But Kenneth, it might be *embarrassing* to force her to admit she really
doesn't know the names of any of the men she had relations with during
the time this child was conceived.
Phil #3


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...


"Because the boy's mother could not tell the court who the father was,
the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay."

COULD not tell the court? WHY couldn't she tell the court? And why
on earth does the reporter not include in his story some explanation
of the difference between "couldn't" and "wouldn't" in this case? News
stories aren't supposed to contain obvious unanswered questions.

At the very least, the woman could say who the potential fathers were,
and they then could be given DNA tests. That is, IF the court (or
legislators) were concerned about being fair to men who were paying
"child support," or the court or legislators were under intense
outside pressure to treat these men fairly. And there you have the
nub of the issue, despite all the hypocritical nonsense about
"unintended consequences."

But maybe the Kansas legislators who commented are sincere dimwits who
just don't understand the ramifications of this situation. Sincere
dimwits or hypocrites. It's one or the other.

Oh, and by the way, despite the comments from Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services and the Kansas Bar Association, it's not the
children who would lose the money if the law were changed. It's the
mothers.


On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:06:38 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

You won't believe the level of spin they put on this piece.. Army
Sergeant
gets screwed by X over C$ for child he didn't sire, tries to get the
law
changed and the legislature says, "..they were worried that changing
the law
could have unintended consequences." Oh, ceasing to screw a man over
is
going to have "unintended consequences"??? Are they for real?!?

Then there's this beauty.. "We have to be very careful about fixing
the
entire law because of one case," - State Sen. Tim Owens
Oh yeah, re-elect his ass right away.
------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/994731.html

Kansas bill aims to fix 'presumed father' quandary
By DAVID KLEPPER
The Star's Topeka correspondent

TOPEKA - Wife has an affair, gets pregnant and gives birth to a boy.
Husband
and wife divorce. Tests show the husband isn't the father, but a court
orders him to pay child support anyway.

It is a story of what happens when the birds and the bees get
entangled with
the letter of the law, and on Wednesday, it had Kansas lawmakers
scratching
their heads.

Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson is a 19-year Army veteran now on his
third
tour in Iraq. His wife, Karey, and three children live near Fort
Riley,
where she stays home to raise the children.

In 1995, Sprowson's first wife had an affair and got pregnant. The
couple
divorced when the child was still a baby, and Sprowson has never had a
relationship with the boy. Genetic tests prove the boy, now 13, is not
his.

But a judge decided it didn't matter. According to Kansas law, a
husband is
the "presumed father" of his wife's children - even if the children
were
fathered by another man. Because the boy's mother could not tell the
court
who the father was, the judge ruled Sprowson had to pay.

The boy's mother never sought child support and offered to forgo the
money,
Karey Sprowson said. But the state required the payments because the
mother
once received welfare. The state automatically seeks child support for
any
parent receiving state assistance.

On Wednesday, Karey Sprowson urged legislators to change the law so
that
nonbiological fathers can use genetic tests to avoid paying child
support.
She said her family can't afford the more than $10,000 the court
wants.

She said the state plans to garnishee her husband's Army paycheck and
keep
the family's tax refund.

"It's not fair that my three children should have to suffer because of
this," she said, adding that such a remedy already was the law in
such
states as Ohio, Colorado and Florida.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they wanted to help,
but they
also said they were worried that changing the law could have
unintended
consequences.

The state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and the
Kansas
Bar Association said many children could lose child-support payments
if the
law is changed. One concern is that a stepfather could get out of
paying
support after a divorce - no matter how long he had lived with his
children.

Ronald Nelson, a Johnson County lawyer who specializes in family law,
told
legislators that the law recognizes that fatherhood is more than
biology.
Nelson said legislation designed to help the Sprowsons would be "a
broad
brushstroke that will affect hundreds, thousands of other children."

State Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican, said the committee
will
try to pass the bill without creating new problems.

"We have to be very careful about fixing the entire law because of one
case," Owens said.