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 ...
No political party owns this, I am sorry to tell you. Pro lifers consistently use related rhetoric, for example.
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?
No, not at all. I don't date single -or divorced - moms.
Maybe your sister did?
Nope, sis is happily married with two children.
You have some stake in justifying victimizing men who have been victimized by slut ex-wives and the family courts already.
Not at all. This is one case where I think the best interest of the child outweighs the best interest of the adult male, that's all. Nothing in my personal history directly related to this dynamic, sorry.
If there was, I'd say so and use it to bolster my argument. I just think it's right.
Haha! Nope, it’s the power of my ideas! ;-)
If you have sex with multiple men during the same time frame, you CANNOT possible know who the father is with certainty. To suggest otherwise is a LIE. You seem to be unable to comprehend this very simple premise. The woman will always believe the best possible suitor of the men she has sex with (or didn't) is the father, period. Thus, putting a SINGLE name on the birth certificate is WRONG, and the mother knows it, even if you believe she doesn't know it.
Let me repeat, the FACT that the woman had sex with more people than the named father is EVIDENCE that she cannot possibly know the correct father short of paternity testing. You seem to accept the notion that she can pick whomever she screwed as the father and therefore it's not fraud. That's part of the reason we are here today with this problem. Most do not agree with this.
Technically, none of this meets the legal definition of fraud because this act is not defined as fraud by law. That is the whole point of the law they are trying to pass. Hence, the topic of the article.
The fact that you can't distinguish this dynamic from a parent-child relationship speaks volumes for you, and it's not flattering! :-)
I really do not have any idea to what you are referring? You have no children what so-ever, but somehow you are an expert in parent-child relationships. Most parents know that the best advice on how to raise children comes from childless couples. These people know every thing there is to know about raising children. After all, they have a couple dogs and cats they take care of and it's close to the same thing. OK, at least my childless friends all seem to know everything there is to know about parenting.
I'll count you as friend in this regard too.
Your attempts to make it personal grow more shrill. The harm isn't exactly the same - in one case the child suffers a broken marriage of their parents, in the other, that is compounded by the loss of a father in their life.
What's a divorce troll, and why is it bad?
at least have the courage to ping me to your shallow insights. This thread is not about myself in any way. Indeed, it is GWB who consistently tries to make it about me by looking for a personal animus on my part.
There is no personal animus. If there was, I'd say so, But there isn't, so you're patently wrong.
Nope, I don't practice law. I'm in business for myself and have a life, and a conscience. :-)
You consistently attack ideas by attacking the person conveying them. A startling admission, thanks for providing it!
You’re repulsive.
Not at all, just making it clear that sometimes reality falls well short of the ideal. And that's ok, sometimes.
This little thing about mentioning me and avoiding the FR custom of a courtesy ping speaks volumes of you, too.
HINT: It’s not flattering.
Man, you’re twisted.
You hit the nail RIGHT on the head there.
I'm in a loving relationship with the sexiest, kindest, most fun, understanding, loving and honest woman I've ever met. We click together on a level I didn't ever think was possible. I'm faithful to her, and she to me.
But for the reasons you stated, the idea of having any more kids scares the living BEJEEZUS out of me - because I've been through the whole "get married only to have wifey go on a coke binge behind my back and dump me out of the blue and stick me with 18 years of child support" thing before.
Every time we discuss the possibility of having children, that old nightmare comes creeping back in, along with "THE FEAR".
I believe that women who complain that no decent men want to commit anymore have no one to blame for it but their "sisters".
I am ambivalent here. I think if a man accepted a child as his then he has accepted the responsibility for that child whether he had any genetic input or not. I do have a problem with benefits being awarded on the basis of claims by a woman who has is not married to the man and has been promiscuous. A few years ago I read about women naming soldiers in combat they had never even met and getting benefits awarded on their say so. I know this used to happen here not even involving soldiers. It is still hard to get out of it if a woman has put your name on a birth certificate as the father. One local judge once said it is in the state’s and child’s interests to assign a father. That’s scary.
Because there are no children out there that are my responsibility. Thuis is the same kind of immature thinking that insists that pro life people aren't sincere because they personally haven't adopted any children.
When I have children, I have no doubt I will walk the walk.
You throw around loving and caring but what do you have to show for it. Make somebody else pay and you feel good. Great, somebody should make a law, oh wait, they already did.
This is not a law designed to make me feel good, so your insights into that, or should I say 'insights' are severely misplaced and strange.
I am raising and therefore paying for three children, by your definition, I love kids
more than you do.
That's not my definition at all. No idea how you came to that conclusion.
Making somebody else pay for your good intentions is deceitful and immoral, unfortunately, it is not illegal.
I am very pleased to tell you that while as a general principle you are right, in this case you are very thankfully wrong. It's the law! :-)
Not so. Custody can be (and is) enforced by the court, for example. So when you say ‘only,’ you really mean ‘just one.’
Even in those cases, it is not automatic. My father married my mother when she was still pregnant with my oldest sister (from another man). He still had to formally adopt her to get his name put on her birth certificate.
You and I have very different views on what is “ok”
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.