Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: goldstategop; Timocrat

From the opinion it appears that he did not claim the child. The dissent says that he never did.

From the looks of it and the low amount of support, this is a standard default order entered on a low income man.


20 posted on 01/12/2007 3:17:26 AM PST by okiecon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: okiecon
...this is a standard default order entered on a low income man.

All the more reprehensible. The justices should have been more vigilant in preventing this miscarriage of justice on an individual incapable of defending himself either through lack of wealth or wit.

23 posted on 01/12/2007 3:24:01 AM PST by Timocrat (I Emanate on your Auras and Penumbras Mr Blackmun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: okiecon
Of course ignorance is no defense especially when you cannot afford a lawyer in a custody case. The courts have trampled on fathers' rights to please the feminazis and I do not mean specifically a sperm contribution. I mean forbidding fathers a role in bringing up the child besides giving the mother cash.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

26 posted on 01/12/2007 3:24:33 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson