"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Shadow39" wrote in message
...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_30803.aspx



Yet ANOTHER case where DNA that determines whether or not a man should
pay "child support" really doesn't determine that at all. How can they
use DNA to determine that a man should pay money to the woman if such
DNA doesn't ALSO determine that a man should NOT pay money to a woman?
Can you say "double standard"? Apparently, she can legally collect
back support from the biological father. Looks like an awful lot of
"double" happenin'..... double children (twins), double dipping (free
money from TWO men), and DOUBLE standards!

The foolish judge proclaimed: "(This man) was the only father the
twins knew during the course of the marriage." She also stated: "....
the only father they've ever known.". Another tired out phrase used
only to unjustifiably take money away from a man. Which begs the
question: If a child never knew a "father", does this mean that no one
has to pay the woman money?

A good question, Chris.
Of course you know the answer. Government demands men support these
women who then proclaim they are "independent".


Then the other fool, Brahm Siegel, said "I think it's a clear
recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like
this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological
father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells." Seems
that "knowing a father" is a prerequisite before anyone is charged
with
child support". Am I wrong?

Oh yeah, you're wrong. There need not be any biological or familial
relationship to force a man to pay a woman.
Phil #3