|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim did some legwork and found that the the oral argument will be on Monday, Feb. 5 at 9:30 AM at the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Boston. The case is PATERNITY OF CHERYL and the case number is 08391. (617) 557-1114 is the phone number of the Public information of the Supreme Court and the Clerk's # is (617) 557-1188. Jim is planning on watching, and I am considering doing so myself. E-mail Jim at jvcastelli@hobbyist.com if you'd like more info.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We often see the slogan "in the child's best interests" expressed by apologists for the state's practice of acting in the child's interests to the extent that some nominal father can pay.
If the state were truly acting in some child's best interests, and not in its own interest, which is to find some other entity to support that child, it would support the child itself, concern itself with the child's upbringing; that is, it would put the child's interests ahead of its own interests and ahead of the father's ability or inability to pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the state acts in collusion with mothers, who in turn try to line themselves up behind their children. In this way, the "child's best interests" become the mother's best interests as well.
It's easy to see this for the sham it is when the mother's and child's best interests diverge. For example, "joint custody" and access guarantees are only now and only slowly becoming accepted ways to resolve divorce cases, but both of these things are obviously and demonstrably in the child's best interests. So why has it taken so long? Because Mommy didn't want it, and Daddy rarely spoke up. The courts, rather than acting on some independent standard of "the child's best interests" simply gave the mother whatever she wanted. Again, why? Simple: if they gave Mommy what she wanted then there was no political fallout; if they tried to impose some standard of justice, they would lose their jobs. Pure and simple.
I'm not sure that I would consider releasing men from supporting children that aren't theirs "Choice for Men." To me, it's more like "Justice for Men." C4M is more concerned with the "right" of men to voluntarily sever all connections—financial and otherwise—with children that are theirs. Allowing men to sever their relationship—financial or otherwise—with children that aren't theirs just strikes me as simple, common sense.
The only counter to this form of common sense is the cry of "the child's best interests," which most here know is an excuse that is trotted out only when Mommy is about to lose something.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
