Replies

I cited another source that says it was the 1996 welfare reforms that created this particular problem. I recall it pretty well, since I've been studying this stuff since 1989. I didn't specifically remember that 1996 federal reforms created this problem, but it seems quite right to me. That's about the time - or shortly thereafter - when states started changing their laws in this way.

The general background that people need to understand in order to get all this stuff is that the fed. has taken over marriage and family law. Constitutionally it's left to the states and to the people - so I agree with anyone who says it shouldn't be the way it is and understand when people are suprised at the very least. But it is so. All marriage and family law has been pulled into welfare law and is being written by Congress. States merely implement.

I've written several articles about how it's happened and why they're getting away with it. I'm known as an expert and writer on the subject - a little known fact - I served as an expert witness in the case that reclassified marriage and family law to allow the federal takeover. I was called in by the other side - which was fighting against the child support reforms.

The general background that people need to understand in order to get all this stuff is that the fed. has taken over marriage and family law. Constitutionally it's left to the states and to the people - so I agree with anyone who says it shouldn't be the way it is and understand when people are suprised at the very least. But it is so. All marriage and family law has been pulled into welfare law and is being written by Congress. States merely implement.

I agree on the importance of people understanding the background of how this began. I agree that reading the links Mr. Gay posts here are an excellent way to find that background out.

However, IMO history has now become more important here than looking at ways to get *out* of this travesty of justice. The *only* way we can get out of this mess is to start electing politicians who see the problem. Electing politicians who benefit privately by using this system will only get us more of the same system in the future.

how about this one...if a man and woman aren’t married but live together and have a child together, both parents are on birth cert. but the state does not recognize nor give parental rights to the father solely because they were not married at the time of birth.

now my question is this. a man and woman are married and a child is born. both the man and woman are on the birth cert. the man is assumed to be the father so he has all parental rights.

all i am asking is in the 2nd case why should it be assumed he is the father? but in the first case when both man and woman acknowledge they are the parents the man is not assumed to be the father by law.