--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Phil" wrote in message
m...

"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

Which leads to the NEXT question: If DNA is NOT the determinant factor in
whether or not a man has to pay the woman money, then why do they still use
it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that double standards is the answer; if DNA
convicts him, we use it, if it exonerates him, we DON'T use it. How could I
be so dumb!