In state after state, men are challenging laws forcing non-fathers to pay child support

AP ^ | 6/16/02 | DAVID CRARY

[Senator Pardek]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Armed with the latest in genetic technology, aggrieved men across America are attacking a centuries-old legal doctrine that has forced them to pay child support even after they belatedly discover they are not the child's biological father.

[Senator Pardek]

"If a man does not believe he is the father and wishes to contest paternity, the time to do so is early in the process," she said. "If someone chooses to not contest paternity, then they should live with the consequences of being that child's father, and not try to change it years down the road."

Oh - so a guy who's married to a deceitful broad who sleeps around, has to take it in the shorts because he's a trusting fellow?

Unfornately, some monkey always comes out of the woodwork on these threads to agree with this illogic.

[Bahbah]

Well, I'm not going to be that monkey, Senator. I think this practice is completely wrong.

[AngrySpud]

If DNA evidence can get a guy off Death Row, it should get him off Paternity Row, too.

[Clara Lou]

The flawed, bleeding-heart logic that brought this kind of situation about in the first place is frightful. "Since we can't find the real dad, we'll force you, XYZ, to be the dad." Surely this is unconstitutional?

[GreatOne]

In Minnesota (where I practice law), a man has only three years to declare himself NOT the father of a child, or he's permanently stuck - courts won't let him off the hook. Of course, the mother has until the child is 18 to find out who the father is. Should definitely go both ways, relationships with child(ren) be damned.

Relationship argument is bogus - regardless of how long man and child think they are related, when the child finds out he's not actually the father, relationship is harmed/downgraded anyway.

Another classic example of stupid, touchy feely, liberal crap.

[IronJack]

Why should any man have to pass a law that EXEMPTS him from paying for a child not his own?!?!? What kind of "justice" is it when a man is ordered to assume a financial debt where there is no biological one? This is a blight on the entire notion of equity under the law.

[Sonny M]

Marriage is about trust. A husband can not sit and assume that his wife is a dirty dirty person who gets around like syringe in a crack house. If after a long time, he now has reason to doubt or it has become clear he is not the father. He should not be held to pay support, even more so, what about the real father, should he not be punished and forced to pay support? Should not a man take responsibilty? Why does our government want to let those who are responsible off the hook, and yet make those who are innocent pay?

[DeaconBenjamin]

In Arkansas, where I practice law, a man is liable for all child support which has accrued before it was determined that he was not the father, if he legally accepts or recognizes the child as his own. Obligations can run over $25,000 in some instances.

[gcruse]

 any injustice to men like Conners is outweighed by a child's needs.

Whatever 'like Connors' connotes,
no child's needs mandate stealing
from a third party.  That's government's
job.

[DeaconBenjamin]

"People look it at this as a simple matter of equity and fairness, but they don't look at the complexities of how it affects children," said attorney Valerie Ackerman of the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif.

You'll never hear her make the same statement with regard to divorce (let alone abortion!).

You'll be happy to know that the National Center for Youth Law is funded with federal tax dollars, through the Legal Services Corporation. No doubt it is also supported through that little bit of court-sanctioned theft called IOLTA (at least in California).

[Mark17]

Why does our government want to let those who are responsible off the hook, and yet make those who are innocent pay?

I don't know, PC maybe? It still sucks.

[Lower55]

I agree. I't mostly because the mother has no clue which of the bunch actually fathered the child. She goes for the easy mark.

It's also because some real fathers shirk their duties and won't pay for their kids. Enforce the laws.

For every man that is forced to pay for another man's child, another man is getting a free ride.

On Maury Povich there was a woman on there several times, bringing half the town for DNA tests. Last time I saw it she had still not come up with the proven father.

[Torie]

The idea that a husband should be financially responsible for only his own genetic offspring of his wife is profoundly misguided. With marriage comes certain duties. One of them should be to care of the offspring of the wife. For biology to be the trump card here is a step back into the jungle. Now if it is a girlfriend, that is another matter.

[Nick Danger]

"People look it at this as a simple matter of equity and fairness, but they don't look at the complexities of how it affects children," said attorney Valerie Ackerman of the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif.

People who use "it's for the chill'run" to visit serious harm on innocent people are scum. To her, one man is as good as another when it comes to paying the bills. "We've got one now, it might be the wrong one, but who cares? He's only a man. Besides, it's for the children." This tells us more than we need to know about whether she views men as actual humans with rights, or just interchangeable bill-paying stooges for the Single Parenthood.

"If somebody's been supporting a child, you can't just choose to pull the plug because you find out biology is not an element of that paternal relationship. You need to follow through on the commitment."

Listen to her talk about commitment. Commitment is for men, for paying the bills. Even if it's court-ordered and induced by fraud. This woman views men as objects, as ATM machines to be pumped dry simply because we got them on the hook. A pox on her, and a pox on her house. Somewhere out there is an actual father. This woman doesn't care who it is. She just wants the money, and any man will do. Feh.

[Nick Danger]

The idea that a husband should be financially responsible for only his own genetic offspring of his wife is profoundly misguided. With marriage comes certain duties. One of them should be to care of the offspring of the wife.

That is very nice after-the-fact lawyering. It is, however, a horrible thing to set as policy, for it tells the not-yet-married that here is another place the government will hose you for being married while male. We don't need any more of those; the young men are already terrified as it is. You would also be setting a policy which subtly encourages cuckoldry, by telling the wife in advance that she need not fear her husband disowning the product of her infidelity. What the Hell kind of policy is that to have?

[strela]

On Maury Povich there was a woman on there several times, bringing half the town for DNA tests. Last time I saw it she had still not come up with the proven father.

Did she have John Elway checked?

[SauronOfMordor]

The idea that a husband should be financially responsible for only his own genetic offspring of his wife is profoundly misguided.

By your logic, if the husband fathers a child by his mistress, then dies or disappears, the child should be able to look to the wife for support. After all, it was conceived by the husband during the time of the marriage (just not by the wife)

Explain to me how your scenario holds water, while mine does not

[MissAmericanPie]

It's a complete miscarriage of justice, the man should be able to start his life over, not have something tie him to a painful past.

A man should have the choice to continue to support the child, the law should only have the right to go after the natural father, not the innocent victim of deceit.

[Torie]

Ya, there is a downside. But the greater public policy should be to encourage males to care for the offspring of their wives. The marriage is for richer or poorer, for better or worse. Most folks still get married these days in any event. The idea is particularly odious with respect to the offspring who has been cared for for a time, but now, due to modern technology, one can and now should afford the husband with a financial exit strategy. That could encourage divorces. The child should be loved and protected no matter what the origin, particularly if it has been. And any man who walks away from such a circumstance, after having loved and cared for the child, is something akin to sub human to me.

[Torie]

Well that is a child presumably regarding whom the wife never laid eyes upon or knew about.