Replies

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.

Your standards are entirely arbitrary.

Take a case where Mary has a child with John. When the child is one year old, then Mary divorces John and marries Ted. John is paying child support but never has contact with the child for the next ten years. Ted then divorces Mary. But he, even though he is the only possible father figure the child has ever known, walks away from the child scot-free.

Either make it about the feelings of a child or not. If you try to mix paternity with the emotions of children, you allow the courts their current entirely arbitrary and capricious standards.

A child is not entitled to a father. A child is not even entitled to be born in this country if its mother is bent on infanticide.

That something is 'arbitrary' (entirely or otherwise) doesn't mean it's disposable, a subtlety you probably didn't pick up when you covered 'arbitrary' at community college.

Take a case where Mary has a child with John. When the child is one year old, then Mary divorces John and marries Ted. John is paying child support but never has contact with the child for the next ten years. Ted then divorces Mary. But he, even though he is the only possible father figure the child has ever known, walks away from the child scot-free.

What does that have to do with what I suggested? In that case I'd say Ted should be held to the same standard I outlined.

Either make it about the feelings of a child or not. If you try to mix paternity with the emotions of children, you allow the courts their current entirely arbitrary and
capricious standards.

Yes, I do. I know there are situations that have no good solution, only choices of bad options. I'm an attorney after all, I know this well! But when the adults can't decide the best course of action, somebody has to. That's the courts, for better or for worse.

A child is not entitled to a father. A child is not even entitled to be born in this country if its mother is bent on infanticide.

Strange, strange worldview. I only seek to hold the father figure accountable when he has established a relationship with the child. That child has a father, entitlement or not. Holding the adults who willingly accepted that role is fair and legitimate - the role of father isn't contingent on the man being married to the wife.

As for the reference to abortion, it's strange and misplaced, as well as overstated. Then again, that's perfectly consistent with what you tend to type, anyway.

A child is not entitled to a father. A child is not even entitled to be born in this country if its mother is bent on infanticide.

Exactly and further more, If the Woman has the right to an abortion, then she alone is the decision maker as to if the kid is born. With the Right comes the Responsibility. The Woman should have 100% of the responsibility and the man should have none. This is the game when Abortion is on the books. If a woman is impregnated against her will, she should file rape charges. It is all her choice, and with choice goes the responsibility.