Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

[RVonse]

Nah, the oligarchs will make sure that type of social upheaval does not occur. Maybe we could institute sharia law and have those wives stoned to death for infidelity.

If your post was meant to be sarcastic its not working on me.

If we do not control our boarders and protect the institutions we do have, I for one think it is entirely possible for sharia law to become a part of the US down the road. Not that I would welcome such a move but if such a change did take place sometime in future, the women living in the US are going to be in for a rude awakening.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This could never happen. Didn't you see Red Dawn?

 

[laughing dog]

Nah, the oligarchs will make sure that type of social upheaval does not occur. Maybe we could institute sharia law and have those wives stoned to death for infidelity.

If your post was meant to be sarcastic its not working on me.

I had no such expectations.

If we do not control our boarders and protect the institutions we do have, I for one think it is entirely possible for sharia law to become a part of the US down the road. Not that I would welcome such a move but if such a change did take place sometime in future, the women living in the US are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Despite the demagogery on "borders", we do protect our borders. From what I can tell from the border hysterians, the danger is from those spanish speaking people - who pose no sharia threat whatsoever.

There is no threat to marriage in the US from our state laws on child support. Those laws have been in effect for many decades. Some of them could use some changing and probably will evolve in the next 10 years or so. However, the case you cite does not auger any threat to marriage. From the cited article (which may not paint a complete picture), the man does not feel aggrieved by paying child support for someone else's biological child. Apparently he views the child as his daughter and wishes to maintain contact with her - an indication that he is a real man in the truest sense of the word. So, the child support law is not really an issue for him - it is his wife's apparent obstinacy about visitation and contact that is the issue. Why anyone would view this situation as some sort of omen on the downfall of marriage is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My friend had to pay child support for three children until they were 18, children who were not his but that he thought were his for the first 8 years.

He told me that had this happened across the border in Ohio he would not have been on the hook for child support. So states must vary on the law, maybe putting the child's welfare first, which I think is the proper thing to do.

If the biological father can be found, he needs to be paying for child support.

While the wrong guy is considered the father the right guy can't be compelled to pay. He's not interested in paying. The end.

 

[Bronzeage]

The point is you aren't showing why an innocent should be enslaved to support a child that isn't theirs.

Just a straightforward question. Answer it, or not. Your call.

Maybe later we can have a discussion about the meaning of fatherhood and what actually constitutes a father-child bond. Up to this point I had never considered the governments role is forcing me to love my children.

It is very possible to love someone and still prefer someone else pay to support that someone. It happens all the time to the taxpayers who are paying ADD.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Well, that settles it. No one could question whether a man loves the child he once thought was his biological offspring, just because he refuse to clothe and feed the child, after learning different.

Actually, most people would consider him to be coldhearted and cruel, bent on taking revenge on a woman who deceived him, and depriving his child to achieve this end.

In Dante's Inferno, the worst level of hell is reserved for those who practice treachery upon a benefactor. One wonders what level of hell is reserved for those who practice treachery on those who once received their benefits.

 

[RVonse]

If the biological father can be found, he needs to be paying for child support.

While the wrong guy is considered the father the right guy can't be compelled to pay. He's not interested in paying. The end.

Would that still be the case if there were no marriage?

I do know that one of my step daughters got pregnant out of wedlock and that biological father wanted her to abort. She came to term with the child and (much to my surprise) that guy is now paying child support even though he does not want to.

 

[RVonse]

Why anyone would view this situation as some sort of omen on the downfall of marriage is beyond my comprehension.

Over 400,000 hits:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ins...4.69i57j0l5.8491j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And from the first article: http://topyaps.com/marriage-an-outdated-concept

4. It was not love or religion, but the need to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs that gave birth to this practice. This may not be acceptable to a scientifically-advanced society.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you don't do something, sooner or later the men are going to wake up. They will drop their seed and move on the next woman without marriage. I think there will be serious blow back. The only people who will want marriage will be for a tax deduction because there wont be any other advantage. This type of society is already the norm in the inner cities and it will be the norm everywhere else too. Not a very pleasant future for civilization.

