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 ...
You said, in part: Men who are unduly fearful should just never get married, or get married with a complex prenup and not have children, and avoid these traps entirely.
***
No, that would not avoid the kind of liability you have asserted in prior posts. If a man establishes a bond with a child who thinks of him as his/her father, irrespective of marriage, biological parenthood or even love for the biological mother, and loves that child as much as if he/she were his own, you would seem to impose financial liability for support. I hope I am wrong in your position.
Well, that’s not what I said, but...
I think the actual number is probably lower in the general population. People who have these DNA tests taken have a reason to suspect more than the general population - like the percentage of patients waiting in an oncologist’s office is probably higher than the number of people at the next door McDonald’s.
That's all true, I don't disagree. But it doesn't have anything to do with the relationship with any child in the marriage. It's a beef the man has with his wife, not a beef he has with any of her children, notably when they recognize him as their father.
What the point of contention your fans seem to have with you is your lack of recognition for the fact that feelings and relationships change. Our feelings change for people we call friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, respected authorities, and even enemies.
I don't disagree with that at all.
A man's feelings can change for a child just like his feelings for a woman can change once he realizes he's been duped.
Yep, and despite the change in feelings, some courses of conduct are better than others. It's better to put the child's interests ahead of the hurt, cuckolded male's interests. I never suggested otherwise.
And no, your point is not valid that a woman "forgot" who might have knocked her up unless there are so many candidates or she's blind.
I never made the case that a woman forgets who the father is. Strange. I did say she good be mistaken in good faith. That's not to say she is forgetful. Why is this concept so difficult for Freepers to absorb?
A man might no longer feel a bond with a child that is not theirs, it sucks for the kid, but it's understandable considering that the basis for the relationship was that they were biologically related.
It's going to suck for everyone, it's about what sucks more and what sucks worse. I think it's better for the adult male to absorb more of the suckitude. Others disagree. That's fine,
like I said it speaks volumes for them.
No, I never extended my standard to all such relationships with children. Just in some instances (and admittedly narrow ones), and I’m happy to let the courts decide the facts, as is their role.
Indeed, the only way a male can completely insulate themselves from this is to have no personal relationships with adult women, or adult women with children. Heck, better safe than sorry: don’t have any personal relationships with anyone.
Yep, but as we said, if 20% of married women cheat, and 30% of married men cheat, there’s bound to be a noticeable pattern out there of married women who have children who have misidentified - either by mistake or design - who the father is.
Men should be forced to support children who are not theirs;
No-fault divorce is a good thing;
Men should not have a right to know if their children are being aborted;
It is understandable when women have children fathered by men other than their husbands, because they must have a "sucky" spouse - in other words, it is the husband's fault that the wife cheated.
I won't say Hitman is a troll, but he has decidedly liberal and feminist views on this subject, and he likes to argue. Better to just let the subject drop and ignore him.
In cases like this, the child should be removed from the Mother’s care and be given to the Father.
Let her pay the Child Support. It was her loose morals and activities that resulted in the birth in the first place.
DNA isn’t needed except to prove who the real father is, and he can pay child support too.
That will stop alot of this crap overnight. Might even make a few loose “wives” rethink their morals.
And of that amount, how many would choose abortion if they suspected the child was not their husband's? :(
“The child didn’t defraud anyone, something the mighty freeper he-man club simply can’t cope with.”
Raising the issue of the child is superflous as no one would suggest the child is guilty of anything.
That people would question why their “he-man club” status is at question and more importantly for not favoring a state imposed sanction for their non-fathering is.
It's not superfluous at all. Many of the folks posting here are at least incidentally harming a child, and see it as excusable because of misconduct of the child's mother.
Carolyn
“Kind of like how Dubya was totally wrong about WMDs, but that doesn’t make him a liar.”
Blew any credibility you had by that misstatement.
What misstatement? Even Dubya has joked about how they didn't find any WMD in Iraq.
So, what role does the mother have in all this...is she financially responsible for any measure of support, or does she sit by and “whine†that she needs more money to “support†the child....and as a thought, how come the female spouse is NEVER order to help support the child....and how come the is no accounting for the support money spent on the child...seems to me that a yearly accounting of money spent would be required...I have to account on a yearly basis on the my money earned.....
Of course she must contribute to the financial support of her child. And I am all for more legitimate accounting standards for child support - child support is for the child, not for the mom. Any more stringent methods to have the mother account for the money is aok by me.
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.
What kind of freaking nut job are you?
Only a buffoon would look to the law for moral leadership.
No where did I say or imply that a man should not do what is right.
Never you moron.
The part that slips by your stupid skull that men should behave morally because they want to.
It is this simple, some one should say "Please" and "Thank you" because they mean it, not because some zealot is standing behind them with a horse whip.
Actually more men may contribute more to their children, if they were not answering to the buzzards at the "Friend of the Court" or what ever your local collection agency is. One guy I work with had his support payment upped only because the Judge did not like the way he was dressed. The system is morally bankrupt.
Only a morally bankrupt person such as your self would support such a system, as it dove tails precisely with your value system.
I think the proper approach would be to go after the real father...why should the mother protect the true father...the courts should order her to name the sperm donor, and have it confimed with DNA.....that is if she can identified him....
No argument from me. I have explicitly said I don’t think the biodad should be completely off the hook. I never suggested otherwise.
Your position is great...but not confirmed by the courts....the mother proclaims that Joe Schmuck, is the father, and it is a done deal...the courts orders his income confimed, and quote gives unquote the mother support based on the males income....
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.