lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Arkansas Supreme Court Rules Man Must Continue to Pay Child Support for Child Who Isn’t His

2007-05-18
By

Another man is punished because he trusted his wife. From Ark. Supreme Court upholds Ashley Co. child support decision (5/17/07):

“The Arkansas Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision requiring an Ashley County man to pay child support for a child he didn’t father, because he didn’t contest the paternity in his divorce decree.

“Kevin Martin and Lisa Pierce married in 1988, and filed for divorce in 1997. The divorce was uncontested, but in 2004 Pierce filed a petition of contempt against Martin to gain back child support.

“A DNA test showed Martin wasn’t the child’s father. But the Ashley County Circuit Court found that that law wasn’t applicable to Martin’s case, because the law is a part of the state’s paternity code, which does not apply to divorce decrees.

“The high court affirmed that decision in a split opinion issued today. Associate Justice Robert L. Brown disagreed with the majority’s ruling saying the Legislature has been abundantly clear that a man who is not the biological father shouldn’t be forced to pay child support.”

The Best Interests of the Child
How to Save Our Child When We Can’t Save our Marriage–New DVD set from Dr. Warren Farrell, foremost expert on children of divorce
www.BestInterestofChildren.org
48 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    MMX, your premise is dead wrong.

    I never consented for the State to take my kids. I never consented for the ex-wife to take my kids. Therefore, what they call child support is what kidnappers call ransom.

    Have I gone too fast for you? Is this too complicated for you to understand?

    True, the State did not bring the child into the world.

    But there was a time, when there was no State, and yet people were able to raise children.

    Here is how it worked:

    A man and woman get together and have children. They raise them as best they could. They may band together with other folks and do the best they can. Sometimes, in trying to kill a mammoth for meat, the mammath wins. Sometimes the cold wins. Sometimes the berries are not there to be gathered and the experimental wheat planting did not work.

    Now in these societies where there was no State, if a woman took the child and ran off, she, and her child, were on their own.

    As surely as when her husband loses to the mammoth, the ice floes or the cold.

    Naturally to improve her chances of survival and her child’s chances, she stayed with her man and put up with his habits, such as leaving the toilet seat up and making flint spear heads. You know that annoying sound, chip chip chip!

    Now we have this massive State that interferes with our lives and violates its own laws while doing it. It takes resources from some in the form of taxes, and hands these resources to others, in the form of welfare benefits, food stamps, and paychecks to the employees it hires to push all this paper back and forth.

    In fact I would say supporting the children of government employees is the REAL purpose of all of this.

    And it sets up procedures designed specifically to to separate the children from breadwing parents, fahers usually, and then to enslave the parents because, gosh, the State did not bring the children into the world so why should the State support them?

    The answer to that is obvious:

    You kidnap the kid, you now take care of the kid.

    Just like you do when you steal a child from another tribe.

    If you don’t like that, then please leave the children with their breadwinning fathers and STFU!

  • thurston861

    By the way MMX look at my posting at the DNA exoneration article.

  • thurston861

    MMX you see clearly.

    I am just pointing out the hypocrisy where teh Marraige license is good for them to construct as an adhesion contract to make a man pay, even when he is not the Father.

    They will use it to take his parental rights when he is seeking proper adjudication of the Rights, but they will not use it to take responsibility that was never his, and the only other person stated on the license is the mother who is not the responsible adult is THE STATE!

    They are having it both ways.

    A perfect case.

    A perfect example of the fact that the Juducial System and Famil Law is a sham. Their own documents prove their lawlessness.

  • MMX

    Guys, look. It’s extremely simple. If the court states that the man doesnt have to pay child support, then the state implies that IT must pay child support.

    Thus, all of your arguments, no matter how fair or just they seem, can be reduced to, “Oh please, most merciful state, voluntarily burden yourself to pay this child support, even though you did nothing to create this child.”

    Now, I’m all for limited government and keeping the state out of our relationships, but some people ought to really consider what they’re asking for before they ask for it.

  • roger

    The mother certainly knows who the real father is.
    Why is she not being held for contempt in not disclosing this, and for the fraud she has perpetrated on both the man and the child??

  • thurston861

    It is good for the state to not have to pay the child support.

    The state has remedy for non-payment, but the man does not.

    Since he is not the legally responsible adult the state is supposed to be, but that would be inconveient when it comes to money because they feel compelled to violate a number of U.S. Sup. Ct. cases to protect the public fisc.

    This is a pristine case to do a Habeas agaist the Peonage Act.

  • amfortas

    “The Problem with the Court’s Ruling is that what is good for the State is not good for the Man.”

