[balrog666]

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".

[sarasmom]

I agree that no "father" who is not the father should be expected nor required to pay child support.It is insane to mandate support for a child not his.(Except in the case of knowing adoption)

Do you agree that the "father" who IS the biological father has, at the minimum, a financial support duty to his child? Even if it is inconvenient to his current lifestyle? Just curious.