Arkansas: Supreme Court Says Non-Father Must Pay C/S

Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2007-01-12 01:35

Story here. Status quo affirmed! Excerpt:

'LITTLE ROCK (AP) -- Even though a paternity test ruled out Anthony L. Parker as the father of a child in a child-support dispute, he still has to pay support owed the mother before he took the test, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court reversed a decision by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary Spencer McGowan and sent the case back to her to determine the amount Parker must pay.

The opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin, said state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support.

State law only speaks to a man's future child-support obligations once that person has been found through testing not to be a child's father. And Associate Justice Robert L. Brown said in a concurring opinion that the court was "legislating by inference."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I guess this hick state doesn't have a Paternity Fraud Law? How moronic! Well, this state did give us Bill Clinton after all.

This is why the state's interests should only extend to seeing that the child or children have the bare subsistence level to live on. Anything else is the business of the parents.
Of course I am talking about legitimate children not bastards as in this case.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Fri, 2007-01-12 02:38

AK is the abreviation for Alaska.

Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if we just spelled out what we wanted to say? I get so tired of trying to figure out all these damn abreviations. Some are well-known but many others aren't.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Dittohd on Fri, 2007-01-12 04:24

If the DNA test says the man is not the father at a given point in time, it is very unlikely he was ever, or will ever, be the father.

This law defies logic. Why are they trying to protect the mother? That is the only reason to have it framed like this. Otherwise the man would have an opportunity to sue the daylights out of the lying mother once he established that he was NOT the father and was framed.

oregon dad

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by oregon dad on Fri, 2007-01-12 04:31

Isn't anyone interested in identifying who he is? For one thing, he may want to know he has a child? At the same time, he should be the one they are tapping for money. I suppose their thinking is a bird in hand is better than one in the bush; they have someone to pay, so, where's the motivation to look any farther? Unless she slept with the 6th fleet (a possibility), they might be able to determine who he is if they put forth the same effort they have in milking this poor guy!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by bull on Fri, 2007-01-12 04:47

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144414531354
“Attorneys and fathers' rights activists claim that a big problem facing men today is that a large majority of states -- 38 in total -- still have laws on the books that require a man to pay child support, even with DNA evidence showing that he is not the father.”

Lets all thank chivalry and feminism for freeing us from the oppressive role of consensual father and husband. Being unnamed sperm donors or bank accounts and forced fathers for the product of our girlfriend’s infidelity is soooo liberating! If women point the finger we should gladly pay as cuckolds lest we are condemed as deadbeats. Freedom! [/sarcasm]

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by hujo on Fri, 2007-01-12 16:43

Yep, you're right. And, it is clearer if I don't use abbreviations. So I will avoid doing so in future.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2007-01-12 18:58