Posted on 08/12/2008 12:47:07 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
What are your thoughts?
Because we compete with them for the hot babes -- and we're much better-equipped to please the hotties.
The child in question removed from the mother and given to a family to adopt.
The father stupidly thought he could make babies on the cheap. He was wrong and any lawyer could have told him so. Had they used the services of a doctor to perform the insemination, the agreement would have been valid.
the agreement could have been enforceable under New Mexico’s adoption of the Uniform Parentage Act, but the failure of the parties to involve a doctor in the insemination process when there was a "known donor" took these conceptions outside the jurisdiction of the Act’s provision on donor insemination. What remained in the absence of the Act was the clear public policy of New Mexico that a biological father of a child has a legal obligation of support if he has held himself out as the child’s father, and any purported agreement to the contrary is unenforceable as a matter of public policy
Are you out of your freakin mind??
This loser deserves what he gets (or pays) as far as I am concerned.
a. He was not a random sperm donor. It was a private arrangement the first time between a man and two women. The second time, it was a man and one woman. They might even have known each other biblically.
b. It is vitally important that sperm donors be identified so that everyone knows to whom he is related.
In days of old when knights were bold and rubbers weren’t invented;
The men used socks upon their ***** and babies were prevented.
Man, that sounds like a lot of fun. /s
So does the same thing apply if I donate blood that is used to save a gang bangers life, and the gang banger kills a family? Am I liable for the murder?
Why is there no father on Hunter’s baby’s birth certificate? And she is fighting against any DNA testing for the father.
No, it will not. The couple didn’t use a sperm bank. They used a friend/acquaintance.
Exactly!
I made several assumptions based on the title, a bad habit of mine, but the content of the article corrected a lot of my thinking.
Since there's no way to remove or edit posts without bothering an admin (that I know of), a lot of my silly comments are out there embarrassing me for years to come. :(
An inordinate no. of posters haven’t read the article. That’s the only reason I can think of for the tremendous no. of inane comments on this thread.
I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s because, convinced as she appears to be that ‘he has the power to change the world’, she would like to see him, the father of her child, ascend to the Presidency and be seated at his own right hand. She’s protecting him so that he’s not disqualified from further runs at the Presidency in the court of public opinion.
No need to be embarrassed ‘for years to come’, for crying out loud! I have to say the hyperbole on FR is getting hard for me to handle. Take it easy already! ;-)
I am curious to know from a 'law dog' if a written contract regarding custody and support between partners and then, with the gentleman beforehand would have done anything to ward off this court case......
If this agreement was in writing, that should be that. The judge would be completely out of line for overriding the written agreement. Zoernig should appeal the decision.
If this was just a verbal agreement between them, then I guess Mr. Zoernig has learned a valuable (and expensive) lesson. Get it in writing!
There was a case some years back where a man had been having sexual relations with a woman and agreed to pay child support when she became pregnant. She had the child but he played no part (other than paying the child support) in the child’s upbringing.
The man subsequently discovered that the woman had been having sexual relations with a number of men at the time of the child’s conception. DNA testing (or perhaps blood typing) conclusively ruled out the man as the father of the child.
He petitioned the court to stop paying child support but the judge denied the request ruling, in effect, that the law was primarily focused on the welfare of the child and that, even though he was not actually the child’s father, he had been acting as if he were and that alone was sufficient connection for him to continue making support payments until the child came of age. IIRC, the ruling was upheld on appeal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.