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 ...
What a jerk, you think a man who is NOT the biological father and complain about being forced to pay child support are “whining”? You are beyond contempt!
Sorry, but I've seen too many cases where Mr. A and Mrs. A split up, Mr. A pays support to Mrs. A who now is living with Mr. B. The support is for the child A-let who is not really A-let but B-let. Mr. B is the father, gets the benefits of being the father, and Mr. A gets soaked.
Now for the child's sake who is accustomed to Mr. A, visitation should continue, but not payment.
The State needs to find the real biodad, but usually they have as much interest in doing that as OJ does of finding the 'real killer.'
Not a problem IF AND ONLY IF, the surrogate father KNOWS that he is not the dad when he assumes the parental role. However, if the mother LIES and through FRAUD represents the child as his when it is not, then the surrogate father has been duped and should have legal recourse.
“If the child has come to know the husband as their father, it’s incumbent on the man to step up and continue a personal relationship with the child, and provide financial support.”
Pathetic.
When they did a paternity study in England, I believe they found out 25% of the babies were not the children of the thought of spouse.
In other words, there’s a lot of dads out there thinking they are fathers when they are not.
“Step up and be a man!”
They wouldn’t have to step up if the Lady’s would keep their legs closed.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We have a case here in New Mexico where the devoiced wife used the DNA of her adult child to create a fictional child. The devoiced husband was forced by the state to pay child support for seven years. He was finally able to get in front of a judge that would fairly hear his case. The judge then ordered the x-wife to produce the child that was supposed to be seven. She got an 11 year old to come in off the street to pose, as the child the Judge didn’t buy it.
Only when the child in question has come to know and love him as their father.
I think both should.
The REAL father is probably a bum with no job or ability to pay child support. Might as well hook someone who has the ability to pay.
What on Earth for?
I’m of two minds on this. If the “father” finds out he is not the actual father and then divorces his wife, then he should not have to pay support. If on the other hand he discovers that he is not the father and continues the marital and parental relationship, he is in effect accepting the childs paternity and adopting it as his own. If he then divorces his wife some years later, he should have to pay child support.
No. I think if the child comes to know the man as the father - even if he is not - he should still be responsible for maintaining their personal relationship with the child, as well as providing financial support. The real dad should provide financial support, also, so each pays less than they would normally pay if they were the only financial provider.
Happens a lot. I’ve got a friend in a similar situation, but he’s sticking it out so far. The kids are his in this case, but unemployed ex-wife refuses to marry her unemployed live in boyfriend because she’ll lose the alimony.
He’s keeping his legal obligations to pay, but has a negative income currently because of the ex and can’t find a way out as the courts won’t give him custody because the ex-wife isn’t doing anything illegal.
What’s pathetic is an adult male who thinks his relationship ends with a young child who knows and loves him as daddy would want to end that relationship because of no fault of the child.
There’s nothing ‘conservative’ about that.
Hmmm. Since the kid's a minor, the money's not going to him. It's going to the mother in trust for the kid, and the mother is someone who has been revealed is dishonest. Why would you trust her with anything you cared about? Seems like throwing good money after bad.
If the cuckold feels like continuing to see the kid, that's up to him. It's not the kid's fault, but it's not the man's, either. Removing any obligation to honor the fraud of the mother would make some kind of relationship easier, I'd guess.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“The only exception a court could make is if the man had an on-going parental relationship with the child...”
Circumstances such as that, I doubt there would be a court case as love trumps all, but in this insane World of today...who knows.
I did read of a fellow whom was raising a child with his wife he thought his only to find out the child wasn’t, and turned rabid towards his wife and the child. I can understand his bewilderment and anger, but hope he realized the relationship he had with the child was truly more important than his anger and emotional betrayal.
Never read anything further of the story, so don’t know what happened.
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.