Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
This argument is also a fallacy in the context you present it.
"The best interest of the child" is evidently served by having someone pay support. Whether that is the donor or the state is immaterial to that mandate.
This isn't about the best interest of the child at this point. This is about the state vs. the donor. The state doesn't want to pay, so is trying to pass the buck, so to speak.
|
What I am getting at in the post you quoted, is the court could over-ride an otherwise proper contract in certain circumstances. Imagine a case where the mother was not receiving welfare from the state. The court might be prepared to quash such a contract, allowing a claim for support.