Comment: The common law

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: A law that ignores biological (see in situ)

The common law

harshly penalized illegitimate children born "fillius nillus" The common law denied illegitimate children rights of property and inheritance.

The English common law you keep referring to recognized no positive legal obligation for something like child support as it was considered a non legally enforceable moral obligation. As a matter of fact the modern legal system which has striven to provide a sense of equality to so called legitimate and illegitimate children all hinges upon the 14th Amendment so to keep saying this all derives from common law is pure BS. Things like child support are an invention of American jurisprudence. If you would like to read a paper on it we can debate the accuracy of this false common law assertion you keep making here is an excerpt from one:

"The American courts that dealt with cases of marital breakdown in the early nineteenth century had inherited a common-law tradition that did not provide for a child support action. Mainstream English law in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries had held that a father had only a nonenforceable moral duty to support his children.(57) According to Blackstone, the duty of parents to provide for their children was a "principle of natural law."(58) 'Natural' law meant no more than that: There was no common-law action for the recovery of support furnished to a minor child at English law.(59) There were some hints by the middle of the nineteenth century that English courts would imply a promise of reimbursement if a father refused to support a child,(60) but these cases were clearly in the minority. Even the most generous reading of English precedent left American courts confused as to whether a father who deserted his family could be compelled to pay child support in a legal action.(61) Most American courts read the English precedents as forbidding a third party from recovering child support costs unless a father had authorized such support by contract.(62)
England did have a statutory provision for the recovery of child support in limited circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized local parishes to recover the money they spent in aiding single mothers and children from a nonsupporting father. But this statute was triggered only when the family involved was absolutely destitute; it therefore provided no assistance to single mothers left economically vulnerable after a divorce or separation. Also, the Elizabethan Poor Law only allowed towns to recoup their relief costs. It allowed no recovery for third parties or for single mothers who needed to be reimbursed for child support expenses."

If you prefer we can look up some actual cases implicated by it and cite relevant excerpts from those cases to see how these doctrines formed in American jurisprudence based on the We you are so fond of reacting to social pressures.