Ummmmmm, in the 1950's this law would have made sense... Today? It's nuts.
I'm not sure it would make any sense anytime. Both parties state that he is not the father. Why should it be inflicted on him and then required of him to pay support?
No doubt the child, given her druthers, would have rushed everything through court so that her baby-daddy could pay the bills, .....
Wonder if the putative father who's complaining claimed the baby on his income tax filing.
It’s traditional English and US common law, based on the old assumption that men owned both their wives and their children, and were thus responsible for controlling what their wives did.
The studies I've seen indicate that the rate of female cuckoldry in marriages was shockingly high in the 50's. They were just more discrete about it.
"The Law is a ass"...
The irony today is that a person can be sent to the execution chamber on the basis of DNA evidence, but it cannot be used justly to satisfy a simple injustice foisted on thousands of innocent men.
Antiquated?
A monumental understatement!
The whole point of state sponsored marriage was to ensure the man takes care of his wife and child.
However, these days women--we are told--are the equal of men, so we no longer need marriage to make a man care for his wife (according to current popular brainwashed belief).
NEVERTHELESS, to force a man to take responsibility for a child he can prove is not his, would be UNNATURAL at any time in history.