[mombonn]

What is so sad about all of this is that children are no longer valued. They are reduced to a bargaining chip.

Truly sad.

I know there are exceptions on either side, but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

[Between the Lines]

but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

In the case of the mothers it is a total majority that have behaved badly.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>I know there are exceptions on either side, but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.<<<


I'd agree, if you'd replace the word "adults" with the word "mothers".

[Glenn]

but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

Bad behaviour usually has consequences. So be it. Let the mothers who commit this fraud deal with it instead of rewarding them.

[dano1]

I know there are exceptions on either side, but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

True. The law should make the biological father and mother responsible. It's wrong to force someone who is not the biological parent to support someone else's misbehavior. The experts quoted in this article all failed to mention that what is really in the best interest of the children is that society should encourage everyone to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

[NCLaw441]

What is so sad about all of this is that children are no longer valued. They are reduced to a bargaining chip.

That is not accurate. Children who are born should be supported. The issue is WHO should support these children. I find it interesting that feminist groups (not to suggest that you are a member of one) continue to urge the dependency of mothers on "fathers" who, in these cases, are not the fathers at all. I would propose something of a middle ground. Husbands whose wives have children should be presumed to be the father, but in the event that the true father is determined, he should be made to support the child, and the husband/victim (why shouldn't HE be allowed to be a victim for a change) be relieved of this obligation. Of course it is not the child's fault, but it is not the husband/non-father's fault either. I find the contrary thinking akin to those who would hold gun manufacturers (and now cell phone manufacturers)liable for misuse of their products resulting in injury to others. The theory seems to be, find nearby deep pockets and assert liability. The temptation is to grant relief to someone who needs it, irrespective of the message it sends to others who may be contemplating similar behavior.
That which we subsidize we encourage.