Posted on May 24 at 9:23 a.m.

So let me get this straight: if a person does not know that they are a father, that can be made retroactive even if the mother has not actively sought out or even told the alleged father? In order to have a legal duty (i.e. support a child), don't you need knowledge of that duty?
Pull an example out of thin air: an out of town guy meets a girl at the bar and they have a one night stand. Neither uses protection: not the smartest thing in the world, but it's happened, and I don't think it makes either of them morally deficient, just lacking some common sense. The guy goes back to his home.
Two years later, he's about to get married when somebody knocks on the door. It's a subpoena server telling him that he owes child support not only currently but for back support. Can any of you, lawyer included, tell me that it is just on any level?
And what about a mother who doesn't press the issue in court when she knows who the father is. Given this, does it makes sense for you to reward her for her tardiness. And before any of you say "it's for the child", just how exactly does that retroactive support benefit the child currently. Can you 100 percent say that money will be used for the child's needs forward and ONLY the child's needs? How many custodial parents even keep that careful of records?
This quite frankly is one more reason why family law needs serious reform.

On It's the Law: Child support can be made retroactive