Posted on 01/12/2007 2:37:50 AM PST by okiecon
LITTLE ROCK
Even though a paternity test ruled out Anthony L- Parker as the father of a child in a child-support dispute, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled today he still has to pay support owed the mother before he took the test.
The opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L- Corbin, says state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support.
Associate Justice Robert L. Brown wrote in a dissent that the opinion reached "a grossly unfair result."
In her original ruling, McGowan wrote that forcing Parker to pay -- quote --"violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child."
(Excerpt) Read more at wmcstations.com ...
Unreal.
You know, whenever I examine the lopsided and sexist nature of family-law (if children are under 12 the assumption is that the mother is best suited to have the children and the father should just be a weekend visitor and money supply) I do have to admit a certain amount of respect for Muslim countries where the father is always given the children if a divorce takes place.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
For the record, the defendant ignored several summonses to court. His failure to appear led to a default judgement against him. If he had shown up at the appointed time, he could have demanded a paternity test which would have ended his involvement in the matter.
Abandonment and refusing to pay government mandated child support are two different things. Namely, access to the child is not guarenteed by paying child support and the mother generally may move across the country at any time. While I respect your choice and would make the same one, it should be a choice.
I wished I knew more about the case, off to research it.
I will read the opinion, if I can find it, either way, ignoring summons is not excuse for injustice.
Send me to jail there judge cause the lying whore ain't getting a penny from me.
In all other human behaviour this would be classified as fraud. I guess this is 21st century justice in these United States.
Children are punished every day by the foolish actions of their parents. Why should the man's life be blighted by the fraudulent actions of the mother. She knew from the outset that the victim of this fraud may not have been the father.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Where is that ass clown Dick Durbin with his comments about our governmental agents acting like Nazis and Pol Pot when you need him? If this isn't socialistic fascism run amok, I don't know what is.
Having said that, the defendant was a damn fool for failing to appear and letting this happen to him.
From the opinion it appears this guy and child did not have much of a relationship. There is no indication that they did and, trust me, if the court could have bolstered this weak decision they would have.
If you would care to re-read my post you will find that I stated that the man's life has been blighted by the fraudulent actions of the mother. In effect this decision supports a woman's right to lie about the paternity of her children. Once again "The law is an ass"
It only appears to follow the law. Two statutes exist in Arkansas. One says, plainly, that if you are not the father you are relieved of future support. The second says you do have to pay child support while the paternity test is pending.
The statutes simply do not address this situation at all from what I can see. If that is the case it goes to common law and the trial court has much more discretion. I do not think this decision is legally correct. Now, this is an appellate court and there appears to be precedent, but it is not cited well in the opinion. Oh well, I hope he appeals.
That's insane. The man should take this to the Supreme Court. If he loses there then it's official, we need a new country.
I would think that more than a few people would consider their lives blighted by paying the bills for a child not their own...particularly if they were not parenting that child (i.e., get the bills, no visitation, no parental authority to guide that child, etc.)
From the opinion it appears that he did not claim the child. The dissent says that he never did.
From the looks of it and the low amount of support, this is a standard default order entered on a low income man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.