Clearly then we'll need hefty bachelor and bachelorette taxes, like in Roman times. Or maybe it will be cool with all the feral children around. We can build feral child centers in all our cities to take care of the problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Why anyone would view this situation as some sort of omen on the downfall of marriage is beyond my comprehension.

Over 400,000 hits:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ins...4.69i57j0l5.8491j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And from the first article: http://topyaps.com/marriage-an-outdated-concept

4. It was not love or religion, but the need to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs that gave birth to this practice. This may not be acceptable to a scientifically-advanced society.

Was there a point somewhere in your response?

 

[RVonse]

Over 400,000 hits:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ins...4.69i57j0l5.8491j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And from the first article: http://topyaps.com/marriage-an-outdated-concept

4. It was not love or religion, but the need to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs that gave birth to this practice. This may not be acceptable to a scientifically-advanced society.

Was there a point somewhere in your response?

My direct rebuttal to your aforementioned statement, "Why anyone would view this situation as some sort of omen on the downfall of marriage is beyond my comprehension."

Google can provide over 400,000 articles THAT DO view this situation as some sort of omen. Furthermore, there is text copied from the first article detailing why this situation is the downfall of marriage.

You should inform yourself better because your comprehension of this subject appears lacking.

 

[laughing dog]

Was there a point somewhere in your response?

My direct rebuttal to your aforementioned statement, "Why anyone would view this situation as some sort of omen on the downfall of marriage is beyond my comprehension."

Google can provide over 400,000 articles THAT DO view this situation as some sort of omen. Furthermore, there is text copied from the first article detailing why this situation is the downfall of marriage.

You cited an article that actually rebuts your thesis. The text you cited rebuts your thesis. 400,000 hits does not indicate much - flat earth claims can garner that many.

You should inform yourself better because your comprehension of this subject appears lacking.

I understand your opinion. What I don't understand is the historical or factual or logical basis for it. You have yet to produce anything resembling a cogent argument to support your claims. Marriage as an institution has evolved over the millenia and has different forms, including polygamy. And civilization has not disintegrated.

 

[TSwizzle]

If the biological father can be found, he needs to be paying for child support.

While the wrong guy is considered the father the right guy can't be compelled to pay. He's not interested in paying. The end.

It doesn't matter if the biological father is interested, he needs to pay child support.

 

[RVonse]

And civilization has not disintegrated.

I would argue civilization in our inner cities has already disintegrated. In north St. Louis for example, no one is married and woman have offspring from anyone and everywhere. None of the guys are anywhere to be found unless they are getting high on drugs or shooting each other. And I would say most of the kids are raising themselves as well.

Maybe that's the kind of civilization you would prefer. But to me it is much better all the way around just to have the traditional married and faithful couple who are willing and motivated to raise their own offspring. Its out of style to talk about it, but IMO much more civilized. Furthermore, I would argue most of the individuals that make up such a traditional relationship are better off. The men are definitely better off because they are still alive. And the kids are better off because they have a stable platform to grow on. Even the women might be a little better off too since they at least have some purpose in life.

I can even volunteer how someone might prefer the type of family found in north St. Louis. Especially if you are a woman who likes to sit around all day doing nothing but having sex. But what I don't think there is any argument is that the trend of removing traditional marriage puts society closer to where N. St. Louis is today.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's not a universal rule that biological parents pay child support. I have adopted children whose biological father doesn't pay anything. It seems at least somewhat fair that if a person has parental rights, then they ought to have paid child support. As this man does not want his parental rights revoked, he ought to support the child AND he ought to get visitation. The alleged biological father does not want parental rights, to make child support payments. The other father is de facto adoptive father.

 

[RVonse]

It's not a universal rule that biological parents pay child support. I have adopted children whose biological father doesn't pay anything. It seems at least somewhat fair that if a person has parental rights, then they ought to have paid child support. As this man does not want his parental rights revoked, he ought to support the child AND he ought to get visitation. The alleged biological father does not want parental rights, to make child support payments. The other father is de facto adoptive father.

That is all well and good if everyone agrees to it all time but they don't and they won't.
In the absence of a meeting of the minds (or a contract), the law can't just call someone a father even if it is convenient to a particular set of parties at the time.

