[Al Simmons]

This is nothing new. I believe that this principle of law is at least as old as the 1800s. The law presumes legitimacy if a child is born within a marriage - back in those days illegitimacy was a real black mark, and societal interests were served by sparing children born in these circumstances from being branded as bastards.

The problem is that society has changed, and men and women are whoring themselves at rates that were unimaginable 100 years ago.

Bastardy is no longer a social barrier. So, reversing this doctrine would have a kind of logical consistency to it given the overall deterioration of the morals of society, but I am not commited on whether this would be a good thing overall or not...

[zbigreddogz]

Thanks for the backup.

[unseen]

True but today we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt if the child is his or not. No more he sid/she siad crap. DNA will prove yes or no.

[LizardQueen]

Another thing I wonder is if the law is changed what happens to children born to infertile couples if either an anonymous egg or sperm donor is used to conceive?

In the case of a divorce and DNA test that shows that one parent is not biological then what happens? Do they go back to the sperm clinic and try to find out who the donor is to sue him for child support?

If I were to ever use DNA donation to conceive I would make sure I had an iron-clad agreement with my spouse to make sure that they couldn't weasel out if the marriage went south, just by virtue of the DNA not being theirs.

LQ

[Thommas]

The law presumes legitimacy if a child is born within a marriage

True enough on the face of it; but, this is a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute. Evidence to the contrary can always be presented to refute the presumption. In this case, however, the court decided that the evidence was too stale and the Statute of Limitations had run its course. Despite an obvious counter argument that this perfidy was a continuing wrong (he pays every month for her continuing lie,) the court opted to abuse its discretion for the "best interests of the child." So, the cuckold pays and the boyfriend enjoys the fruits of another man's labor.

Welcome to the America of Clinton and the DNC.

[moehoward]

"This is nothing new."

No it's not. But the motives behind it certainly have changed. Follow the money. Child welfare agencies, Lawyers, courts............

[Giant Conservative]

In the early 1800s, the father would have been guaranteed custody of his children, and of any legally presumed to be his, so it was rational for him to be financially responsible since he would be raising the kids. The first move of feminism was to switch the age-old presumption of paternal custody around 180 degrees, leaving dads obligated to pay for the raising of daughters and sons they don't have custody of. That's the problem. And where the problem is, there the solution is apparent: the custody rights of fathers need to be restored right away.