Gone, Baby, Gone: Briley Sends Campfield Paternity Bill To Summer Study

23 Responses to “Gone, Baby, Gone: Briley Sends Campfield Paternity Bill To Summer Study”

1. Ryan Turbeville writes
   April 21st, 2008 1:46 pm

   Campfield should have asked Briley if he thinks adultery is appropriate.

2. John P writes
   April 21st, 2008 2:21 pm

   Well, it shouldn’t be that difficult. All the mother has to do is admit who the actual father is, and have him paternity tested.
   It won’t happen, due to a belief that lying about infidelity is not something that a mother should have any negative consequences over.

3. John P writes
   April 21st, 2008 2:28 pm

   Better yet would have been this exchange.

   Rep. Briley,”You can’t puinish the child by taking away the support they need”

   Rep. Campfield “If the actual paternity does not matter, well we have a lot of unsupported children in this state, so how many of those children should we make Rep. Briley liable to support. These “fathers” are no more responsible for those children than he is, but he is responsible for obstructing one means of finding out who the real fathers are”.

4. J.L.B. writes
   April 21st, 2008 2:44 pm

   The people who should be responsible for the financial support of the child are the people whose sexual activity created the child in the first place, not some man who was defrauded into believing that he was the child’s father. If the mother can’t support the child by herself, she’ll give up the real father’s name soon enough. I agree that it’s not fair to punish the child for its parents’ sins, but it’s also not fair to punish some unrelated third-party male.

5. MikeT writes
   April 21st, 2008 2:45 pm

   Children also shouldn’t have to have mothers who screw around and then don’t let them know who their real father is. IMO, these children would, in general, be better off in foster care than with their deceitful mothers.

6. Drake writes
   April 21st, 2008 2:50 pm

   I find Briley’s DUI and cop-cursing to be profoundly anti-child. It’s anti-everyone actually.

7. amazed writes
   April 21st, 2008 3:00 pm

   Campfield’s bill is eminently sensible and fair. Briley for some reason thinks the legal system should aid and abet defrauding someone who is not the father.

8. BangStick writes
   April 21st, 2008 4:07 pm

   Nobody is saying take the child support away. This bill just makes sure the right person has to pay it.

9. The “Wife as Personal Prostitute” Model « Tiny Cat Pants writes
   April 21st, 2008 4:12 pm

   [...] here, here, here, and here for starters.  But fair warning, the vitriol expressed towards women in some of [...]

10. Well Propertied Men : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    April 21st, 2008 5:04 pm

    [...] B. sides with Rob Briley being of the opinion that if a man signs on as father on a child’s birth certificate and then [...]

11. ossian writes
    April 21st, 2008 8:07 pm

    Evidently down your way, sex is seen as a semi-military operation. Why else would sexual relations be described *three* times as premartial? Give us a chorus of “just before the battle, Mother.”

12. bobby b writes
    April 21st, 2008 9:03 pm

    This has been a fight in the family-law area for years.

    There’s always been high importance attached to “finality” in paternity-adjudication. Little Johnny thinks Joe is his dad, and has called him dad for all of his nine years. Do you let someone screw that up because of a paternity test? Why didn’t dad ask for that test nine years ago? The test was available.

    Problem is, lots of states allowed for “default” adjudications, and, by the time “dad” was found and served, it was past the time when he could challenge the results. States wanted this - even if “dad” hadn’t been found, they’d have an existing support order against “dad”, so when “dad” was finally found, the state could hit him up for all of the overdue support (to pay the state back for the state aid that mom got because of having the kid.) (You generally can’t go after child support from pre-order times - so having the order as early as possible was important to reimbursement.)

    No easy answer. It’s not as cut-and-dried as it might appear from this article.

13. bobby b writes
    April 21st, 2008 9:10 pm

    Sorry - Part 2:

    The other usual instance is when mom screws around with people who are not her hubby. When a kid is born to a married couple, the legal assumption is that dad is . . . well . . . “dad.” No one has to prove that dad is “dad” - dad has to prove he’s NOT “dad.”

