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
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)
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)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson