"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
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!

To go one step farther, many men in prison, some on death row want DNA
evidence tested that may prove their innocence but prosecutors and
judges do all they can to deny it. Many samples have been "lost" and
then there are several cases like former head-chemist Joyce Gilchrist of
Oklahoma City who falsified results to obtain guilty verdicts against
innocent men many times over some of which were involved in capital
cases. The law is not just blind, it's stupid to boot. It relies on
hypocrisy to exist.
Phil #3