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 child knows the man as their father, and in a situation where no matter where we cut it, somebody is going to take a hit, I’d rather the adult male take the hit rather than the child.
We are in complete agreement there.
Take one for the team, no thanks.
Unless the woman was raped, she and another man entered into a physical contract to create a child. Let the man who entered that contract pay for the child.
My cousin had 4 children when he was married. She then divorced him letting him know that all four were fathered by another man. He is still paying for those children and will never have any children of his own. He didn’t step up, he was shackled down. It was a wrong done to him that will not go away after the last child support check is cashed.
It is not whining, it is a social injustice.
By your reasoning, to create more real men, the courts should randomly assign babies from single moms, and let men work two jobs for 18 years supporting them. Yep, sounds like a great idea to me.
Just because she cheated on her husband doesn't mean she is a completely dishonest person. Nor does it mean she is even mostly dishonest. That a woman has an affair with a man who isn't her husband, that creates a child, doesn't mean she can't be trusted to use the money for the benefit of her child.
I think you're trying to connect dots that don't connect very well, sorry.
I think the difference is between court-ordered financial support and financial support given out of love. Fraud should never be rewarded. If a man loves the child he always thought was his, he can give support from his heart, not from his garnished wages.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Agree with you, can’t have it both ways.
I can’t imagine walking out on a child, that you have raised as your own since birth, and severing that relationship completely because you learned its mother had decieved you.
Anyone that could or would is no man in my book.
Yea, it sucks, its not fair, its not “right”, but guess what, its called being a Man. Frankly sue for full custody, seems to me you have a legitimate argument for it on the grounds of Fraud on the part of the Mother.
One thing when someone shows up out of the blue claiming some kid you’ve never met is yours, another when you have raised it as your own (albeit by deceit) only to find out later its not biologically yours, but you are the only father they’ve ever know.... and be able to walk away from that?
That’s a coward and a child, not a man.
“No explanation can fill the hole in a child’s heart where a daddy ought to be” -bumper sticker of mine.
Guys shouldn’t be obligated to continue paying, if the family is separated, but if they’ve assumed the role of a father, IMO it’s their responsibility to continue in that ‘fatherhood’ role. Doesn’t matter what kind of woman was involved, or what circumstances were available to get a guy into the relationship, it is NEVER the child’s fault.
I didn’t say that the real father shouldn’t financially provide for the child. In fact, in a follow up post, I said he should contribute to the child’s financial support.
I did say that when a personal father-child relationship has been established, someone is going to take a hit in this situation. I think it’s better that the adult man takes the hit, rather than the child.
So when a child knows a man as ‘daddy,’ even if he isn’t the real father, I think the best thing to do - out of admittedly bad choices - is for him to continue that role.
As for your interpretation about my reasoning, you’re once again remarkably wrong. Those men didn’t have the personal relationship as husband and father when the child is born. Your ‘reasoning,’ to be fair, is probably best at home on a place like FR - you know, where the conventional wisdom is often so divorced from the real 3-D world that it crosses well into ‘fantasyland.’
Is this your story?
You seem to be very emotionaly involved.
Well, the child is the one getting the benefit from the support, and they committed no fraud. So in that respect, I’d disagree - you’re placing the burden of the blame on the wrong party.
I agree 100%
But the exception doesn't make it right for the state to aid and abet fraud on behalf of the mother.
The money is going to help support the child. The child didn't commit any fraud.
Also fraud includes intent. The woman who has another man's baby maybe had no intent to deceive her husband as to the paternity of the child. She may simply be wrong. 'Fraud' is a legal concept and this dynamic doesn't necessarily mean fraud.
SLippery slope. I disagree with you. You can’t force someone to be a dad (or a mom) if they are not that child’s parents. How would you like to be told you have to give payments for a kid of a guy or gal you’re involved with because the other adult testifies the kid now has an emotional bond to you, and the other real parent is nowhere to be found?
On the flipside, we should do more to force real but unwilling moms and dads to be moms and dads to the kids that are theirs.
“I think both should.”
In cases where Mrs. A knowingly defrauded Mr. A and wasted state resources by furnishing false statements, the only payment that ought to be involved is that of sending Mrs. A to jail.
In cases where there is no intentional fraud, then you almost have a point. However, apparently you have the mistaken impression that if Mr. A isn’t paying then the child will starve or something. The IV-D program (and if necessary IV-A, Medicaid, etc) can provide assistance until the proper payor is found to provide reimbursement.
In fact, that’s the entire reason this whole child support system exists (Family Support Act of 1988). We the taxpayers grew tired of biodads skipping out leaving the bill in our hands, so we go after the biodad. This is OK, but not if the wrong guy’s on the hook.
Arguments surrounding the child and payment fall down to me because the child does not develop an attachment to the money but to the person. As we know the visitation and the support are separate because failure on the CP’s part to allow visitation does not relieve the NCP from support obligations; therefore, when we discover that the NCP is not really the person who ought to be paying support, visitation may continue.
In all of this endeavor to maintain that in your mind - the act of parenting and the support are totally separate. The only reason for the support is to pay back the state for unreimbursed assistance. Therefore there’s no reason that the support ought to attach to a person who didn’t father the child.
I could envision a sort of support order where a guy becomes the payor pro tem (until the true biodad is identified) but this does not exist in the law today.
This is female psychology in a nutshell. Screw some inbred loser, but make the "good guy" pay for it.
Wonderful post and I agree. This is a bitter pill and no matter what we as a society choose, somebody gets kicked in the teeth, figuratively.
So kick the man in the teeth. Better that than kicking a child in the teeth.
And yes, as you note (and a concept alien to many self avowed 'men' on this forum), sometimes being a man means taking the kick in the teeth.
Thanks.
The results should be given to both "parents".
LOL I've seen those Maury shows where some fat hog is screaming at some poor guy, "You my baby-daddy! You my baby-daddy! An' you gon' pay up, too!" Only to start screaming and sobbing when the DNA tests show that neither of the two guys they had on the stage were her "baby-daddy".
Serves those harlots right, it does.
So you don't think a good man would do the honorable thing without being forced by the court?
This bill should be law in every state. Even common law has to make way for technological advances. It did for firearms, it can for genetic testing.
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.