Topic : 12/25 Parent Trap

Everyone agrees that the father and daughter should continue their relationship but there are two other issues here. 

1.  Should a man have to pay child support for another's child.  The simple answer for any thinking person is ABSOLUTELY NOT!  The law needs to be changed so that victims are NOT required to pay for anothers crime (the woman's fraudulent claim of paternity).  All amounts previously paid should be repaid to the man.

2.  The other issue is that woman lawyer.  She did not answer direct questions but rather changed the topic to other issues; she ranted and raved about the "best interest of the child" (nice legal term for family courts, like they know what that is!) when the topic was "should the man continue to pay?".  She contributed nothing to the show except to show how she views the rights of inocent victims in these cases (short answer; they have none).

Bottom line: The man is a victim and the courts continue the crime when they require him to continue to pay.  The mother should be prosecuted for fraud (a real crime) and be required to pay him back.  When are we going to get this system fixed?

This certainly has been a passionate topic.  There has been a lot of anger aimed at the right people in this matter but I think that Gloria Allred is not one of them.  She was on the show to explain and defend the law.  She is a lawyer and Dr Phil is not. Who better to explain the law than a lawyer?  Maybe the laws need to be tweaked to include our latest scientific gains in DNA testing but, she is right when she says that the laws reflect the best interest of the child. 

The man that the child grew up with as the father, loves as the father and looks up to as the father has rights in this case too.  I think he should go back to the courts and demand a relationship with this child.  The laws protect the father too with regards to visitation and the bonds that were established. 

Should he pay?  That seems to be at the heart of everyone's passionate responses.  Maria did not help matters sitting on the stage enjoying all the pain and anguish that she wreaked on her ex.  She was certainly not a likable character on the show.  She was so outlandish that the best interest of the child seemed secondary.

When the show first began I took the fathers side, just by viewing his demeanor. I thought the mother looked like a woman with secrets up her sleeve. But, as the show progressed I found myself torn between different sides. For one thing, I am surprised no one gave the mother any credit or took her side. I don't mean her side as in the lying part but on the show she was very well put together. She never called names, she never accused, she never defended her actions. She always agreed when the audience booed her and Dr. Phil called her out. I think she really was there on the show for the daughter. As an adoptee myself, I whole heartedly believe that when you raise a child it is YOUR responsibility.

Now, the guest speaker, I forget his name but he was the man who said he had payed child support for eleven years when he was not the father. Why did no one think to call him out on the fact that he never bothered to get a DNA test when an ex girlfriend just called him up one day. That is pretty irresponsible if you ask me and he seemed to be a man that cared more about triumphing over accusing women than getting something serious done. In the case with the parents at hand they had been married at the time and I can understand why no DNA test was done.

The mother was completely at fault. No question about that. However, raising a child as your own for 10 years even when you were duped should be enough to have to pay child support. You were part of a unit, a family and all expenses were shared. Should the mother have to go to court for a lie? It is possible. But, as Gloria Allred said the child comes first. It is all about the child. Feminists get off your cushion about being treated fairly and men bring down your egos about who you may or may not have knocked up.

My husband and I are supporting another man's child because in the State of California if a child was born during a marriage then that child is considered a child of the marriage.  We did not find out this until the little girl was 10 years old when her mother decided she should (without consulting my husband) tell this little girl that the person she thought was her father really is not...........  My husband is a wonderful man and continues to love this little girl as much as he ever has..... my question is why should we have to pay $1300.00 a month to support another man's child?  DNA testing can get you off a murder charge but not out of supporting a child that is not yours.  Where is the justice in that?  People say the child should come first and I agree, the mother should find the "real father" and force him to pay support as well as her supporting the child herself.........