[BuddhaBoy]

Frankly, I am shocked by what you wrote.

You as a judge, are someone that I would expect to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; which state that we are all created EQUAL.

That means that regardless of circumstances, the LAW is the final arbitrator, independent of sentiment.

You ask "Should the child be punished?", but I ask you should the MAN be punished? It appears that you are suggesting the the man is somehow LESS equal under the law then the child. That is emotional and reactionary, rather than reasoned thinking. I dont mean to attack you personally, please dont take it that way, but in a Free Society, we cannot start endorsing the law favoring one party over another, or we turn the Constitution on its head.

The constitution also respects the right to pursue happiness, as defined by the person seeking such, it is not for us to say or judge the relative merits of that search except if it should impinge on the rights of another.

We have not legally established a childs right to support by anyone NOT their parent, so a strict interpretation of the law, would suggest that all efforts be made to put this child in finacial contact with their biological parent, and allow the victim of a CRIME to be allowed to choose their financial future one way or the other.

Tell me why that is wrong?

[Cincinnatus]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was NOT advocating what the law should or shouldn't be. My reference to my career as a judge was merely to point out that I have been forced to give this matter a great deal of thought. My point was meant to be entirely personal. What I want is for people to re-examine their personal motives and consider, personally, whether they might be able to make a positive difference in a child's life. If one person reading this post decides to make personal sacrifices for a kid who needs it but is not biologically his, then perhaps I will have made a positive difference in someone's life. If not, nothing lost.