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 ...
Because the personal relationship isn't the only factor, and I never suggested it should be. The biodad is responsible for the child because he conceived the child.
2. If the Dad has been involved, and is not biodad the court should let him of on condition of continued involvement.
It's not either/or - the personal involvement and some financial support are both important.
3. If Mom won’t give up the biodad, put her in jail for fraud and let the kid stay with nonbiodad.
She isn't a criminal nor should she be. All she did was have sex with a man who wasn't her husband. That isn't, nor should be, a criminal matter.
4. If Mom gives up the biodad and it’s confirmed by DNA, then he’s on the hook for both the child support, and payback for the nonbiodad’s outlay. (serves him right for fishing in another guy’s pond, serves her right that now her infidelity is a matter of public record.)
That might work, I'm open to the husband paying some of the child support but not all of it in most cases. I think the biodad shold pay, also. Makes sense that the husband can sue for the biodad's portion of the past financial support for the child.
I am open about not being a father, that’s no secret. the sentiment the poster shared was still good and valid.
As for my resume, it’s perfectly legitimate. I am a member of the NY Bar, don’t practice law, and have my own business. Why is this suspicious to you?
You are a strange one.
That this is controversial on a conservative site is strange. Indeed, with conservative advocates like I have seen here today, it’s no wonder the electorate is telling conservatives to go take a hike.
Grown men defensive about their nest egg and putting their small concerns over that of a child who has grown to love them. If this is 21st Century conservatism, I don’t blame people for running conservatives out of town.
I have heard the figure of 10% a lot, but 20% is perfectly credible to me.
No damn way I’d support such a kid. No way.
Under no circumstances.
If that’s bad for the kid, it’s not my problem.
That’s fine. Speaks volumes for you, of course.
No hunny, that is not ‘implied paternity’. In the case you posit, the husband would not be ordered to pay any child support.
Current laws would require the courts to track down the bio-father. The step-dad would not be allowed any visitation rights nor would he be ordered to pay child support.
What makes you think that you will be left with 1/2 your income?
Martello v. Martello. Louisiana First Circuit Court of appeal. According to the appeals court, the judge ordered him to pay $5,760 in spousal support and $2,000+ in child support from about a $9,000/month income leaving him with $882 month to live on.
The appeals court overturned this case.
Notice, however, that the appeals court neglected to deduct his Federal, his State, and his FICA taxes from his income. So the court actually took 100+% of his income.
Since you are so willing to 'take the hit', please post your full name and address so that we can get you to pay child support for ninety nine fine children.
I am sure you will be able establish a good emotional bond with them even though you will never be allowed to see them.
If his wife were a "real woman" she wouldn't have had sex with a man (or men) not her husband. Were his wife a "real woman" she would have come clean after the infidelity took place and accepted whatever choice he came to concerning their marriage. Were his wife a "real woman" she wouldn't have taken the secret that six of his seven children are bastards to her grave.
Ultimately, a man should not be forced into caring for children who are not his own unless he has taken legal custody of the children. What a man's affections might be for a child and what a child's affections might be for a man should have no legal bearing as to who holds primary responsibility for the child and legal, primary responsibility should rest with the two people who created the child. Claiming that a man deserves to bound into financial servitude for two decades to another person in the "best interests of the child" is not much different than the argument Leftists make that the rich need to be soaked in the "best interests of the poor."
What if the biological father is never found? Then the biological father is simply never found and the child grows up without. Welcome to the club we have plenty of room in the member roster. What if the step/sort-of-kind-of/foolin'-around-with-your-mom daddy decides to give the kid some stuff, then cuts the kid off cold along with the mom? Well, then the guy is kind of a douche, but there is no law against being a douche, nor should there be. If a man who is not biologically decides to be a father-figure to a child, then that should be his decision, reliant upon his own conscience, not what the state decides (because as we all know, the state does no wrong) is in "the best interest of the child."
I have a sister and brother-in-law who are both attorneys, and I was engaged to a family-law specialist. I understand very well what the courts do. This discussion was never about custody - it was about requiring men to pay child support for children who are not theirs. I never said the court could not do other things. I just said that of the things you claimed were your reasons for supporting this practice (to preserve a relationship between father and child, and to insure continuing support for the child), the law can only enforce one of them, so talking about the other is pointless in this discussion.
Hitman, you've hit it right on the proverbial "nail's head". I was just about to make the same statement, based on the last paragraph of the story and you stole my thunder!
And I think both of you are missing the basic point. I think most here would hope that the man would want to continue a loving relationship he had built with the child. The argument is that the government should not be able to force him to do so if he chooses not to do so, in the case where paternity can be disproven and the deceived male can show that he was unaware he was not the child's father...
Funny, I thought that opposing government interference into private matters and expecting a person to be responsible for his actions (but not requiring him to be responsible for the actions of others) were conservative positions. Silly me! /s
In California, there have been numerous cases like this. Mom went on welfare, and the state required her to name the father. Of course the father had to be notified, and he has a year to challenge paternity. IF he doesn't do so, he loses all rght to challenge paternity, even if DNA proves he cannot be the father.
So how does mom get around a successful challenge? She claims dad has moved and she doesn't know where he is. This allows her to "notify" the father by running an advertisement in the newspaper - and it doesn't have to be in a newspaper in the father's home town, either. A year after the "notification" is posted, suddenly mom can find "dad's" address to give to the child support division, who then let him know he owes a year's back child support, is on the hook until the child is 18, and has missed the deadline to challenge paternity. After all, it is in the best interest of the child!
Unfortunately this doesn't always apply in society. Of course when it comes to equal PAY and other "benefits", women want equality, but not when it comes to punitive issues.
Just take a look at how many female teachers have actually been sent to jail for having sex with their students compared to their male counterparts who did the same thing (and the numbers diverge even further when you compare the GOOD-LOOKING women who went to jail as opposed to ugly men).
There is a HUGE double-standard and it's just flat out WRONG.
You can believe what you choose but being tricked into believing that one is the father hardly makes for a good outcome when that proves fraudulent. Folks here seem perturbed by your lack of concern for such fraudulent situations.
As you are espousing a belief that has no bearing on your sole business focus to date, people are not apt to adopt your socialist view of the state dictating a fatherly responsibility in the matter. As you support the state imposing the determination of fatherhood where no paternity exists, its strange you would assume this to be a conservative position.
It is not.
Sorry its not. By law, like it or not any child born in wedlock is by law the responsibility of the Husband. When that marriage disolves, the court is involved and whats in the best interest of the child is the pervue of the state.
Frankly there is no honorable decision to make if you are a man, the decision is made for you if you have ANY backbone and morality in your soul at all... clearly since you think there is other options to be had, you are no man.
20% or 10% - that figure is of those who wanted paternity tests, and so may have been suspicious to begin with.
Really? What would be worse? To get specific about it, she put herself above an oath she made to God, and lied about it.
Behavior is reality.
It's a general principle. If I am left with less than 1/2, that's fine too. I'll make more money. Money and possessions don't own me. I'm not fearful about losing it. I don't see why so many men are so motivated by fear.
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.