It's a very correct ruling.....
The children were the true "plaintiff's" in this case. Both parents, regardless of level of participation, are required to support their children. Children are not an object but full people with inalienable rights.
You are responsible for your actions and contracts you enter into with third parties do not absolve you from primary responsibility.
As so eloquently put by another Freeper on this thread..."you are responsible where you send your boys"
NeverGore :^)
And by extension, anything else a judge decides to hold you responsible for without precedent ;^)
But that should be only in the case of a legal marriage.
Else let's get rid of legalized marriage, as there is no reason for it.
What--did you think the state married people out of sentimentality?
Any woman fool enough to make a child out of wedlock, the father(s) should be free of any responsibility.
Suppose the judge is correct, the father is responsible for the kids and pays child support.
Can the father then sue the mother for breach of the oral contract?