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 ...
“I feel very sorry for those who look at their God given ability to father children as a burden to be contested rather than rejoiced over...”
and why exactly would these rejoicing fathers be contecting paternity via DNA testing ?
More sarcasm from ignorance. FReepers are really disappointing me these days.
What is socialist about the post?
crud.
make that
“and why exactly would these rejoicing fathers be contesting paternity via DNA testing ?”
sigh, I suppose that spell checker is there for a reason after all . . .
should read...."if you claim NOT to be the father"
Wait till the child is born and then get the paternity test.
I don't know about other states, but in California, they cannot grant retroactive child support prior to the date the claim is filed in court. So if the woman waits until the kids are grown to file - too bad, she's out of luck.
Exactly - the Mom made the decision to jeopardize the child when she snuck around behind her husband’s back.
If she doesn't have the intent to defraud the man (for example, believes him to be the father, even if she is wrong) then it can't be fraud.
Let me ask you this, when a woman doesn’t know which potential father is the daddy, how often do they pick the person who is a drug dealer or unemployed, versus the person who has a steady job? hmmmm, I wonder.
That goes to intent.
This new law would create a legal/criminal definition of fraud for misidentifying the father. This would allow the mother to be held to account, instead of being financially rewarded for her deceit. This law would allow the father to seek compensation for his loss.
My guess would be that it would be fraud to intentionally misidentify the father. Works for me. Bu recklessly doing so, for example, or just being wrong, wouldn't necessarily be fraud. So in that respect, I agree with you.
If someone stole $100, you and I would ignore the loss, would we not? What about if they stole $1,000? or $10,000? or $100,000? or $1,000,000? At what price would you stop “being a man” and desire compensation?
Money doesn't know me, nor love me. The fact that you can't distinguish this dynamic from a parent-child relationship speaks volumes for you, and it's not flattering! :-)
Making ehm send a check to the Child Support Enforcement office doesn't make them a part of the child's life.
“I feel very sorry for those who look at their God given ability to father children as a burden to be contested rather than rejoiced over.”
Of course, I certainly see a distinction between a child that was raised by the non-biological father for some time.
In those situations, the mother should be automatically stripped of custody and the involuntarily-adoptive father have the righ to raise the child.
(The mother should, of course, pay child support. It’s only fair.)
Ah, my days as a traveling salesman in the 1930s! Those devout, churchgoing housewives were certainly very hospitable! Thank goodness there was so much less funny business going on back then,huh?
It is a mater for the man to decide, not the courts.
This astonishes some Freepers, but someone may (legitimately) grow alienated from their (sucky) spouse, fall in love with someone else, indulge in intimacy with them, break up the marriage, and go on and live a very happy, productive, and good life with the other person. Happens all the time.
I agree that ideally they should leave their spouse before romancing someone else, but I know that reality is seldom ideal.
She knows damn well he might not be. Do you say that a woman who fu**s someone not her husband and then later gets prenant is honest? Where the hell is your mind?
People didn’t have sex back then. And if they did have sex by accident, then they certainly didn’t enjoy it!
At the cost of $1,000s in lost child support, not likely.
“It is a mater for the man to decide, not the courts.”
Now, now. Don’t you know the Courts know what is best for each of us? Disrespect of your betters!
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.