Yes they will get away with this scam for a short while. But in the long run I do not believe men are as stupid as women think they are.

And sooner or later, they will get wise and not be getting married. It has already begun to happen IMO.

 

[laughing dog]

And civilization has not disintegrated.

I would argue civilization in our inner cities has already disintegrated. In north St. Louis for example, no one is married and woman have offspring from anyone and everywhere. None of the guys are anywhere to be found unless they are getting high on drugs or shooting each other. And I would say most of the kids are raising themselves as well.

Maybe that's the kind of civilization you would prefer. But to me it is much better all the way around just to have the traditional married and faithful couple who are willing and motivated to raise their own offspring. Its out of style to talk about it, but IMO much more civilized. Furthermore, I would argue most of the individuals that make up such a traditional relationship are better off. The men are definitely better off because they are still alive. And the kids are better off because they have a stable platform to grow on. Even the women might be a little better off too since they at least have some purpose in life.

I can even volunteer how someone might prefer the type of family found in north St. Louis. Especially if you are a woman who likes to sit around all day doing nothing but having sex. But what I don't think there is any argument is that the trend of removing traditional marriage puts society closer to where N. St. Louis is today.

I am from the St. Louis area. I have family in the St. Louis area. And you serious about your claim that "no one is married and woman have offspring from anyone and everywhere. None of the guys are anywhere to be found unless they are getting high on drugs or shooting each other. " ? If so, there is no point in any attempt at rational discussion with someone who is so untethered to reality. If not, what is really bothering you that you feel to resort to such blatant distortions to make whatever point you are making?

You do realize that "traditional" marriage has changed over the centuries - wives used to little more than legal chattel. And every evolution or change was accompanied by the gnashing of teeth and wailing of 100s over the end of civilization.

 

[RVonse]

I am from the St. Louis area. I have family in the St. Louis area. And you serious about your claim that "no one is married and woman have offspring from anyone and everywhere. None of the guys are anywhere to be found unless they are getting high on drugs or shooting each other. " ? If so, there is no point in any attempt at rational discussion with someone who is so untethered to reality. If not, what is really bothering you that you feel to resort to such blatant distortions to make whatever point you are making?
.

Not St. Louis or St. Louis county. But North St. Louis where about every other house is boarded up and most lawns have weeds. I rented out a Section 8 apartment complex close to that area in my younger days. I doubt it has changed very much from 20 years ago when it was then a very bad and dangerous area. I do remember all of my tenants were women and I also remember having to give some of them rides to the government office so I could continue collecting my rent. I remember 1 of the women I rented to had 7 kids, all different ages and from all different men.

No, this type of living or lifestyle is not all over St. louis or common yet. But I would imagine other cities like Detroit or Cleveland have the same type of neighborhoods and the same type of families (if you can call them that). Under section 8 housing, all of the money comes from the government.

But the good thing to say about it is that no one bothers with divorce, child support, or wondering who the real father is.

 

[laughing dog]

Not St. Louis or St. Louis county. But North St. Louis where about every other house is boarded up and most lawns have weeds. I rented out a Section 8 apartment complex close to that area in my younger days. I doubt it has changed very much from 20 years ago when it was then a very bad and dangerous area. I do remember all of my tenants were women and I also remember having to give some of them rides to the government office so I could continue collecting my rent. I remember 1 of the women I rented to had 7 kids, all different ages and from all different men. ...

Obviously, your 20 year + anecdote from is a much more valid indicator of an area's demographics that actual data. Your exaggerated description of North St. Louis is much more revealing about your state of "mind" than it is about either North St. Louis, marriage or the state of civilization.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While the wrong guy is considered the father the right guy can't be compelled to pay. He's not interested in paying. The end.

It doesn't matter if the biological father is interested, he needs to pay child support.

What part of "can't be compelled to pay" do you not understand?

 

[TSwizzle]

It doesn't matter if the biological father is interested, he needs to pay child support.

What part of "can't be compelled to pay" do you not understand?

Well they fucking well should be. And in a lot of cases are compelled to pay by court order.