Hey there
Actually, I think the line is fitting.
A typical assumption made by quite a few people when someone (i.e. the news story in this case) speaks of a "father" and a "mother" is that the two were married and had a child while they were married, or else had a child before they were married and later tied the knot. Knowing this bit of information sheds some factual light on things.
As they were not and are not married, that changes the legal standing of the father's rights (since, after all, fathers are often regarded as 'sperm donors' and little else under the law--but that's another rant for another time...)
Granted he may be her biological father, but without marriage or official adoption or court intervention, he would have little or no custodial rights regarding the little girl, which could affect his case in filing the action in court.
I think it's germaine to the case to know that information, and I stand by my opinion that Fox News did their reporting right by getting the facts of the story out there.
I will, in fairness, offer the caveat that I'm a bigger fan of Fox News than other outlets. Occasionally a story will come through on Fox that I don't like or don't agree with or don't like their take on, but it's a far less likely occurance there than on, say, the Ted Turner-influenced-if-not-owned-anymore politically-Liberal-slanted CNN or the equally slanted MSNBC |
