The state wants to enforce child support payments from *somebody*, and there’s no particular benefit, for the state, in making sure the actual sperm donor pays.
My vote would be no support from any third party. The mother can get a job, or place her child for adoption, or both.
Mr. Salazar did not help his case by withholing payments that were ordered by the court. $300 a month seems light compared to what he'll have to fork over in legal fees and time spent incarcerated.
My prayers go out for the poor child.
Exactly. Women have 100% control over whether they have a baby or not. Reliable contraception and abortion (which in most states does not require the father’s consent, not that there’s really a safe, reliable way to confirm who the father is anyway) are always available, and adoption often is (though depending on race and physical infirmities, often the only option is dumping the baby into state foster care, which the state will try to get the father to pay for). If a woman has a baby, and doesn’t have a firm written contract with someone else (husband, father, other) to support the child, she should be on her own financially. Lots of women would learn how to avoid getting pregnant if babies didn’t come with a regular check either from the government, or from a “father” forced by the government.
The state’s willing to do that simply so it doesn’t have to pay anything in the form of welfare, or whatever.