Non-Father Must Pay Past-Due Child Support

[Mrs Behavin]

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

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, says state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support.

Associate Justice Robert L. Brown wrote in a concurring opinion that the court was forced to bring "a grossly unfair result." He urged the state Legislature to clarify the law.

In her original ruling, McGowan wrote that forcing Parker to pay “violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child."

Today's THV - KTHV Little Rock News Article

 

[hhayes]

thats rediculous. poor guy. the law is so twisted sometimes.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Mistakes happen. The real travesty here is the mother who A) Didn't / doesn't know who the real father is, and B) is going to fight tooth and nail to get this poor guys money, even though she knows damn well it doesn't belong to her.

 

[Bagel]

well if he masquaraded as the childs father prior to the test ..to the point of exploitign the motehr in soem way or another then i woudl side witht eh courts decision..if its the reverse and the mother is doing it to exploit him..then i side with the non- father..

 

[GuesSAngel]

Mistakes happen. The real travesty here is the mother who A) Didn't / doesn't know who the real father is, and B) is going to fight tooth and nail to get this poor guys money, even though she knows damn well it doesn't belong to her.

there is no really 'travesty' for the mother not knowing who the baby's father is, she should have kept her legs closed. The only one that it's going to matter to is the baby in the whole thing.

they should go on maury

 

[Under-Ground]

here in australia we can now offer to give 50% of our time instead of paying

its a good idea child support here now is for what it was ment to be all along perents that didnt give a fuck!

The ones that do can now give time instead of paying witch is the way it should be stops wemon fighting for babys than taking the money too when the father would of been there 50% of the time

Yes this means both partys pay for half the cloths etc but no one pays anyone else good idea..

 

[sharpies]

If the mother can't name the father, then she should take full responsibility for the kids.

Allan

 

[kazzman]

there is no really 'travesty' for the mother not knowing who the baby's father is, she should have kept her legs closed. The only one that it's going to matter to is the baby in the whole thing.

they should go on maury

It is for the baby, now this poor child has to be raised by this incompetent mother. I feel sorry for children in these situations.

 

[Ria]

I think that over here, certainly, the courts have had rulings changed so often, they and the government forget which ones are still in the 'system' and which ones aren't.

We have such a messed up (to say the least) system to make fathers pay up - it's so messed up that the government had to admit, they got it wrong (no surprise there!) yet, even after this, they are still perservering with this ridiculous, wrong, pathetic 'system'. Fathers who should be paying, are still getting away with paying. :confused