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 ...
It is a revenue generator, under the guise of welfare reform. And the federal government pays 2 dollars for every 3 they collect. So if the man pays 200 through the state governement, 133 dollars is paid from the federal coffers to the state. When you add in the costs of collecting support, and the bad collection rates (often these rates are held up by the guy who would pay directly to the mother on time every month but pays through the state for accounting) I doubt it saves any money at all.
Women were not slaves under common law, but I still do not think we need to go back there. Common law was designed for landed gentry-types. Women had rights under common law. They were not slaves. Those rights might seem weird today and disproportionate though.
Either way, you guys can hopefully agree that this situation is wrong.
So, then you teach the child to become a bloodsucker? That very pious of you. You have passed the test of being a liberal. Your reasoning is the cause of the growth in welfare. A just society that seeks to minimize those inclined to live on the dole must accept a small amount of suffering to define the lower limit of misery.
The data I was able to collect is more than two years old now, but 70% of the child support judgements in California are default. They're not making any effort to find the real fathers because they don't care where the money is coming from as long as they get paid.
At $5000 a pop to protect my family and my reputation, this is getting old really, really fast.
Often you are not granted a day in court. The poster who talks about California and it's high default rate on child support brings up a common theme. It is possible that he never knew about the court date. If not, I do not think that collecting so called child support from him is appropriate. Fine him for contempt.
>>...we don't condition love strictly on an affirmation of biological paternity.<<<
You seem to have love confused with state mandated, viia the power of the gun, payments to support a child which is not yours.
That is beyond sleazy.
Yeah, I think either way causes problems. It should be required unless both parties agree to waive it, with informed consent. DNA is cheap now, build it into the system.
How about requiring a DNA test ran on every child that is born? The husband should not have to pay for a child that is not his. He should be able to find out. The father can choose to accept the child if he desires.
I believe a lot of trouble could be avoided. A man would not be able to claim that a child is his.
This is true. Hence the stupid, stupid flat percentage of gross income models of child support, which amount to a wealth transfer for the wealthy divorcee. And it is justified by appeals to sympathy for struggling single mothers. It is often the case with low-income divorces that the parties just don't have enough to support two households. Period. So the doctors wife gets 1,700 a month, tax free. The doctor takes home, after taxes, maybe 50% of his income. The poor single mom is still a poor single mom, but her kids father is in jail or constant threat thereof.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html
"Common law was designed for landed gentry-types. "
Where do you find "Common law was designed for landed gentry-types?"
Our entire constitution is based on English common law. We even find it stated in the 7th amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I would like to see DNA done at the hospital. But then you would have to keep security at the maternity ward.
No, you are right, slavery is too broad of a term, but women were routinely denied property rights until later in the 19th century. Centuries of common law reflect this.
Since many here on FR (and I am one of them) argue that without private property rights, and the rights to your labor, we are all slaves to the government, then you can make the same argument about women and property rights in the history of any country.
Look at women under Sharia law to see the same thing.
Wonderful precedent! Sheesh! Now, a woman could claim that any man that she has had sex with could have fathered the baby, demand payment, and even after the court determines non-paternity she could still collect big bucks! Insane!
White ones?
Of course they were not.
Common law was a good thing. I was specifically thinking about wills, property, and marriage laws.
Imagine that... a news story that leaves out numerous key details to fit a sensational title. Must be a first for our beloved MSM.
Check out this link for the particulars:
http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/geweb/PROPERTY.htm
Evidently he is the victim of a default judgment - entered because he was not present in the court room. Once he was there, he challenged paternity, ending with the support being dismissed. But, because the court entered a default judgment, he still owes back payments from before the paternity test.
It is insane, it is the law in many, many places though. Some are even worse. A man might not be able to contest a default deterimination of paternity after some time passes.
A man may end up paying child support for a child that is not is and that he is routinely denied visitation to.
I have heard from an attorney that he had a case where the baby's daddy was in jail, the mother married a guy, he adopted the three kids, she left him and moved in with the baby daddy once he got out - and her ex-husband still had to pay child support.
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.