This question stems from a case in Houston, TX where the judge ruled that the father was still responsible for back pay because he was the only father the child knew at that time.
The child support case coming out of Houston, Tx. is nothing new within the child support issue. There are plenty of judges who have ruled that the father, because he’s the only father the child has known, must continue to support the child even after it’s determined that the child does not belong to him.
That is why it was necessary for states to start changing laws to reverse parental rights in this type of case. And in Texas, this law is now on the books. But, when Ray Thomas took his DNA clearance before the judge, she didn’t give it a second glance. It was not enough to relieve him of over $50,000 in back child support he owed.
The law is new, but his debt is old. The law cannot be back-dated to help his cause, so he’s stuck. Now, what do you think about this issue? Were the old laws unnecessary? There are a lot of fathers not stepping up, but is it right to make men pay when they are not biologically responsible?
