ok dude I didn't take your words negatively. I knew you were trying to lighten the moment. Media here don't post this information. You can only get this stuff from medical or statistic sources and friends and family also companies who keep profiles of their employee's.

I agree almost completely. But then, that's what we get for allowing it to become a monopoly.

We messed up by giving too much legislative power to the state. Now the legal code is so complex that only a professional has a hope of understanding even a small part of it, and no one on the entire planet knows the entire U.S. legal code. It occupies a whole wing of the Library of Congress, and even that doesn't even include all local legislation.

But that's what always happens when you give up your freedom to choose. The Justice system is a business like any other. The only difference is that the currency is sometimes political. We created a niche market by giving too much legislative power to the Federal government, which was quickly filled by legal entrepeneurs. And they did what they do best; make laws.

They made (and built on) so many laws and judicial procedures, that now individuals can't compete. In the same way that a corner market can't compete with Wal-Mart, individuals can't compete in the Justice market. The difference is that you can choose not to shop at Wal-Mart. Your dollar is your vote. But in the political sector, you most likely won't have a vote unless you're a legal professional. Is it any wonder that so many political offices are filled by lawyers?

At least if the states had the majority of the legislative power, we'd get a limited choice as to which legal system we liked best, if that mattered to us. But we gave up that choice in the hopes that someone else would take care of us.

Now we have a monopoly state, and we don't have to look very hard to see what path it is taking us on.

While this is not a super easy call. I have to agree that after a lie that big is exposed. It virtually destroys the relationship.

Sure the surrogate father who has to pay may be "Friends" with them but that is it. No bonding. No "Passing on the family traditions" none of that.

This and the fact that divorce has become a business is why I will never get into a relationship. (Not even fooling around)

I would rather live a lonely life than face a 55-70 percent chance that my life will be virtually destroyed by the way "Love" works today.

mate, I understand the risks, but its a hell of a thing to write off for yourself! Sure I understand its not for everyone, but you aren't willing to take a chance on the odds you find a great woman who makes you happy??

I'm not trying to criticize, I just wonder if you're ruling out a potentially wonderful thing based on the numbers which say theres a chance it won't work... am i making any sense?:88)

Yeah, sooner or later you're going to meet someone you think is the right one. Just be sure and have a good pre-nup drawn up for god's sake, you need to keep what is yours if she bails on you.

The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.

I disagree. Just because something may be "best for the kids" doesn't mean that someone should be essentially socially and economically imprisoned. That argument is far too open to interpretation.

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.

Reality is people!
Not what is the best interest of the kid. Not what is the best interest of the parents.

But what is the best interest?

Best interest depends on the judge. Judge decides the fate. Judge determines the best interests according to his or her personal preferences, belief's and experiences.

What is right and wrong doesn't god dam matter.

That's reality.

This is where laws are supposed to come into play. It's too bad that so many judges tend to sidestep the law in order to make it fit more properly with their personal convictions ... but that's a discussion for another thread.

Here's an analogy I've come up with: Let's say you were found unconscious holding a bloody knife next to a person who was murdered. You have no memory of what happened. You conclude that it likely was you who killed that person, and plead guilty.

While in prison, events trigger memories that suggest that you may not have murdered that person after all. You plead with the prosecutor to take another look at the case, and he agrees. DNA evidence then exonorates you from the murder.

Now, should you have to stay in prison simply because, for the majority of the time, you've accepted your fate?

That's what the reasoning behind the whole idea that, "well, since you acted as their father for so many years, you are therefore the father" seems like. It is utterly preposterous.

Prepsoterous it may be, however this is the way family law court decisions are made. Paramount is the interest of the child above all other considerations.

I'm not defending it, just stating the fact that this is how the judges are instructed to operate in these situations. This is to prevent the burden for support of the child falling with the state when there is another option.

Child support = kiwi men heading to Australia to avoid child support payments. I can never understand this, if your going to have children then desert them for whatever reason or maybe she deserted you either way your responsible as a father to support your kids. Not run away. I have 3 sons 1 of them lives with his mother the other 2 lived with me but i had no problem with paying child support. I was happy to pay it. Kids grow up last thing you want is a pissed off son. :)

Law before justice? The kids are the most innocent in adult's messups. The alternative to not making protection of their vulnerability a priority principle - is to dump them. And that hardly is acceptable for a society claiming to be civilised. Sure, you have to make sure at court proceedings that one of the parents does not rip opff the other for nothing and although the new family where kids live can afford them, in so far father's rights needs protection. But that'S it, and the father never is completely innocent. It was his decision to get invovled with the woman in question. If she betrayed him, had a lover, got preganent, and the other guy leaves, and nobody being able to finance the kids, then it were the adults messing things up: the woman first, but the "father" second", for he got engaged with a person doing like this. If the relation was less off standard and people are more civilised even in conflict and while separating (such things happen), both people should be able to handle such questions with slightly better sense of responsibility for the kids.

Just saying: "they are not mine so I do not care if they get sunk by the river or not" - that is not an option, no matter who made what mistakes. chuldren are chidlren. somebody has to take care for them. Whether or not oin times of conflict luxury and spending money althouzgh it is not needed is part of that, is something different. But their basic safety has to be secured.

