TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/ap...mination-bill/

Campfield's child support termination bill attacked
Briley says measure would punish youth for conduct of parents
By Tom Humphrey

Monday, April 21, 2008


NASHVILLE - State Rep. Stacey Campfield was questioned about his views on
premarital sex and adultery during a combative exchange over a bill he
sponsored to allow termination of child support payments in some situations.
The Knoxville Republican's bill sets up a procedure for a man to end child
support payments after learning he is not the father of the child in
question.

Campfield said his proposal is "a little bit softer than every other state"
that has similar laws. A court proceeding would be required to
"disestablish" paternity and the judge would specifically have to consider
the "best interest of the child," which Campfield said is not a
consideration in other states.

Also, he said a judge could not order the nonparent be repaid for past
payments of child support, only a halt to any payments due in the future.

After Campfield explained the bill - HB1523 - to the House Judiciary
Committee, Rep. Rob Briley, D-Nashville, immediately took the lead in
criticizing the measure.

"I think this is the most anti-child piece of legislation I've seen down
here in 10 years - by far," said Briley.

"Do you believe in premarital sex?" Briley asked Campfield.

"I don't see what that has to do with this (legislation)," replied
Campfield.

With little variation, Briley repeated his question and Campfield his
answer. Briley also asked Campfield if "you see adultery as wrong?"

"You're talking about children that are the result of premarital sex or
adultery," Briley said.

"No. I don't think that children should be involved in premarital sex," said
Campfield. He also expressed disapproval of adultery.

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a
parent's conduct."

"Children never have to pay the child support," said Campfield.

The exchange ended with Briley making a motion to send the bill to "summer
study," which amounts to killing it. The motion was approved by voice vote
with only Rep. Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, asking to be recorded as voting no
on the motion.

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when it
comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship
or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from a
man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom points to
is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas? You've
got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside interests" where
other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying.

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such choice
regarding a father and his biological children.



You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when
it
comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship
or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have
no
responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from a
man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom points to
is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas? You've
got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside interests"
where
other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying.

The above is a classic response from one who does not understand the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of
bearing the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored
when there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological
father should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the
biological father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the
mother AND the bio-dad for actual damages as well as pain and suffering
with, and this is an important factor, the backing of state statute that
makes producing a child through cuckolding and hiding the fact from the
husband. This in addition to neonatal paternity testing, which would
eliminate much of the problem early on.

The problem is that law and logic rarely collide. Laws for the past
60-100 years are primarily based on emotion, resulting in legal problems
such as this which should not be a problem.
Phil #3

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship
or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have
no
responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo
when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

The whole idea is so disgusting!! As if a child is owed money from a
man--any man--and to not receive the money from whatever man mom points
to
is child abuse! Where do these idiot politicians get their ideas?
You've
got to wonder if the lot of them have children by "outside interests"
where
other men are paying what they, themselves, should be paying.

The above is a classic response from one who does not understand the
relationship between rights and responsibilities.

What? You are NUTS, Chris! I said I think it is ridiculous that the law
says that a child is owed money by a man--any man--whether he is the father
or not. I, myself, do not believe that--but that is what the law says,
Chris. Why do you think non-bio men are forced to keep paying even when it
is proved that they are not the fathers?

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship
or with multiple partners and believe the biological father should have
no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological
father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND
the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to the
actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial responsibility
from one man to another, and the woman would still get off scott free--even
if she were named in the suit, too.

as well as pain and suffering
with, and this is an important factor, the backing of state statute that
makes producing a child through cuckolding and hiding the fact from the
husband. This in addition to neonatal paternity testing, which would
eliminate much of the problem early on.

The problem is that law and logic rarely collide. Laws for the past 60-100
years are primarily based on emotion, resulting in legal problems such as
this which should not be a problem.
Phil #3

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation,"
said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing the burden
of
a
parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money is
more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there
are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant
as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a relationship or with
multiple partners and believe the biological father should have no
responsibility.

Responsibility exists ONLY where one has a choice. Explain such choice
regarding a father and his biological children.

A biological father who knows another man is paying CS for the child he
fathered has the choice to come forward, acknolwedge his paternity, and take
over the CS payments. Currently, the CS laws allow the bio-dad to remain
anonymous and dodge any personal responsibility for his role in creating a
child. I find that to be absurd.




You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when
it
comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

TN - Child support termination bill attacked
 

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous
situation," said Briley. "You put the child in the position of bearing
the burden of a parent's conduct."

I just don't get this argument. Isn't this politician saying CS money
is more important than factual reality and truth should be ignored when
there are signs of immorality?

To accept this argument one has to ignore it is the mother who gets
pregnant as the result of her sexual misconduct outside of a
relationship or with multiple partners and believe the biological father
should have no responsibility.

You really have to use pretzel logic to advocate for the status quo when
it comes to obvious inequities in CS law.

Logically, one would presume the mother and the true bio-dad to be the
guilty parties in a mess such as this, which seems to be very common.
(Although the bio-dad may be unaware of her being married and the
resulting child, which doesn't make him an intentional party to the
fraud).

The mother is on the "hot seat" to produce the identity of the biological
father and the putative father should be empowered to sue the mother AND
the bio-dad for actual damages

I don't think the bio dad deserves to be sued, unless he was a party to
the actual fraud itself. That would just transfer the financial
responsibility from one man to another, and the woman would still get off
scott free--even if she were named in the suit, too.

I found it very telling the politician referred to the
adultery/out-of-wedlock pregnancies as "conduct" rather than calling it
"misconduct." His words were intended to protect women from any personal
responsibility.

And, of course, making any argument within the context of it being "for the
children" is a dodge. When I hear those words I just cringe.