In yet another stroke of judicial brilliance, Missouri resident David Salazar lost his
appeal with a Missouri court this week and has been ordered to pay over
$13000 in back child support
or face a felony charge punishable by four years
in prison, all because he and his estranged wife were too poor to get a
divorce before she had a baby with another man. Even though both
Mr. Salazar and the child's mother have testified that they separated
well before she became pregnant and that he is not the child's
father, the court would have none of it because Mr. Salazar, who
didn't graduate from high school and likely was even unaware of what
was taking place, failed to contest the original determination of
support within the stipulated time.
I'm
all for child support. I'm even, or my children are, a recipient
of it. The present disparity in incomes between me and The Ex
makes this necessary. But! Come on, court system!
Rules are one thing and are useful guidelines in most cases, but
lighten up here! There's a human element here, not to mention an
element of common sense. And there is such a thing as following
rules right into the ground. What about the fact that a hospital
worker insisted Mr. Salazar's estranged wife use his name on the baby's
birth certificate? Or the fact that the state Child Support
Enforcement Division named Mr. Salazar the father without performing
any testing?
It's all in the name of doing "what's best for the
child". But who gets to determine that? Are you willing to
allow your state court system determine what's best for your
child?
