 6:35 pmpenises and jesuses, what can it say?
“But there are several arguments to consider on the other side.”
None of them are even decent arguments.
Just A Guy (edbf77) — 6/2/2011 @ 6:50 pmSorry, Aaron, you’re so off-base with this whole argument that it’s pitiful.
People make mistakes. They screw up. It happens. No one goes out to meet someone with the intention, “Hey, I’m going to fuck up a lot of people today! Yeah, sounds good!”. Who knows why EITHER of them did this? They do, God does, but you, you have no call to be judgmental here.
Should they have done it? Probably not. Are they human, and humans make mistakes? Yes. People get involved despite their rational interests on the whole, partly because, as RAH put it:
“Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal”.
Further, to be pillorying AS only on the basis of this — again, so friggin’ wrong it’s pitiful.
No, sorry your lame-assed:
is FLAT OUT SEXIST CRAP.
How the hell do you know SHE wasn’t entirely on the prowl in this case? Big, important father to seduce? Nawwww…. Women NEVER do THaaaaaaaaT!! Geez. Gimme a BREAK. For all you know she set out to seduce him, to get him away from his wife, etc., either coldly and calculatingly or self-deludingly thinking she could Get Lucky. And when she failed, she made the best of it. That’s no less likely than Aaahnold “putting pressure” on her to Get What He Wanted.
You sound like a libtard pro-feminist drooling lacky.
Awww, poor, poor, poor boy. :-S
Look, at the moment, it’s a surprise, sure. And confusing — But if you’re imagining that this isn’t going to be, in the long run, quite the possible BOOST to an otherwise boring, typical life, you’re NUTS.
No, I can’t EVER see THAT opening door after door after door for this kid — even IF, at no point in his life, he didn’t just call up daddy for a little word in the right place.
No, there aren’t women who will spread their legs for him JUST on that fact alone — and no, the fact that you don’t approve of such is irrelevant. It gives him a POWER that the average person — the boy he was before this scandal broke — does not have.
Whether he chooses to use it — or chooses to use it carefully/wisely (for example, as an ice breaker in conversation, but not to get girls into bed) is another matter — It still gives him power either way that the rest of us lack.
And THIS:
Oh, Jeez. Can you GET any more freakin’ cynical? The man’s a friggin’ bodybuilder-turned-actor, not a clone of Machiavelli! Yeah, it’s possible he might have done something like that. It’s Twilight-Zone-Tinfoil-Hat thinking, but yeah, it’s possible…
Makes me think of other things that are possible. I mean, it’s possible.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 6/2/2011 @ 7:33 pmYeesh.
It’s possible some people are morons when they set up their web pages
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 6/2/2011 @ 7:38 pmSure there’s another side. This provides motive and opportunity to encourage women to lie and trap men with the aid of the courts. Convicted rapists and murderers can be exonerated at any time by DNA and men paying child support can’t? So encouraging fraud and court ordered deceit has a good side? Forcing men to pay for kids that are not theirs and who are banned from the child’s life is good? This is the fine print of marriage? How about the clerk of the Peace being required to inform all men of this “fine print”, with a five day waiting period before the license is granted?
Blue Hen (c001f3) — 6/2/2011 @ 7:42 pmIt’s
possibledefinite… some people are morons when they set up their web pages“Lawyer1”
Pretty much destroys the purpose of a link.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 6/2/2011 @ 8:01 pm>:-/
Idiots.
None of them are even decent arguments.
I’ll give you one: to keep men from trying to disown their own children, either as a way of getting back at the mother, or because they don’t want to be bothered with the responsibility of child support and helping raise the child. A couple who have split up can be an emotional minefield, whether they are actually divorcing or just stop living together outside of marriage, and plenty of parents in that sort of situation are quite willing to use their children as a weapon against their ex. The effects on the children can be ghastly. Nowadays the courts try to be proactive and prevent those sort of situations, but a lot of the time they can only step in after the fact and the damage has been done.
So encouraging fraud and court ordered deceit has a good side?
You need to remember that a lot of times the mother has no way of knowing who the actual father is. If bother fathers have brown hair and black eyes, and the husband wasn’t doing a tour in Afghanistan or something similar at the time of conception, there are probably few obvious ways to tell who the father is, short of a DNA test. And if the wife is trying to maintain at least the pretense of marriage with her husband, she has every reason not to inquire into which man contributed the sperm.
There’s also the fact that the usual standard for determining custody and parental rights is the “best interests of the child”. Which often means that if faced with choosing with the man with whom the child has bonded in early childhood as its father, and a man who is unknown to the child, they’ll pick the man who was actually active in the child’s life as the man who should have parental rights and duties.
kishnevi (437df2) — 6/2/2011 @ 8:37 pmThe 10% figure was reported many years ago before there were dna tests. It was determined by blood types. Children whose blood type eliminated the womans husband. There remained the possibility that the sperm donor had the same blood type as the husband so the true number is higher.
dunce (b89258) — 6/2/2011 @ 9:44 pm#13 kishnevi: Jorge and Rogelio are two separate people. Rogelio was Mildred’s husband who believed himself to be the child’s father until recently. Jorge is another relative (Mildred’s nephew) who was interviewed for this article.
Joshua (1de0d5) — 6/2/2011 @ 9:47 pmIf the wife is committing adultery, there is no pretense of marriage, only fraud.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 6/3/2011 @ 12:43 amReaders of this blog may be interested…
bobbie (5b96c0) — 6/3/2011 @ 2:53 am‘Truth Games’ http://is.gd/gAg3ZZ explores issues of infidelity in 1970s London UK, when the freedoms of the swinging 60s began to run into trouble. It’s the two blazing hot summers of 75 and 76, and a group of friends are getting way out of their depth in infidelity. Thought-provoking, amusing and with guaranteed naughty bits.
I wonder of Ahhnold was blackmailed into supporting all the left/liberal shit he signed into law, given that he weas elected on a cut govt spending platform and actually tried to get his agenda passed.
SGT Ted (5d10ae) — 6/3/2011 @ 6:49 am#18, Blue Hen is on the right track. Anyone applying for a marriage license is entitled to be informed of the potential entanglements. Think of it as a fairness issue, a Miranda type warning for consumers.
Additionally, every child’s DNA should be matched against the putative parents and the results printed on the birth certificate.
ropelight (d5403b) — 6/3/2011 @ 9:44 amIf the wife is committing adultery, there is no pretense of marriage, only fraud
I think I understand your point, but marriage is a much more complicated thing than that. The people who say marriage can only end with the death of one of the spouses are speaking an important truth.
kishnevi (cc1ec4) — 6/3/2011 @ 11:16 am