Skip to content

Who Dat Is? It’s Not My Baby, Daddy.

April 22, 2008

Re: HB1523

Even though I’m inherently suspicious of anything Campfield supports, I’m not convinced by the majority of the arguments, especially Rob’s grandstand-y rhetoric, so I look at this legislation. He’s right. It’s faulty.

Once paternity and responsibilities implied by the established paternity are in place, to attempt to change the support structure for the child in the way this bill proposes would place an undue hardship on the child in question. The state responsibility to ensure the welfare of the child trumps the state’s responsibility to protect enfranchised persons entering into contract from fraud. “. . . [I]n matters concerning child custody, support and visitation, the welfare of the child has always been the paramount consideration.” Luke v. Luke, 651 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. 1983). Of course, what is in the best interest of the child is up to the discretion of the trial court. I don’t see any judge allowing a child to have their support base changed or placed on hold while two dads and a mom battle it out in court.

It’s one instance where our legislature’s bent towards timidity is well taken.

I don’t really see anyway to make Campfield’s desires workable as a piece of legislation. Mandatory pre-nups? Unconstitutional. I don’t think there’s anything terribly wrong with seeking to attempt to prevent fraud in general (Wife as personal prostitute? come on. little strong there). You don’t do that on the back of a kid, though.

This is not a matter of gender. It shouldn’t be political. I don’t know if Campfield thinks this strikes a blow for fairness or not . . . it would strike a blow, aiite. I’m guessing this strikes a blow for the dude who feels duped after finding out some bad news, and shaking his fists at the sky screamed “There outta be a law!”

Predictably, the bill died on the vine (or in committee). There should be no surprise there.

Aggrieved daddy, civil court is your answer. Or Maury. Sorry, the legislature can’t help you.

Advertisements
10 Comments leave one →
  1. April 22, 2008 6:14 am

    What? Now a girl can’t pick a fight with folks for fun without being accused of coming on strong?

    Ha.

    I’m going to have a reputation worse than Egalia’s in no time. Sorry, fellow femininists. I’m down here ruining it for y’all one incindiary post at a time.

  2. April 22, 2008 1:30 pm

    I dunno, being a pa may have made me too sensitive. Just struck me as a bit strong even for your provoking- the-patriarchy self.

  3. Argo permalink
    April 22, 2008 2:07 pm

    Mark, this ill-reasoned commentary exposes your ignorance about Title IV-D. It also exposes your ignorance about both constitutional rights and the State’s interest in the abused “best interest” clause, which is merely legal code for the federal custody and support regime. Like welfare is code for generational dependency.

    But like I said, you’re ignorant of all that, thereby flushing prior rights with this half-baked notion of what trumps what. And to think any “aggrieved daddy” will see child support justice in civil court exposes your ignorance of the Bradley Amendment as well as of DNA testing admissability.

  4. April 22, 2008 2:41 pm

    “Like welfare is code for generational dependency”
    “the abused “best interest” clause, which is merely legal code for the federal custody and support regime.”

    Which tells me all I need to know about where you’re coming from.

    I know enough to know the difference between spin and legal reasoning. If you’re going to come with some insults you should at least have the courtesy to back it up with some proof, bud. Invoking Title IV-D as if you know something about it doesn’t impress me.

    I never imagined a possible positive outcome for a civil suit. I only offered that the possibility for such relief exists.

    I don’t have a ton of sympathy for guys whose bond with a child in such a difficult situation is so weak that they would risk harm to the kid because his wife screwed up.

  5. April 22, 2008 4:15 pm

    Mark, I send you internet hugs, because you are, in fact, the first person (excluding even myself) to show sanity and compassion towards the women involved in this mess.

    You’re right and I had lost sight of it–that most women aren’t passing off someone else’s kid as that guy’s because they’re evil monsters just looking for lives to ruin, but because they screwed up and were scared and are lying to protect themselves.

    Thanks.

  6. Argo permalink
    April 22, 2008 5:24 pm

    Glad to see I could engage your reflexive assumption mechanism again, Mark. I’ll never reason you out of something you weren’t reasoned into, prior constitutional rights included, evidently. I mean, you evoked them, ignorantly.

    An inquisitive and honest mind will want to know politics and money actually destroys kid’s futures by way of the child support and custody system. Yep, Title IV-D. It utterly counts.

    Yours, not so much so. Aunt B can applaud this collectivist, anti-rights bent, also for the merely presumed benefits to society and ignorant of the real world perils, but I’ll pass.

  7. Argo permalink
    April 22, 2008 5:26 pm

    Oh, and to be fair, thanks for this doublespeaking admission;

    I never imagined a possible positive outcome for a civil suit. I only offered that the possibility for such relief exists.

    Indeed. Not imagining a positive outcome but calling it relief anyway. No need to explain further.

  8. April 22, 2008 5:32 pm

    Until you back up your statements your words are meaningless here. You’re just spitting pieties. Support your statements. I have time for that. You’re not exactly wowing the room with your con-law expertise here.

    “Not imagining a positive outcome but calling it relief anyway. No need to explain further.”

    Do you not know the meaning of the word “possible?”

  9. April 22, 2008 5:51 pm

    wait, Argo, nevermind, I saw your comments at NP. Don’t bother with searching for support. I know enough, now, thanks. I can do without the conspiracy theories.

  10. August 21, 2010 5:59 pm

    director web

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: