Court rejects anti-child support argument


Published: Nov. 6, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Print story
Email to a friend


Font size:



LANSING, Mich., Nov. 6 (UPI) -- A U.S. appeals court in Michigan Tuesday rejected a man's constitutional claim that he shouldn't have to pay child support.

The court upheld a lower court ruling in the lawsuit filed by a men's rights group on behalf of Matthew Dubay, who alleged the Michigan Paternity Act violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Dubay, who has a daughter with a former girlfriend, argued that enforcement of the Michigan law denied him equal protection in two ways. First, he argued that Michigan statutes denied him equal protection of the law by giving mothers "a right to disclaim parenthood after engaging in consensual sex (i.e., through abortion) while denying that right to fathers," the nine-page opinion said.

He also contended Michigan law denied men equal protection by making it easier for a woman to

place a child up for adoption or leave the newborn at a hospital or other social service agency.

"An examination of these claims under our equal protection jurisprudence, however, reveals that they

lack merit," the court said. "Dubay cannot prevail under any of these equal protection theories."

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...argument/1268/

Then these equal protection theories are sexist. At least, that is my theory.