Verified by 
A 19-year Army veteran, now on his third tour in Iraq, will have his Army pay garnished and his tax refund seized to pay child support for a boy who isn't his.
Genetic tests prove the child is not the son of Master Sgt. Christopher Sprowson. His first wife had the boy after having an affair, and according to the Kansas City Star could not tell the court who the father was. Sprowson and his first wife divorced after the affair.
The court has ordered Sprowson to pay more than $10,000. He and his wife, Karey, have three children who, they say, will suffer as a result of this judgment against them.
Lest you think this is being done in the interests of the 13-year-old boy, the newspaper story makes clear that the money will go to the state--not to the child or his mother. His mother was once was on welfare, and the state requires child support be used to reimburse the state.
The problem is that the boy's mother does not know who the father is. So under the Kansas "presumed father" statute, Sprowson, her husband at the time, is presumed to be the father--even though he is demonstrably not the father.
The boy's mother offered to forgo the support, but the state wouldn't allow that.
The only interest being served here is that of the state of Kansas. The price is being paid by two families-the 13-year-old boy and his mother, and Sprowson's family.
There is no psychological or sociological case to be made for this kind of arrangement.
On Jan. 21, Karey Sprowson testified before the state legislature, asking that the law be changed.
State legislators say they fear that a change in the law could have "unintended consequences."
One might naively ask: Has not the law itself had unintended consequences?
The legislature might do well to call in a few expert witnesses and try to craft a law that is in the interests of families and children--not the state budget.
