"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