Didn't you see the article a few weeks ago about the man hit with 19 years of back child support for a woman's child that 1) was not his, 2) he was never informed about, and 3) was never given a day in court to dispute either the factual or legal basis for the judgement. Why must the judge in this case ignore his own experience and legal judgement, ignore the man's rights of due process, ignore the rights of the "child" entirely, and threaten to jail the man for not being omniscient enought to protest 19 years in advance?
It might be interesting for someone to go through all of the appropriate statutes with a fine-tooth comb and find out what exactly certain words mean, or could be interpreted to mean.
For example, the term "father". Is there language which says that any statutes using the term "father" refer to whoever is documented as a person's father, whether or not the person had any involvement whatsoever in the person's conception or upbringing? Or are there places where such definition is not explicitly given and thus where the term might be allowed to take on its more normal meaning?
posted on 05/06/2002 6:22:25 PM PDT
Is there language which says that any statutes using the term "father" refer to whoever is documented as a person's father, whether or not the person had any involvement whatsoever in the person's conception or upbringing?
Yes. In Kaliforniac, in the case in question, the law said that the man identified (by the mother) on the birth certificate was the "father" and he had two years to object or he lost all rights in the matter. Of course, if he never knew the woman and was never notified, what was he supposed to do? Would he go to the appropriate hall of records (every year or so) and demand to know if his name was on anything new (this was pre-WWW and no public records were online). Would he then go to go to every county in Kaliforniac and do the same thing? Of course not.
When a judge sees this injustice and affirms the constitutionality of the law, he is an ass. Further, he is no judge. When appeals courts roll their eyes and ignore it to make appropriate precedents, they should be impeached. And when DA's refuse to indict the mother for clear and blatent fraud, another, and worse, example is enshrined in our "justice system".
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson