QUOTE(Politaca @ Jan 10 2006, 01:54 PM)
It is clear that we are not getting the whole story from this article.† I have a VERY hard time believing that a person HAS to pay child support if they find out down the road that the child is, in fact, not theirs.† DENVER, Jan. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ ó On New Yearís Day the children and fathers of Colorado got a present courtesy of the state legislature. Effective January 1, a manís right to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring was restricted to the duration of the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child support action.
Once a final order is entered in that proceeding, a new state law says, the putative father is barred from presenting newly discovered evidence of non-paternity ó ever.
State Senate Bill 181, enacted in Coloradoís 2005 legislative session, requires that any evidence from genetic testing of parent and child be introduced before the entry of final orders. The new law applies to divorce, child support establishment and enforcement and parentage.
Note that "final orders" can be entered against an individual who never even knows the child exists.... until John Law comes down on him for non-payment of child support 3, 4, perhaps 10 years down the road.
Here's another one from North Carolina:Father Must Pay Child Support For Kid Thatís Not His
One from Missouri:Man cleared of paternity, but not support...2002 USA Today : Men wage battle on 'paternity fraud'
I even know of situations where this has happened the decieved parent was able to legally cease their payments.
While I am speculating, but I bet that the divorce and child support hearings were very messy between the two and the judge does not believe that Fathers claim that he did not know that the child was not his biologically.
You are speculating regarding the judge. From the linked article:Goldenberg rejected his claim without wading into the issue of whether Richard Parker had been deceived.
I am shocked that the mother does not have to find the man that is the biological father and make him testify before the court to clear things up.† IF the couple knew what they were doing and did not get the biological fathers permission then that is just WRONG.
The true victim here is the child.† How sad for someone to raise a child for eight years and then from a mere blood test leave the child behind, just like that.
True victim is the child? How about the true victims
are the child and the father?How can you suddenly stop loving a child for whom you've always been Dad? How can you abandon a child who needs you? These are tough questions and prompt emotions that interfere with one's usual impulse to fairness. But fair is fair, and the truth looks like this: The mother who lies about paternity is guilty of fraud and deserves condemnation at least equal to what we assign fathers who abandon their children. In no other imaginable scenario, meanwhile, do we punish victims of a false allegations. ... fraud is a crime that under any other circumstances would be punishable in criminal and civil courts. - Kathleen Parker
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Jan 10 2006, 09:13 PM)
Well, Politaca, you may have a hard time believing it, but nearly all states have some kind of law that says a child born inside of a legal marriage, is presumed legally, to be the product of that marriage. It's been that way for decades, for exactly this kind of reason.
Actually, its been that way for centuries, because "back in the day" before DNA testing, before other medical testing, there was no way of determing paternity.
Regardless of whether they agreed to have her impregnated by a friend, or she was having an affair and got pregnant, the one innocent in all of this is the child. The laws are written the way they are, to keep men from doing just what this guy is attempting. To use his wife's infidelity, consentual or otherwise, to avoid having to pay child support.
Actually, the laws were written in order to insure that a child wouldn't be identified as a "bastard."
In this case, they might well know who the biological father is. But what about a case where the wife is straying with more than one person, or refuses to name the biological father? Either way, the child needs to be provided for, and presumably, the legal father was already invested both financially and emotionally in this child. Now, whether or not he wants to remain emotionally involved, he will still be required to pay for the support of the child.
It may not be fair to the legal father, but the court is considering what is fair and in the best interest of the child in these cases. BikerDad's ascerbic comments about the American legal system to the contrary, truth and impartiality are usually the domain of the criminal court system. In family law, it's more often about what's in the best interest of those least able to help or protect themselves.
Well, at least somebody else realizes that the following nuggets of Constitutional wisdom don't apply to family court:AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If being forced to provide for a child that isn't even yours doesn't qualify as "involunary servitude", what, pray tell, does?edited to respond to NiteGuy