"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?