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 think you mean "Bend over and smile !"
Sometimes, yes. But not always.
Not having children yourself, you believe this is in the best interests of the child.
It is not.
My having or not having children isn't material.
Ask any adult who discovers they were not the biological child of their parents, how it feels to be lied too.
Ask an adult who was raised knowing they were adopted who their real parents are.
Ask an adult raised by a loving stepparent,which role model they will use in raising their own children.
Ask the adult raised by a devoted single mother or father, how that worked out for them.
Ask an adult raised by loving, honest and decent extended family members or foster parents, how that all worked out in the end.
All great questions, and I have had some of these discussions with some people in these categories over my life, but haven't covered each example.
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.
I disagree here - I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. the childhood need not be perfect and I never suggested it should be.
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.
And yes, the betrayal I am addressing is for the father figure suddenly 'checking out' of the life of a child who looks to him as 'daddy.' I'm not excusing this betrayal - indeed, it's other Freepers who passionately seem to think it's the father figure's prerogative to check out of the life of a child. I think the law is right to undermine that strategy.
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.
Now look closely - I never said that. This is a fiction you created. I just said he should remain a part of the child's life who looks upon him as a parent. As for the pretending, I offered no suggestion nor insight into that.
I say, for the childs future adult life, he should not.
And maybe I agree with you - I don't like pretenses either. But I do think it's desirable that he continue to be part of the child's life. That doesn't inexorably mean the 'pretending' you suggested.
But I am merely a single mother, actively involved in raising a child to adulthood.
Good luck to you and God bless.
Databanks.
I am none of the above, regardless of your best efforts to try to fit things into neat, self serving categories in order to make things make sense for you.
Sometimes, yes.
Man, I've seen everything now.
Y'all lawyers are nuts.
Not too nuts, but nuts enough. ;-)
Sure, I’ll Freepmail you about it!
montag813 wins the thread!
Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and wasn't even implied in the context of my statement. As I said, it was a complete non-sequiter. Either you were just looking for somethng to argue about, or you couldn't adequately refute the point so you changed the subject.
It can use the force of law to make him a passable one, though, something you can't seem to absorb.
If money is all you think it takes to make someone a "passable" parent, you really have some screwed up ideas.
Let's face it, your arguments about preserving the "relationship" are all a farce. Hopefully, if a man has developed a relationship with a child, he will not want to end it because he learns he is not the biological father. But if he does, no court can prevent it, and to try to require him to continue such a relationship will ultimately be harmful to the child. You know this, I'm sure.
This is all about one thing - money. You think somone should be required to support the child, and since the real father is not available, the duped husband will have to do. This is not for the emotional well-being of the child - any child would be better off with a loving step-father or no father at all than to have a man who has come to resent or even hate the child and the mother in their life.
Your problem is 1)you are an attorney, so you think the law can fix social issues; and 2) you are young and naive enough (emotionally if not chronologically) to think you know something about life. Your post are full of pseudo-compassion, but no real understanding.
As one poster previously said, if you really feel that it is better for an adult to "take the hit", as you put it, you should volutarily take on the responsibility of supporting some of these children. If the husband no longer wishes to be associated with them, you have just as much of a relationship; maybe more, since you "love the children", and obviously the husband doesn't.
Blah blah frakking blah!
I'm sorry, I don't take child rearing advice from virgins. Why don't you go upstairs from your basement lair and ask your mom about it?
I will reevaluate it and see if I can be clearer and more on point, if I think I wasn’t. I will say that I am happy that the conventional wisdom of FR as I have read this afternoon isn’t the way it’s done, though the law changes from time to time. ‘The best interests of the child’ standard is better than the best interests of the poor guy standard, even if it brings up to sometimes unjust decisions.
But I am glad that the FR view on this issue is in the minority, and doesn’t look to ever become the standard.
True story:
A friend of mine married a woman, and adopted her son - legally.. Went through the whole rigamarole of adopting her son as a symbol of his committment to her.
Fast forward a few years.
SURPRISE! My buddy's wife suddenly decides she's a lesbian, shacks up with another woman, and files for divorce.
And guess what! My pal now has to pay support!
No fraud, no deceit, as you said. But my friend still has to sell the house he worked hard for, file for bankruptcy! Yay! Justice has been done!
Hasn't it??
(Sure, there was some other stuff that was going on, but I'm just using this as an illustration.)
I’m neither a virgin, nor living in my mom’s basement, nor am I giving out parenting advice. I’m giving my thoughts on how the law should handle these situations.
You’re not only wrong, you’re very wrong. But lately, that appears to be FR for you.
Huh-huh. You said "snatch"
Adopted kids are NOT second class citizens.
Man, that is one of the most insulting things you can call anyone here on FR.
LOL Well done!
Ask him if he despises the child or the mother. I’ll bet he loves his child.
But I agree that some women are simply scum. How does one not know the father of their child? Or just wake up one day and think “Oh, I’m a lesbian”.
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.