"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