You are responsible for your choice of people with whom you get engaged. And if they cheat you, it has been your choice to get enagged with them nevertheless. Maybe look twice and think three times before sharing lives with a stranger. the high rate of divorces today last but not least comes from the fact that a.) standards and moral rules of living together have been eroded, and b.) too many people make too inadequate, easyminded choices of partners. Some relations are doomed to fail from the very beginning, since both partner'S charcters and ways of life do not match. Film stars are a very good, but not the only example.

Exactly. A much better way to say - and cut short - what I tried to express!

Sorry TarJak, the best interest of the child NEVER outweigh the financial rape of the father.

Paternity Fraud - Hiding behind the skirt of the judicial system.

One has to accept that such cases cannot be judged by a universal standard blueprint, but need to be decided on a case-to-case basis, carefully inclouding all the many different implications here. Whatever it is, the children usually are the most innocent of all factions in family court battles. I personally would not want to be a judge at a family court.

Law and order itself can become a brutal tyranny if not inspired and ennobled by a strong sense of humane justice and protection of the weakest. we are no band of wandering wolves, and who is unlucky gets left behind - we are humans. Much of our societies nevertheless works by the principle of "the stronger one moves on, the weaker gets eaten" - especially in america. But that is no compliment for an intelligent, self-reflective lifeform claiming to be able to reflect about itself.

Consider this: mother unable for whatever a reason to finance children, her having cheated and left her husband, the man not being the biological father. what to do? The man paying for them you say is not justice. the mother in my example can't. Is it just to expect the taxpayer to finance it? Hardly, it is even less just, imo, than having the husband paying. Society had no deciison to engage with his former wife - but he made such a decision - so he ic closer to the case.

Is there a just solution in this situation? no, none i could imagine. However, the kids need to be taken care of, and their future opportunity is not to be sacrificed on the altar of cold-blooded law and order justice, whatever happened between the adults - it is not the children fault, nor have they been asked wether they want to get born or not. Justice or not - you need to reach a solution to protect the children.

And if you accept society to pay for it all nevertheless, you already have created a dangerous precedent that will be abused massively, and will encourage couples to cheat and separate even more carelessly than many already do. It is the same kind of system abuse then that you guys complain about in social parasites sucking social wellfare while not working. Regarding that, many of you are agreeing that it is not acceptable, and you easily exaggerate the ammount to which this happens. but in the example regarding fathers you want to easily accept the same conditions being created that before you have criticised? Is this what you are arguing for?

In case of doubt, community interests rule higher than individual interests, and the interests of the innocent rule over that of those who can afford not to be too concerned.

But as i said earlier: just that the mother abuses children to rip of the father although she does not need it - this and comparable examples have to be prevented by courts and laws as well. But where there are laws, there are those finding ways to abuse these laws. Question is whether this keeps to be an exception to the rule - or becomes the rule.

"Strong and noble is the one whose eyes can bear everything, but whose heart still feels everything."

Skybird, its never the child's fault when situation like this happens. Problem is to few parents care about that. Its about me, myself & I. How many broken families actually work it out, out of courts for the sake of the child? No too many.

Taxpayers shouldn't pay.

But this situation is an issue that women feminist have fought and won. So guys now have to be extra careful. Don't get drunk with a woman you don't know. Don't bang unknown chicks. REALLY know who your going to sleep with. Or your f**k-ed.
Stay in control.

Yes that means don't drop your pickle into the dirt. Keep a firm hand on it. :p

Sorry Pioneer, but in court it does. This is the way family law has been structured in most western countries. Is that right or just? Not in my book, but it is what it is. What you have quoted from my post is simply a statement of fact on the current way family law courts look at the situation, not my personal opinion on the matter.

Completed scores from earlier matches...

Pioneer 3 Australian Family Law Court 0

In the group B matches...

Pioneer 8 Child Support Agency 0

Progress score from the current match

I.R.S 1 Australian Tax Office 0.

Oh yeah, I know what's it like, and if I don't fight for the next father...then who will?

"I have a dream, that one day, all nations will rise up and live out the true meaning of it's creed, that all parents are created equal, regardless of breast size."
- With apologies to MLK.

Amen Kiwi...I'm not even divorced yet and paying $981 for two children...that I do happily..it is not even enough ...I gave both my kids the choice who to live with...my son wants to live with me full time...my daughter only until my wife can pull her head out of her azz..which I haven't the heart to try to explain to my daughter will not be anytime soon. :)...but no matter what I will live in a box before they are in need...

My saga continues...I'll let ya all know how it turns out.

I do like the saying "In the poker game of life women are the Rake" lol...

Not "law before justice" at all. What you're doing is exchanging one sense of justice (the father's) for another (the children).

However, oddly ignored in this discussion is the fact that the children have an actual biological father who should shoulder the burden. Or, why are we assuming that the mother is unable to do so? Sure, it might not be terribly convenient for the mother to pay for everything, but justice is often inconvenient.

There's nothing to state that the children would indeed be victims should the "father" not be held liable for another man's children.

Oh, and I just have to...I'm pretty sure you're not too familiar with how our social services in America works. Sure, the stronger and smarter move on to bigger, better, and more rewarding things. This is how an evolved society allocates limited resources. However, the weaker hardly get "eaten".