Posted on 04/10/2007 1:21:59 PM PDT by Quick or Dead
JEFFERSON CITY — David Salazar is what many would call a "duped dad."
Repeatedly, courts have ordered him to pay child support for a 5-year-old girl, even though no one — not a judge and not the child's mother — claims he's the father.
In the eyes of many, Salazar, of Buchanan County, is the victim of a law that traps men into the child support payments, even though they can prove they're not the dads.
-snip-
That kind of statement angers Sen. Chris Koster, who is sponsoring the Missouri bill.
Koster, R-Harrisonville, said he knew children would be harmed as men used DNA to break paternity. But he said the current law mocked justice by pretending that a man is a father even when the evidence proves otherwise.
His bill would allow men to bring forward DNA evidence at any time to prove they are not obligated to pay child support.
-snip-
Linda Elrod, director of the Children and Family Law Center at Washburn University, said she was saddened by cases where DNA evidence was used to challenge paternity. She said the cases not only cut off support payments but often ruptured a mature parental bond.
Others, such as Jacobs, want to set a two-year deadline for using genetic tests to challenge paternity. She said courts also needed the discretion to weigh the quality of a parental relationship and the best interest of a child.
But Koster said such arguments by law professors ignored the fundamental truth in many cases — that the man is not the father and should not be obligated to pretend he is.
"It would be just as arbitrary to hang the responsibility of supporting the child with those professors," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
You have an agenda that supercedes this question. That agenda cannot be tied to "justice".
If she has an affair - cheats on the husband - and dupes him about the parentage, she is unfit.
Same goes for the father, of course.
In any case - if she doesn’t forfeit custody of the child, she should forfeit control over the money.
What problems would it cause?
What does that have to do with what I suggested? In that case I'd say Ted should be held to the same standard I outlined.
Either make it about the feelings of a child or not. If you try to mix paternity with the emotions of children, you allow the courts their current entirely arbitrary and
capricious standards.
Yes, I do. I know there are situations that have no good solution, only choices of bad options. I'm an attorney after all, I know this well! But when the adults can't decide the best course of action, somebody has to. That's the courts, for better or for worse.
A child is not entitled to a father. A child is not even entitled to be born in this country if its mother is bent on infanticide.
Strange, strange worldview. I only seek to hold the father figure accountable when he has established a relationship with the child. That child has a father, entitlement or not. Holding the adults who willingly accepted that role is fair and legitimate - the role of father isn't contingent on the man being married to the wife.
As for the reference to abortion, it's strange and misplaced, as well as overstated. Then again, that's perfectly consistent with what you tend to type, anyway.
I could tell you some stories from Child Support Court. I have worked many cases there. Many men just sign the paternity affidavit even though everyone else is telling them to get the DNA test first. Many times, the mother has been doing the wild thing with every guy and his brother, and when she gets knocked up, she will pick the best of the bunch to name as the father. Some times she just goes down the list until some lucky guy either tests positive or signs his life away. I can think of one in particular where the mama picked a bright looking kid from high school who was going to college on a football scholarship. She probably wishes that he had tested positive every time he signs a new NFL contract. The real dad was probably a crackhead dropout . My least favorite dad was the minor who was upset over having to pay child support for one kid because he was living with the mother of another of his kids, and had at least two other mamas who would probably be hitting him for support, too.(remember, he was a minor-under 18)
I don’t give a rat’s ass if the child thinks this person is the real father or not. I can go visit a child and not pay money for a child I did not begat. If you think this father should pay for this child you are a total idiot, insult intended. Thanks.
I am aware of that and completely agree the mom should be held completely accountable for the money. No argument from me there.
I never suggested otherwise. I don't think the mother should have a blank check with no accountability. Never suggested that at all, but funny that your mind darted in that direction.
And what about the real father? Has he no right to know his child? Of course a child will be hurt by all of this - the Mother didn’t think much about that when she was screwing around though, did she?
Yes, but again there should be a difference between what a man SHOULD do versus what the law MAKES him do.
I agree, and I don't think I suggested otherwise, your strange choice of capitalizing words notwithstanding.
By the way, what's my agenda, Kreskin?
What is pathetic are people like you who think that a man who is duped into believing a child is his should have to keep paying when the truth finally comes out. What about the biological father? Do you think the guy should just walk while someone else shoulders his reponsibilities. What a total fool you are.
She is unfit to be a good wife, but not necessarily unfit to be a good mother.
Why do you hate children and crippled kittens?
That would be very good advice to the actual father but is a slap in the face to the man that has been extorted by lying the woman.
Thus, suggesting the the courts should determine a mother’s intent to commit fraud is irrelevant on two levels. One, the fact that the law looks at both parties without regard to who is at fault or more/most at fault. Two, family law is civil court and not criminal court and her intent is irrelevant to the supposed “interest of the child.”
So coming along and pretending that the court should divine the mother’s intent when she listed single father on birth certificate, when she knows the father could be different people, is not going to happen. Furthermore, if she knows that more than one man could be the father, and doesn’t reveal that to the “good” man, that, in and of itself implies that she is being deceitful and dishonest, at least to me. But from your posts, I’d gather all she’d have to say is “I thought so-and-so was the father” and that would be good enough for you. I don’t buy this for a second in nearly all cases, you on the other hand appear to be very receptive to this game of “bait and switch” that has been allowed to go on for far to long in this country.
I can summarize who family laws works in one statement: “It is setup to punish those who act/behave responsibly and reward those who act irresponsibly.”
And it’s funny that you ignored my suggestion that you may meerly be trolling this topic.
Any woman who cheats on her husband and then tries to say the children are his, IS totally dishonest. Anyone who thinks a man, or woman, should pay for children that are not his/hers is a total socialist and does not belong on this forum, you should be on DU. Of course if it was you paying you probably would be screaming so loud they could hear you in Russia.
I'm afraid an unintended result of this would be to encourage men to never, ever marry, and to leave a woman who falls pregnant in order to avoid establishing a relationship with the child. There are few enough men these days interested in marrying and starting a family anyway, why threaten financial destruction to the ones who actually do?
Stats say that 1/3 of married women have had an affair, and about 1/2 of married men have had affairs - no doubt with some married women. I’ve heard that 10% or so of people’s fathers isn’t the guy listed on the birth certificate, which pretty much jives with that 1/3 and 1/2 figure of marries diddling around.
My guess is that DNA testing at the hospital at an otherwise happy event would cause even more marriages to break up (even if the dalliance is in the past, or a onetime thing) than usual, as well as fits of violence.
I don’t think much good would come from this, sorry.
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.