[Pan_Yan]

If he is not the father then he should not be ordered to pay support. The decision should be reversed.

It appears from the way the article is written that this was not a call for the judge to make. The law needs changing because it favors the accusation of fatherhood over the actual paternity. Most of these laws were written before positive DNA testing was available. Many of them could be overhauled to allow for this, just as many innocent men have been released from rape and murder convictions in the last 15 years based on DNA evidence.

As for your other query, is it possible that both of them made the right decision for the sake for the kids?

[wtc911]

As for your other query, is it possible that both of them made the right decision for the sake for the kids?

_______________________________________

The guy who wrote his kids off did it for the money. I knew him well enough to know it from his own mouth. And no, his kids welfare was not part of his consideration.

[RogerFGay]

Most of these laws were written before positive DNA testing was available.

No. They were made after DNA tests became available, specifically for the purpose of ignoring proof of non-paternity. You are correct that the judge had no choice - other than to declare the law unconstitutional.