The Confusion Between the Truth and the Law
The Supreme Court has held that a father has absolutely no say as to whether his child should be born. Once his child is born, however, the father is socked (and rightfully so) with all kinds of obligations. California, that well-spring of "progressivism," has even taken to socking men with obligations for children they did not even father (see story here).
Manuel Navarro was ordered in 1996 by California court to pay $247 a month in child support for two boys. The rub, DNA testing later proved that he was not their father. Too bad said the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department. Mr. Navarro had a judgment against him, and by the time he found out about his DNA results it was too late to appeal, time had run out, so just keep on paying.
Thankfully, in a moment of rare clarity, the California Court of Appeals for the 2nd District came to Mr. Navarro's rescue and overturned the decision. Sounds sensible, but not to everyone. Lori Cruz, Deputy Director of the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department has petitioned the California Supreme Court to "depublish" the decision because it may create "confusion."
Where's the confusion you ask? Well, when it comes to the law, never let the truth get in the way. You see, Ms. Cruz thinks that since Mr. Navarro had a legal judgment against him, that should be the end - DNA evidence be damned. Accordingly, for all the other putative fathers with judgments against them she doesn't want them getting any ideas that they can get out of paying child support for kids that aren't even theirs. In fine, Ms. Cruz doesn't want anyone confusing the truth with the law.