[homeschool mama]

You assume much but know little.

By law he must contribute to the financial welfare of the child he helped produce. Not all men *do* contribute...and not all women *seek* such contribution. You seem to have a poor view of women with your quip about fathers being nothing more than wallets with legs. Get real.

[flyervet]

You seem to have a poor view of women with your quip about fathers being nothing more than wallets with legs.

Not all women. Just women who seek to deprive their children from interaction with their fathers when the fathers only crime is not being someone the mother wants to be around. Removing this child from her father's life while happily continuing to accept his child support is nothing short of unconscienable.

You said it yourself. "They were attempting to get away from him and he followed." Then you said, "Why should she refuse child support payments for a child HE fathered?" So in your world, a father's physical presence is completely unimportant, but his financial presence is vital. Spoken like a true feminazi.

I don't know what to make of Michael Newdow the man, but Michale Newdow the father has earned my respect.