[mombonn]

In a sane society, that should be grounds for the man to walk away without any legal obligation.

Tell that to the poor kid that thought he was her father for 14 years.

I'm not defending the disgusting behavior of the mother, but the poor kid doesn't deserve to be dumped at this stage of her life. Being a 14-year old girl is difficult enough without having this to deal with.

[BuddhaBoy]

Kids suffer because of this, but two wrongs dont make a right. They need to start going after the real fathers, and making them pay the child support through the surrogate, if that man wants to maintain a relationship.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Tell that to the poor kid that thought he was her father for 14 years. I'm not defending the disgusting behavior of the mother, but the poor kid doesn't deserve to be dumped at this stage of her life. Being a 14-year old girl is difficult enough without having this to deal with.<<<


Then that is all the more reason why duped dads should be allowed to walk upon learning they'd been deceived. It gives mothers the incentive to stay in contact with the REAL fathers, and not to perpetrate a fraud for years. If mothers give a rip about anyone but themselves, then this legal reform will give them a chance to prove it.

[Age of Reason]

Tell that to the poor kid that thought he was her father for 14 years.

I said legal obligation.

If the cuckold wants to be sporting, then he can continue to support the kid (though I like to think I'd walk away--life isn't always easy. Sigh.).

Otherwise, you might address your comment to the child's real father.

[Jim Noble]

>>Being a 14-year old girl is difficult enough<<

Gee, at the school where my sons went when they were 14, there were signs all over that said, "GIRLS RULE!"

How difficult can it be?

[brownie]

Fine, allow the purported father to continue to act as a father to the child, but no legal financial obligations (the purported father could voluntarily financially support the child). In the meantime, the actual biological father would become legally responsible for financially supporting the child, including repayment of any support payments the purported father already made (or, if the mother does not know who the actual father is, the mother is out of luck and does not receive the extra payment, since, in reality, it is the mother, not the child, who receives the money).

At the very least, such action would make people a little more cautious about having affairs, or a little more cautious about having affairs without protection.

The "what about the children" argument does not work for me. There are a lot of kids born into bad situations. Usually, the parents are responsible in those situtations as well, such as when an extremely poor, drug addict has children, or a single mother has children by 5 different men. If we take the "do it for the children" argument to its logical conclusion, we will support all of the liberal nanny-state policies.