"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
...

"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
...

"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"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 addressed this in the first paragraph, in that the bio-dad may be
unaware of any pregnancy that results from the encounter(s). If it
can
be
proven that he knew of the pregnancy and the wife's fraud, he is
culpable
as well. Perhaps guilty to a lesser degree but he is certainly not
blameless. Under NO circumstances should the mother be allowed to 1)
profit from her lie or; 2) elude punishment for the intentional
fraud.

I just wanted to make sure it was absolutely clear. I think we all
know
that, if bio dad is held responsible just for being bio dad, then it
is
a
win-win situation for the mother. Some poor guy will be held
responsible
for her misbehavior no matter what. Until women are held responsible
for
their own choices we are never going to see a change in the way things
are.

Correct! And this includes her SOLE choice to give birth.

We've had this conversation before, Chris, and you know that I do not
necessarily agree with you on that point.

That's because you don't necessarily understand the law.

I understand the law, Chris. I don't agree with the way CS is handled at
all. But I do NOT agree with you that a married man with 3 bio kids should
be able to walk away from those kids whenever he feels like it because it
was the "woman's unilateral choice to bring the children into the world." I
think you are as far from fair in one direction as CS law is in the other.