    What happens when, five to ten years later, maybe during the divorce, dad finds out that mom was out screwing around, and notices that little Johnny looks just like the guy who comes around with Moonie literature every year? Is it fair to dad to have to pay support for Johnny? But also, what does it do to Johnny to find out his dad went to court in order to stop being his dad?

    Again, no easy answers (beyond the obvious “this is a condom, you wear it over your head and it looks stupid and thus no woman will want to have sex with you.”)

14. Donna Locke writes
    April 21st, 2008 9:48 pm

    So the safest, smartest thing is for males not to allow their names on birth certificates other than their own, seeing as how misplaced trust is a common human mistake and one can expect no sympathy or justice in that event.

15. Argo writes
    April 21st, 2008 10:30 pm

    It’s very likely that Briley is motivated by the usual lobbists who realize and profit from the fact that federalized child support pays the states to divide families and to keep single parenting the commonality it is.

    Please do not argue this matter on subjective grounds. Follow the money and follow the political power. Briley is.

    Following the money, as Briley surely knows all about in his “ten years”, is what this is really all about. Briley is shameless in his interrogation and arrogant in his godplaying, yet he should be shamed at all 50 statehouses are being bought off by Title IV-D advocates, which include lawyers, including those sitting on these sham committees, and gender feminists.

    The presumption that Briley makes, in what I presume is a baldfaced defense of the billion dollar business of tearing apart families in family court, is that cash serves kids. In fact, the very corruption of the child support system is what produces single parenting, and it does so by design. Therefore child support is anti family.

    Briley hides his power and motivation behind the ruse that opposing child support is harmful to children. He is precisely 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

    Briley is a perfect example of the pontificating that goes on in support of damaging children by way of the federalized child support system, a for-profit apparatus that enriches lawyers and special interests by making sure as many children go single-parented as possible.

    For nearly every single parent there is a disenfranchised parent who pays for the luxury of being extorted from in what amounts to the state’s legalized kidnapping scheme. Read Stephen Baskerville’s, Taken Into Custody to learn how the federal government pays the states to produce single parents.

16. Who Dat Is? It’s Not My Baby, Daddy. « Dork Nation writes
    April 22nd, 2008 4:37 am

    [...] 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 [...]

17. YouTube Politics : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    April 22nd, 2008 7:24 am

    [...] Tennessean jumps out on our posting of a confrontation between Reps. Stacey Campfield and Rob Briley on a bill which would allow fathers to get out of [...]

18. Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    April 22nd, 2008 11:44 am

    [...] Brooks is blogging about the Rob Briley/Stacey Campfield brouhaha over letting men out of obligations to their partner’s offspring not of their line. [...]

19. You Wanna Talk About Adultery? Are You Sure? : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    April 23rd, 2008 7:45 am

    [...] states that he cannot believe that Rep. Stacey Campfield didn’t make a very obvious retort when berated before the Judiciary Committee during discussion over a bill allowing men to opt out of child [...]

20. Unfiltered: The Real Dirt Inside Men’s Minds writes
    April 23rd, 2008 5:09 pm

    [...] http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2008/04/21/gone-baby-gone-briley-sends-campfield-paternity-bill-to... [...]

21. Frank Rizzo writes
    April 24th, 2008 11:24 am

    I like Rep. Campfield’s approch. Might tweak a ting or two though. If I’m found not guilty of a crime (IE:decision against me) I’m off the hook. It should be the same with child support. Seems the mother’s are getting an easy pass here. That’s where the responsibility needs to lay. Make the mother responsible. It’s already quite clear the court is more then willing to make the “Male” father or not responsibile.

    It’s really simple. Mandatory paternity testing at birth.
    End of story. If this was in place already, then this bill would not even need to be proposed as law.

22. He’s In Your Blogosphere Restricting All Your Access : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    May 20th, 2008 2:38 pm

    [...] The Well On Getting Well On YouTube BREAKING: State Rep. Rob Briley Will Not Run For Re-Election Gone Briley Gone Briley’s Ophelia Ford [...]

23. Rob Briley Continues His Needling Of The Press : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee writes
    May 21st, 2008 12:00 pm

    [...] of the links cited as after “Briley’s resignation” chronicle his dustup with Rep. Stacey Campfield over Campfield “babydaddy bill.” That, of course was last [...]