--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" 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]

.
.
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

I found it very telling the politician referred to the
adultery/out-of-wedlock pregnancies as "conduct" rather than calling it
"misconduct." His words were intended to protect women from any
personal
responsibility.

And, of course, making any argument within the context of it being "for
the
children" is a dodge. When I hear those words I just cringe.

But isn't payment of "child support", which you condone, "for the
children"?

No. If CS was for the children there would be tracking of both parent's
required contribution and a full accounting of how it was spent. And
children would be the judgment creditors for the money.

Then why are you in favor of such arrangement?