[brownie]

Fine, allow the purported father to continue to act as a father to the child, but no legal financial obligations (the purported father could voluntarily financially support the child). In the meantime, the actual biological father would become legally responsible for financially supporting the child, including repayment of any support payments the purported father already made (or, if the mother does not know who the actual father is, the mother is out of luck and does not receive the extra payment, since, in reality, it is the mother, not the child, who receives the money).

At the very least, such action would make people a little more cautious about having affairs, or a little more cautious about having affairs without protection.

The "what about the children" argument does not work for me. There are a lot of kids born into bad situations. Usually, the parents are responsible in those situtations as well, such as when an extremely poor, drug addict has children, or a single mother has children by 5 different men. If we take the "do it for the children" argument to its logical conclusion, we will support all of the liberal nanny-state policies.

[mombonn]

Fine, allow the purported father to continue to act as a father to the child, but no legal financial obligations (the purported father could voluntarily financially support the child).

I couldn't agree more. My concern is strictly for the kid.

Going after the bio-dad works for me.