[picard]

The confusing point to me is how the courts have no consideration for the welfare of the father even though he is expected to support his former family even if the wife remarries. ??? How is this logical.

How is any male making from 20 to 60 expected to give up half of his salary and still survive? The point is if the male can’t work, he can’t pay. If he can’t eat, he can’t work.

It reminds me very much of London’s debtors prisons, where they illogically keep you locked up until you pay. ???

So, look at it this way. If you shack up with a woman who already has a child, and live with her (unmarried) for [x] number of years, you can be declared married and legally liable for the welfare of the child.

However, if you were legally married and paying support, and your former wife remarries, then the new step father is not held liable for the welfare stepchildren regardless of how many year he acts as their ‘actual’ father.

Divorce laws in America are bizarre in the extreme and they are absolutely designed to ‘punish’ the father regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

[PurpleMan]

Socialistic redistribution of wealth.

[logic]

Divorce laws in America are bizarre in the extreme and they are absolutely designed to ‘punish’ the father regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

So True!!! But it's not just Divorce laws, most other laws are just a screwey, look at the "squatters rights" laws for one more example...