No matter what - you have to pay child support...
Yet another case that's ridiculous...
Once again, Missouri judges have ordered a man to pay thousands of dollars in child support for a child he didn't father.
This time, even the child's mother agrees the man is not the father. Yet a state agency says he is, because he was married to the woman when she gave birth.
The state wants David Salazar thrown in jail, and an appeals court on Tuesday agreed.
His lawyer, though, hopes that a higher court will rescue the Buchanan County man and others like him caught in a national issue that pits fairness for men against what is considered best for children.
Many men nationwide get trapped into paying child support because they do not contest paternity before state-set deadlines.
Several states recently have changed laws or are considering changes that would allow men to introduce DNA evidence after the deadlines have passed. A bill pending in the Missouri Senate would allow that here.
In the case decided Tuesday, David Salazar and his wife agreed that they separated 14 months before she had a baby girl by another man in November 2001.
But the couple was too poor to pay for a divorce, his attorney said. A hospital clerk ordered the mother to list Salazar as father on the birth certificate. The Missouri Division of Child Support Enforcement named Salazar the father without DNA testing.
Salazar did not attend a hearing to contest the paternity finding. A Buchanan County judge later found him guilty of not paying $278 a month in child support and sentenced him to 28 days in jail.
Salazar appealed, but lost Tuesday in a 6-5 ruling by the appeals court in Kansas City
posted by GayandRight @ 9:33 PM
2 Comments:
Fred - ya seen my post on this in Canada? Any man who lives with a woman who has a child, sharing household obligations has the same responsibility.
http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2007/02/alberta-court-refuses-couples-agreement.html#links
Family court decisions ignore contractual law, ignore common law agreements in the interest of their philosophy. They also prolong the stereotype that woman are unable to look after themselves and their children.
How about this:
- The "father" pays the child support
- The "father" then sues the mother for fraudently stating that he was the father, gets back all of his child support, legal fees, and some extra cash for "mental anguish"
- The mother then sues the hospital for pushing her to name an unknown father during a period of duress for all money she had to pay for her fraud, legal fees, and some extra cash for "mental anguish"
- The Hospital then sues the state for mandating that a father must appear on the birth certificate even when the father can not be determined with certainty
- Thus everyone wins (ok, actually, just the Lawyers).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home