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 ...
Perhaps the only good thing to come out of this whole stupid Anna Nichole Smith case will be that DNA-determined paternity will become the ONLY standard for paternity. I acknowledge that Bahamanian case law would not set any US precedents, but the general public following the ANS case has become quite familiar now with the idea that the law does not always follow the scientific evidence.
It's my hope that laws can be passed that will recognize that we have new positive ways of discerning fatherhood, without relying on the pre-DNA traditions of the past. Would it be asking too much to require mandatory DNA testing on every baby born?
“kid still bears my name, and the birth certificate STILL lists me as the father”
Totally unfair to you AND to the child.
Most of the comments that I have responded don't have much to do with that aspect of the larger debate.
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.
Not really, I am distinguishing between the woman's intent to deceive and what might possibly be a mistake. Ovulation periods and all, a woman can make a mistake. In that case, it can't be fraud. That was my only distinction from your position on this issue. Otherwise, I agree with you,.
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.
It;'s not about me believing that she knows it. My belief in her word isn't worth a thing, nor is it important or probative.
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.
A woman can have sex with one man during a time she mistakenly thinks it is unlikely she can get pregnant, and have sex with another man during a time she believes it is more likely where she can get pregnant. If she goes in fact get pregnant around that time, she may rationally believe that the second man got her pregnant and in fact be wrong. In that case she isn't defrauding anybody, and she isn't even lying.
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.
Yes, exactly.
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.
Here is another fallacy - while I have no children myself, I have been a part in a parent-chikld relationship. I am a son to both my father and mother. So I have plenty of experience on that end.
See, this is exactly the kind of thinking I see too much on FR recently - thinking in 1 dimension. I don't claim to be an expert, but to say I have no insight into this dynamic because I don't have children forgets the added dimension that I was a child and have experience from that perspective.
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.
Considering I never gave parenting advice, your commentary is a non sequitur, but one that the typical Freeper will quickly rush t o see as proof of 'something,' though it's not clear what that 'something' is once put to scrutiny.
Too much for me, thanks - I have no interest in registering my DNA, or that of my kids, in some federal database.
Can't even bring yourself to end simple sentences, huh? Nor provide a customary ping since i am being discussed.
Such courage.
25%? Are you kidding??? I know there are some women who lie, but 25%? That outrageous if actually true.
I'll give you this - all of your attempts to discern some insight into me have been wrong. Consistently is the hobgoblin of little minds, after all.
You're consistent, I'll grant you that.
That's about the level of insight I have come to expect from you this afternoon. Consistency!
I've just been following through on my consersations - the proximity of your post to one I was responding to called my attention to it.
Again, your insights into me are consistently wrong. But they are consistent, so you must get some points for that.
I've just been following through on my conversations - the proximity of your post to one I was responding to called my attention to it.
Again, your insights into me are consistently wrong. But they are consistent, so you must get some points for that.
That is the most illogical statement you've made so far - and that is saying a lot. If the man doesn't want to maintain a relatinship with the child or pay child support, I don't think he will be suing for custody, so your statement has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
You keep dodging the issue. The point here is that no law is going to force a man to maintain a paternal relationship with a child not his own. The only thing it can do is force him to pay for another man's child against his will.
Maybe, maybe not. It's just that I know that everyone has missed the mark at sometimes in their lives. It's ok. provided you don't keep missing the mark and not learn to develop the kind of worldview and habits that help you hit the mark more regularly. That's all.
It’s perfectly legitimate. I know a woman who was very active in ‘bring your daughter to work day’ at my old firm. Actually, I didn’t like her very much, and am not too crazy about the day, but she was criticzed by small minds who found her at fault because she didn’t have a daughter.
Of course, I reminded them that to be fair, she was a daughter.
In any event, I don’t need to be a parent to know the value of a relationship with a parent. Indeed, anyone who finds that amusing just thinks about things too simply. Then again, they probably have to, in order to keep their worldview afloat.
While you may tell yourself that you care about the wellbeing of the child, you seem not to grasp that childhood is temporary and for many adults who were not reared in the ideal conditions of a loving, married, sober and stable household, childhood is the condition they had to survive to become functioning adults.
Children survive the death of their parents.
They also survive under conditions of abuse many can not even imagine.
What hurts them most is not that the adults in their lives might betray them, but that other adults would excuse the betrayal, and pretend it does not matter.
You claim a man who finds out he is not the father of a child should continue to pretend he is “for the child's sake”.
I say, for the child’s future adult life, he should not.
But I am merely a single mother, actively involved in raising a child to adulthood.
Injustice abounds in our “Feel Good” society. Should we expect anything else?
Not at all, I was just making it clear that your statement was patently wrong - courts often decide custody matters when both parties seek custody. They may deny a parent custody entirely and enforce it, or establish joint custody and enforce it. The example you gave is valid, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the point you made.
You keep dodging the issue. The point here is that no law is going to force a man to maintain a paternal relationship with a child not his own. The only thing it can do is force him to pay for another man's child against his will.
I'm not dodging anything. I have made my position clear and yes, you are right that a court can't make a man a good parent. It can use the force of law to make him a passable one, though, something you can't seem to absorb.
What about the cases where the parents of the child are not married at the time of the birth, and the mother applies for welfare benefits? Slippery slope?
“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...”
Yes, they should rejoice in paying to raise another man’s child for 18 years.
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.