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 ...
Actually it does.
L
Perhaps for the child’s sake a duped man should maintain a relationship with that child, and perhaps even help out financially. I imagine many or even most would want to do the former. But the decision should be left entirely to the duped man.
He should not be forced to do either by any court or law.
The personal relationship doesn't exist, and he never cultivated it with the child. If the child is his biologically, he should contribute to the support of the child (not teh support of the woman). If the child is not his biological father, and he never established a personal relationship with the child, then he isn't respobsible in any way for the wellbeing of the child.
If the man leaving the marriage has a relationship with that child, then why should the mother's decision deprive that child of a 'father'?
It doesn't. The child has a father even if he divorces the child's mother.
Why is it you only want to apply this to children living with their supposed biological father? If it's all about feelings, why embrace an arbitrary and inconsistent standard?
I don't. It would apply to any adult male who presented himself as the child's father, even if he is in fact wrong. I don't see why you interpreted my comments in such a warped, self serving way.
I’m pretty sure that is what hitman was alluding to.
You're wrong.
IF a woman is allowed to petition for support at any time, then a father should be able to submit DNA evidence at any time.
We allow this for criminals why not other forms of injustice?
Remember folks we are talking about ending a deception perpitrated on two parties. The child and the non-father.
That’s an idea. The only problem is that you make a pretty big presupposition in saying the mother is by definition unfit in this dynamic.
If you can say ‘when the mother is unfit,’ it would be better. But the fact that a woman has an affair and cheats on her husband doesn’t necessarily make her an unfit mother to her child.
I love it when men of small raisins whine about this. Step up and be a man!"
One of the most illogical posts made by a FReeper that I've ever read.
It says "You've been suckered, so deal with it, even when you've learned the truth"
If I was in a relationship with a woman that there was 100% proof that she lied about something that important, I wouldn't "step up and be a man" under you're definition.
You're definition of a man is severely whacked, beyond all recognition.
No, I think that would probably cause many more problems than it would solve.
No it doesn’t.
I'd like to think so too.
In your first line you ask if I am saying a father should pay for a child that is not his. My answer is, "No, of course not!" Honest question, honest answer to clarify my comment. So I am an asshat for agreeing with you? You should apologize to me for jumping to conclusions before I have a chance to answer your questions and to yourself for calling yourself an asshat.
you said:
If a man can prove by DNA that he is not the father, he should not be listed on the birth certificate, and should be under no obligation to support a child that is not his.
My thought: In addition she should be forced to pay back any child support previously collected, with interest.
It says 'it's not about you, it's about a child that has come to know you as 'daddy.'
In a situation where every option involves someone taking a hit, better the innocent adult male take the hit rather than an innocent child.
What PROBLEMS could it possibly cause, besides defeating an injustice?
Imagine if infidelity that results in birth was tacked onto divorce law.
Now that would be a step in the right direction. Leave no fault (to neutralize the politically correct crowd) but tack on that if a child is demonstrated to be the product of infidelity then the wife waives any alimony, child support from the duped father, and it results in an equitable distribution in favor of the duped man. (even in community property states)
Injsutice sometimes comes with the territory. Better an injustice against the adult male than injustice to the child, adding further disruption to the child’s life.
If you have ever witnessed these situations, the money most certainly goes to mommy and is spent the way she wants.
Mom and some other person created the situation. Pseudodad is the only one that is responsible?
Sir, I begin to suspect that you are not close minded, you are in fact a troll.
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.