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 ...
Quite so. In fact it might do the institution of marriage a lot of good if we had laws which relieved the husband of any liability for the upkeep of children he did not father and imposed liability on the mother if she failed to identify the biological father. Under such circumstances it would become routine to genetically test for paternity thus establishing beyond doubt the father and avoiding the situation where the husband becomes the victim of fraud because of the infidelity of the wife.
In the real world this is called the screwing you get for the screwing you got.
Why should anyone be surprised ? This is just another manifestation of radical feminism -- the man is always the predator, the woman always the victim. That is the unspoken understanding beneath this.
You sound like a swell guy. Again, why don't you put your money where your mouth (heart) is and pay up.
Blackstone's exposition of the common law of England says, "They (the children) are by law HIS children".
By converting them into HER children, we force assignment of care, custody, and protection into the hands of the party who is (almost) always least prepared to carry out those responsibilities.
We then seek payment as punishment from the exiled father, as if he were a class enemy like a kulak in the ukraine under Stalin.
Not only are children in the custody of single mothers more likely to fail, thousands and thousands of them are murdered, battered, or sexually abused by the psychopathic boyfriends their mothers bring into their lives.
The entire system is an unsupportable mess which is generating the criminals of tomorrow - and this case is merely the tip of the iceberg.
You are right - most American men would be better off in a Sharia court for domestic matters, ironically enough. Apparently, the common law rule was similar to Sharia - that fathers got custody of the children. At least until about 1813 with the Pennsylvania v. Addicks case.
"In early America, the common law gave fathers custody of their children when marriages dissolved. In practice, colonial courts might allow a very young girl to live with her mother, but they always acknowledged the father's primary custodial right. Commonwealth v. Addicks introduced the idea that the "best interests" of children should count as well.
On June 12, 1813, Joseph Lee divorced his wife, Barbara, because she had entered into an adulterous relationship with another man named Addicks. Barbara Lee and Addicks had a child together and later married. They ignored a 1785 law that prohibited a partner who was guilty of adultery from marrying his or her paramour during the lifetime of the spouse.
After Barbara remarried, Joseph went to court to gain custody of his two daughters, now ten and seven. His lawyer said that a father was the "natural guardian" of his children under common law. He also maintained that it would be improper to permit the children to remain with their adulterous mother . . . ."
For more info on the topic of paternity fraud, check www.paternityfraud.com
As was the case in our country, and all civilized countries, until less than a century ago.
He was acknowledged by the courts as being their father. The court was wrong. The CSE Divison was wrong. This kid has a father. The CSE people do not want to have to find him. That is it.
Imagine the precedent had the court decided otherwise. In our current litigious society, I could see the following scenario resulting: A couple had been married for 15 years and had a 12-year old child. The husband found out that the wife had an affair and sued for divorce. As part of the divorce hearings, the husband demanded a paternity test on his child. The paternity test showed that he was not the father...rather that the man with whom his wife had an affair was the father...The husband's lawyer demands 12 years of child support reimbursement (with interest) from the wife as part of the divorce settlement. The court, citing this decision as precedent, grants the husband $500,000 in relief for support that should never have been provided. The wife, of course, is unable to pay and is forced into bankrupcy. After the bankrupcy, she is unable to rent an apartment (fails credit check), unable to get a job (fails credit check), and is forced into welfare and subsidized housing with her daughter. The husband's lawyer then sues the state for repayment of AFDC payments that should have been paid...and wins. The husband's lawyer gets 75% of the settlement. The IRS gets 50%. The husband ends up owing 25%. Think about it: with how courts run today, the above is not an unrealistic scenario. While most of us would say that it serves the wife right. But it doesn't benefit the kid at all. Really, the only one who would benefit would be the lawyer.
I don't find your scenario that plausible, while I understand your concern. This case says nothing about the ability to sue for paternity fraud. That is what your hypothetical refers to. Moreover, the court would recognize that this sort of damages should not be given because of societal stability.
Based on the individual case, it seems messed up. But based on the case being able to be used as a precedent for future lawsuits (like the hypothetical I show above), I think it probably is the right decision...and the right law.
The problem with this line of think is that you are predicting a problem that has not occurred yet. That case would be the appropriate time to resolve the issue. It would go something like this.
1. Case is Filed
2. Motion to Dismiss the Paternity Fraud (or whatever you wish to call it) Cause of Action
3. Motion Granted (most likely) or Denied (unlikely)
4. Appeal
5. Affirmance by the Appelate Court of Summary Judgement or Reversal of Denial of Summary Judgement, this sets the actual precedent.
I do understand the concern you have.
The man might be able to pursue to other man, I think there is some law there. Justice is not always possible though.
Agree absolutely.
You are correct about the law being written for a different time. I suspect that the statute at issue in this case was enacted in response to that problem. Blindly following that kind of law, when the rationale behind it no longer applies is intellectually lazy, at best.
Good observation. I would add that it also has to do with our collective societal refusal to hold women accountable for their actions.
Why do we have to give priviledge to certain sex of the parent (mother/father)? I think it's better to see each case differently without any pre-determined result.
You are correct. The standards for custody obviously changed. The real problem is that the standard "best interests of the child" is not a standard at all, but a justification for doing whatever the hell the courts want to do.
Moreover, the old standard "the tender years doctrine" is actually still being used, they just lie about it. Sad really.
What I meant by the common law when I referred to it earlier with regard to the default standard, I meant the current common law, not Blackstone's time periods.
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately it's a lot like affirmative action for minorities. The ultimate result is that women are given a pass for behaviour that the law does not tolerate in men with the result that many men do not consider women as equals.
I do not think that father custody would be workable. Joint custody, 50-50, with no child support, and orders forbidding the parties to move is the best in a normal divorce.
There are always problems. For instance, in Oklahoma at least, you can have 50-50 custody and still pay child support if you make more than the other parent. This exposes the fact that child support is often really just alimony under a more PC name.
Correct. Treating women like children, as if they so get a pass because of a diminished capacity is degrading and breeds disrespect of women as a group. But feminism has never been about equality and respect. It is about special treatment and goodies. Just like every other leftist movement.
Well, gee, at that time women were considered the property of their family so duh, they would never get custody.
You can't base modern law on a time when one party was essentially treated as slaves w/o rights under the law.
And so the man-hating feminazis win again! Politicians will sacrifice innocent people to avoid being targeted by the shrill man-hating vicious hussies!
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.