GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Non-Father Must Still Pay Child Support!

How can fathers respect the law when this sort of thing happens? This is from Little Rock, Arkansas.
Even though a paternity test ruled out Anthony L- Parker as the father of a child in a child-support dispute, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled today he still has to pay support owed the mother before he took the test.

The court reversed a decision by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary Spencer McGowan and sent the case back to her to determine the amount Parker must pay.

The opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L- Corbin, says state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support.

Associate Justice Robert L. Brown wrote in a dissent that the opinion reached "a grossly unfair result." He urged the state Legislature to clarify the law.

In her original ruling, McGowan wrote that forcing Parker to pay -- quote --"violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child."

7 Comments:

Anonymous Backseat Blogger said...

ok...

nothing says she can't set the support at $1.00

6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The current definition of a father in the North American family law courts dictionary.

Father prononced fa·ther –noun see wallet

7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So how many parents can a kid have now according to the Courts?

All of us pay through taxes and crime for every dumb girl that has sex with an idiot: the recipe for becoming a single-mother-martyr on welfare.

If the Courts believe these women should be paid by everyman they sleep with after that, doesn't it change their definition too?

7:48 PM  
Blogger Jordan Alcock said...

And somehow I remain completely unsurprised...

now isn't that sad?

8:18 PM  
Anonymous Backseat Blogger said...

actually... my flippant answer aside... there's always two sides to every argument Fred.

The story gives no background about the family.

Has the 'father' been raising the child? In effect been the father?

What about the child? Who does he view as father?

In other words... is this a case of a deadbeat dad trying to get away without paying child support.

Don't shoot me! I'm just pointing that there is another side to the story.

8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all this means is that genetic testing at birth should become the norm to confirm paternity ... especially for unmarried couples

2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

also ... for a conservative I think your missing the point making this an issue ... HE CHOSE TO SELECTIVELY BREAK THE LAW by NOT PAYING THE SUPPORT ... the judge is preventing people from using paternity doubts as an excuse to get out of paying child support ... if he had a doubt he should have had the genetic test done much soon ...

2:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home