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 ...
agreed
So your basic philosophy on this is, “Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil”?
That's right, and I do care. That's the difference between us, or more accurately one difference between us. It makes neither of us idiots, in itself, though of course you may be an idiot for entirely other reasons. And an angry little fella. But, I think I can see why.
Problem is it’s still going to screw up the kids life. People are emotional creatures, “dad” is probably going to have a ton of resentment towards the kid because the kid will be a constant reminder of how he was duped, parental resentment is an ugly thing that does no good for the kid (seen it way too many itmes in couples that stay together “for the children”, it’s a great way to make a shrink rich). Regardles of how people are duped he’s not the kids father and shouldn’t carry the responsibility, and forcing him to carry on as if a known imaginary situation is real is just stupid and bad for EVERYONE, except maybe the slutty mother getting undeserved child support.
If we are going to make indentured laborers of men for the supposed good of someone else's children, why limit it to divorce cases? What this country really needs is a federal lottery program to assign individual financial responsiblity for orphans and bastards to random men. It could share the database with the selective service system.
It's all for the children, you see.
Couldn’t agree more.
That is as dishonest as it gets. She’s breaking every single vow of trust in a relationship/marriage.
I completely agree that DNA tests should be mandatory before a birth certificate is completed.
If he wants to know his child, there are legal and moral avenues he can take. I never suggested otherwise.
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?
True, but that's still not a justification to harm a child, when you have other options available that would harm another, more mature party.
What the hell? Is this stuff going on a lot out there?
I think LBJ already did that, enforced by the IRS.
“Good question. I don’t think we want to deny a child the love of a man he or she sees as their father if the man acts towards them like a father.”
as long as he has a choice . . .
Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. The law enforces a basic moral conduct built on consensus. That's what the law is. Sometimes, we legally enforce what people should do. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's less than good. I agree with you.
The whole concept is anachronistic.
I explained my position and argue that this would be true when the father has established a father-child personal relationship with the child. When confronted with options where the child takes the hit, or the adult male, I think the males hould rightfully take the hit.
What about the biological father? Do you think the guy should just walk while someone else shoulders his responsibilities.
I never suggested that - chalk this up to a self serving Freeper imagination (more and more common lately, I wish it were the late 90s again). I think the biodad should contribute to the financial support of the child, also, once established.
What a total fool you are.
Not really.
I love children. Crippled kittens suck, however. I have felt that way since my own childhood!
Run it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes. At least you’re looking out for the kid, unlike many rugged individualist self sufficient ‘men’ around here.
Well to be fair, at the very least they are probably ‘males.’
I sure am glad you are not running our court system. However, based on some decisions of the courts perhaps you are!
I think if you asked most people, they would want to know, and want to know as soon as possible. At least then, if the husband decided to be a Father to another man’s baby, it’s a choice that he is making, not one that the mother made for him. After accepting paternal responsibility, though, I do think that he should be treated as the biological dad in child support and custody issues.
Holding non-fathers legally and financially accountable for children that are not theirs, although noble in intent, is violating and wrong. The man in this situation is just as innocent as the child.
Ah, for the good ole days when the woman got pregnant by accident/on purpose and everyone lived happily ever after driving Ramblers.
I don’t give a rat’s behind what relationship the guy establishes with the child. He was duped or he wouldn’t have established the relationship. The real father should be the on e paying the freight. And, yes, you are a fool and a socialist to boot.
The woman isn’t necessarily lying about the identity of the father. And yes, the biodad should contribute to the financial support of the child, I never suggested otherwise.
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.