    Thurston, is this an oversight, or a hurriedness in your otherwise thoughtful comment? Just how is it ‘good’ for the State, to act in such a manner as to elevate a construct, the letter of the law, over the integrity of an innocent man.

    The State is acting greedily, with hubris and willful ignorance of its own integrity. How is this a ‘good’? How can the State ensure its own survival when acting in this way? It is bringing about its own destruction just as surely as a glutton, a thief.

  • thurston861

    The Problem with the Court’s Ruling is that what is good for the State is not good for the Man.

    The State should not only release him, but pay him all of the Back support, since it has no problem going after men and incarcerating them for Welfare payments previously made to children of men until fatherhood is confirmed.

    Had the issue been properly evidenced for the Court record to begin with the State would have been paying the welfare checks to teh mother since she is a slut who does not know who fathered her child.

    THe State enjopys its power and priviledge in such circumstances, so it should seize upon the situation and opportunity to do justice, which is what it would ahve done int eh first place.
    All is not lost, his placement under the Order of teh AR SCT places him in direct line for Prison should he not pay, thus the facts dictate he should nto be otherwise under such Peonage threat.

    Corpus Juris Secundum states that mere threat is a Peonage Violation.

    Time for Habeas Corpus. Direct Line to the U.S. Supreme Court. $5 filing fee.

  • amfortas

    Egregious injustice such as this, using legal technicalities that fly in the face of reason and fairness, will not be corrected by political means when so many of our local, State and National leaders and almost all legal professionals have contributed to the poisonous atmosphere and taken ill-gotten monetary and career gains.

    The Gresham’s Law society is pushing men to their limit. The ‘No More’ will come with frightening speed and a full range of bespoke jackets from equally technical justice tailors with experience in metalwork, percussion and ballistics.

    Not that I would ever advocate that. Oh deary me, no. I am a peace-loving ex- steely-eyed weaponry wielder, but there are precedents.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    That’s what you get for not pleading the Antipeonage Act.

    Robert, your explanation is too complicated. The simpler and more accurate assessment is that the Child Support Crusade is a gravy train and these judges consider their primary duty is to keep it running.

    You don’t really believe that enforcing the Arkansas Constitution and the United States Constitution is the primary job of the Arkansas Supreme Court? It is obvious its justices don’t think so.

  • roger

    It is FRAUD and the woman should do hard time in prison AND pay back the money.

  • Krogy

    This is just another example of the courts favoring process over justice. Process without justice is meaningless.

  • donnieboy57

    if its me, i just quit my job and let them try getting blood from a rock. when a man cheats, he gets ruined by everyone around him, including his own family. when a women does it, she gets paid. what a f*****d up world men have to endure. shoot em all, i says!

  • spectre

    I agree with you Robert. I see no end to the current system/mess. There IS NO reason for it to end … until and unless there is a collapse of society, revolution, nuclear holocaust, giant meteor.

    It’s sad, but I truly believe it.

  • mruffolo

    Under feminism a woman’s right and interests are protected over truth and fairness.

    The real father, who the wife knows, may not know he has a child.

    The best interest of the child is to be raised by their natural father and mother.

    A whore destroy a family. Our feminist government supports whores.

  • Robert Stevens

    This does not surprize me. Once you understand how the “legal” system actually does work and what a monumental fraud it is, then like me you won’t be surprized anymore.
    First, lets start with the basics, the court is not really a court. It is an equity/admiralty tribunal, operating not under the constitution, but under code ( ie UCC uniform commercial code) and they don’t even have to give the constitution any notice whatsoever. In a word your “constitutional rights” don’t mean squate to them.
    Second, The state thinks it owns your children and is in essence taking care of IT’S FUTURE TAX PAYERS ie the people who will aid it ( the state) in maintaining the fraudulent system they have in place. So they don’t really care who name is on the birth certificate or who genes the kid has. It is just a shake down racket. A thief never cares who he steals from and the same thing is true of the state. Who is the biggest thief around.
    Third, and this is something the fathers rights groups needs to learn. You will never beat these bastard using their own system, it is after all their system. You can use remedy under law, a law they can be made to abide by, to slow them down quite a bit. You can make yourself a ” hard target” and be way too much trouble for them to mess with. Once you do that, they go looking for easier pickin’s. They are thieves and thieves , the smart one’s that is) never try to break into a fortress. They are bullies aslo and bullies do not like to have to work for what they get .
    Fourth and lastly, The day is coming these theiving bastards will be gone and when that happen, lets make damn sure we never have this problem again. I am not sure if this will caused by the collaspe of society or by a revolution, but it will happen. So be ready.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise