"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
...

"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.

You also said "...what they, themselves, should be paying."

What I said is that, perhaps, the politicians keep the laws the way they are
because they (the politicians) know that they could be the fathers of some
of these children who are being discovered not to be the children of the men
who have been told by the moms that they are the fathers. If the
politicians change the law to say that nonbio dads do not have to continue
to pay, then maybe the politicians themselves will be forced to pay for the
results of their "consultations" with "constituents."