--
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?

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?