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.
No, you clearly said that the courts only handle the financial end of things. And clearly you’re wrong, they handle more. Asking why it was raised is silly: you were the one that opened the door to that when you narrowly - and wrongly - described the court’s role and function.