'Duped dads' fight back in paternity cases

The St. Louis Post Disgrace ^ | 04/10/2007 | Matt Franck

[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.

[Tx Angel]

It’s a very real scenario. It’s called “implied paternity” and it has been enforced.

[George W. Bush]

The child has it bad enough with a ho for a mom as it is!

True. But just don't call her nappy-headed, whatever you do. LOL.

[HitmanLV]

Hitman is FR's notorious Divorce Troll on threads like these. Have you joined up as a new Divorce Trollette?

What's a divorce troll? Cause I think no-fault divorce is the best option out of many imperfect options?

And nobody is seeking to victimize men. You can't seem to cope with the fact that it's better to harm an adult than it is to harm a child.

Conservative macho men - self pity, victimized, and would rather harm a child than take a hit. No thanks, junior.

[George W. Bush]

Exactly and further more, If the Woman has the right to an abortion, then she alone is the decision maker as to if the kid is born. With the Right comes the Responsibility. The Woman should have 100% of the responsibility and the man should have none. This is the game when Abortion is on the books. If a woman is impregnated against her will, she should file rape charges. It is all her choice, and with choice goes the responsibility.

Interesting point. No one is forcing these women to give birth. It was, after all, a 'choice'.

[HitmanLV]

Knowing ‘damn well he might not be’ is different than knowing ‘he is not.’

[HitmanLV]

. Do you say that a woman who fu**s someone not her husband and then later gets pregnant is honest?

She's not being honest with her husband, but that's not to say she is a completely dishonest person.

[HitmanLV]

People didn’t have sex back then. And if they did have sex by accident, then they certainly didn’t enjoy it!

So I've heard. ;-)

[Centurion2000]

You can't seem to cope with the fact that it's better to harm an adult than it is to harm a child.

Sorry but from the point of view from the government this is wrong. Adults pay taxes and vote. My rights damn sure had better trump their rights when I am the one being wronged.

You've obviously never been through a divorce or had any kids.

[agarrett]

There is nothing wrong about the child recognizing a personal relationship that in fact exists.

  Correction.

  Existed

  That's kind of the point of this whole argument, after all...

Drew Garrett

[HitmanLV]

You actually think a person(man or woman) who is not the biological parent should pay for the upbringing of a child that is not theirs?

Your strange, stream of concisenesses posts, without much regard to punctuation, don;t make sense. I have explained the circumstance when I think this should be the policy, and why.

[calex59]

She's not being honest with her husband, but that's not to say she is a completely dishonest person.

Oh, that's right she can be dishonest with her husband but not with other people! Glad you clarified that. So, it is just her husband she is being dishonest with so he should just live with that and pay for some other guys child. What idotic thinking you and many others have. I think FR is full of liberals. Only a liberal would think someone who is not the biolobigal father should pay support for a child.

[Centurion2000]

Conservative macho men - self pity, victimized, and would rather harm a child than take a hit.

If it's not your child who gives a damn about it?? the real father doesn't, the real mother didn't care enough to be decent in her selection of the father and is willing to screw some other guy over.

How can you defend injustice, persecution of an innocent man and involuntary servitude?

[HitmanLV]

"Ethics" by Rudy Giuliani

It's just real life.

You know, real life. Like sometimes a bigtime evangelical preacher can preach about the sins of homosexual indulgence, yet pay a hunky male hooker for occasional sessions, and buy drugs from him that he has no intention of using.

Then, when busted, he falls on his ass (ha!), goes into rehab for a week and is cured of finding men sexually appealing.

Sometimes reality misses the mark.

[George W. Bush]

A self pitying male who wants to check out of a child's life needs a stern reminder that the behavior is not approved.

Are you Hillary Xlinton's ghost writer or something? This is the exacctly the kind of rhetoric routinely spouted by Marian Wright Edelman and other leftwing family law radicals.

I notice that you've now brought up this "self-pitying male" business at least a half-dozen different times. You have something very specific in mind here. You have some personal ax you're grinding. Maybe your current girlfriend left some guy on the hook for a baby? Maybe your sister did? You have some stake in justifying victimizing men who have been victimized by slut ex-wives and the family courts already.

[A. Pole]

Go to Russia or Cuba, you will be more at home there.

Russia or Cuba? It is more like Sweden.

[HitmanLV]

You're a phony. And a troll.

I am neither. And it's very telling that you must reduce your disdain for the power of my ideas by attacking me personally.

[HitmanLV]

That’s closer to what I’d want than much of the self pitying insights by some Freeper men. Run it up the flagpole, see if anyone salutes! :-)

[Quick or Dead]

Best option would be to get a mouth swab from the kid without the mother’s knowledge and get the most expedient paternity test possible. Avoid signing the birth certificate. Have your lawyer ready and waiting in the wings.

[FierceDraka]

My thought: In addition she should be forced to pay back any child support previously collected, with interest.

For some reason, that reminds me of one of my all-time favorite Westerns:

"Then the women got the vote, and everything went to hell. While our boys was overseas fighting the Kaiser, the women got Prohibition put in. Drinking and gambling and whoring were declared unlawful." - The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972)

[A. Pole]

the power of my ideas

Power of your ideas? I know, you are a secret agent working for The Onion. And we tend to take you seriously. Good job!

See DNA Evidence Frees Man After 15 Years Of Marriage