Good articles. I know someone who is personally involved in paying for a child (a child he has never seen) who cannot be his son, proven by DNA. The way the state accomplishes this is to garnish wages of the person whose name the mother picks from a hat (I suppose). The state then sends child support to the mother. The accused must pay the state back (plus a VERY large amount of interest), putting him in debt to the state forever, the state hopes.
As the article states, a man can hire an attorney for big bucks, get a DNA test to prove he's not the father, but to no avail, the judge states "it's for the children", and the state continues to put the poor guy into the poorhouse, not caring that the guy has other children and a wife to support. The woman who named him as the father has nothing to lose, and cash to gain.
"Governor" Davis is nothing but a whore for cash.
Can you explain why the best interest of someone else's children supersede the best interests of this non-related man?
Does this mean I (or any man) should be forced to support anonymous street urchins by direct deposit?