Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but if I really wanted to give my love and guidance, wouldn’t I marry the child’s mother?
What if she didn’t want to get married, or you were married and she left you and took the kids? The fathers certainly aren’t always the bad guys in these cases. Women almost always get custody of the children. They can even get free lawyers if they lie and say they were abused. There are some evil women out there. I’m glad I never had to go through any of that. I’ve handled custody, visitation, and support cases as an attorney in the past. I wouldn’t touch one of those today. I don’t care what you pay me.
And then she’d leave you and the government would order you to do more than is reasonable, and if you can’t, they’ll hunt you down like a dog. You might like to be old fashioned but the modern reality is that you’re forced into the role they’ve decided for you. If you wish, you can ignore almost two decades of reporting on this stuff - and be surprised if / when it happens to you.
What if the child's mother doesn't want to marry?
> Somebody needs to ask obama if he loves the sound of bagpipes as the “second” prettiest sound on earth
Perhaps not. Depends on what the child’s mother is like. A bloke can end up owing child support to a perfectly horrid woman that, for some reason, he used to love — at least enough to get her knocked up.
A good mate of mine is going thru that right now. Married for 8 years, four kids. The strumpet decided she was tired of him and that she really wanted to be a lesbian.
She gets to stay in the house they rented: he gets to move out. And pay support for four kids: I do not know if that will continue after the trollop and her girlfriend get a Civil Union, I’d have to check the legislation.
But, that’s how it is sometimes: even if he wanted to stay married to the slattern, he can’t: the putain gets to keep the kids and he gets to pay.
Not funny at all!
You could try reading the article before posting a snide comment.
All depends on who kicked who out.
I know a woman who was a single mom with two kids. Good looking? You bet. She smoothed talked this guy into marrying her and adopting her kids.
He already owned a three bedroom home but she convinced him they needed a four bedroom one @400K. He could afford it after all he owned his own business.
Do you know why she had him adopt her kids? So that when she divorced him two years later he was liable for the cost of raising her kids!
Today she has her boyfriends and the 400K home with his monthly checks coming in feeding her and the kids.
Yes, you would.
But that would not protect you from obscene collection amounts. Most states are unilateral divorce states - only one party has to want the divorce.
Here is one over the top example of how bad our liberal, corrupt courts are: Martello v. Martello
The total award of interim spousal support to Laurie $5,741 is approximately 64 percent of Ned's monthly gross income which the trial court found to be $9,000. (9) Thus, after satisfying his monthly obligations for interim spousal support in the amount of $5,741 and child support in the total amount of $2,372.17 per month as ordered by the court, Ned would be left with $886.83 (10) of his gross monthly income to use toward his own expenses. Considering the facts of this case and the trial court's finding that Ned's monthly gross income was $9,000 we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in setting Laurie's award of interim spousal support. Given Laurie's needs, Ned's ability to pay and Laurie's entitlement to an amount in keeping with the standard of living enjoyed by the spouses during the marriage, we conclude that the most the trial court could have reasonably awarded in direct payment to Laurie in interim spousal support is $2,300 per month through the date of the rendition of the divorce. The judgment will be amended accordingly.
(8) Notably, LSA-C.C. art. 112(B) (1997) provided that the sum awarded under LSA-C.C. art. 112(A) for final spousal support shall not exceed one third of the obligor s net income. No similar provision is provided with respect to an award of interim spousal support.
(9) As owner of the vehicle that Laurie had been driving the clinic had been paying the monthly note in the amount of $630 for this vehicle as well as the monthly insurance premium of $143 associated with that vehicle. With the reduction of these amounts the remaining portion of interim spousal support would be approximately 55 percent of Ned's gross income.
(10) After reduction for amounts paid by the clinic Ned would have $1,659.83 of his gross monthly income remaining.
You will notice that this fine appeals court NEGLECTED to account for this man's FEDERAL INCOME TAX; STATE INCOME TAX; and FICA. Those amounts would increase the bill by $2,500/month or so.
So in essence, the judge attempted to murder this man or turn him into a fugitive.
Don't believe me? Here is a link to the appeals court decision! Read the appeals court decision for yourself.
{Oh, and the dad was given 40% time with his children !!!
http://www.la-fcca.org/Opinions/PUB2007%5C2007-03/2006CU0594Mar2007.Pub.10.pdf
most did, only to have a the relationship fall appart.
In the courts you see infidelity, and dreams attacked.
You also have situations where it is just inconcievable that two people had ANYTHING in common enough to be married.
Of course those are divorce cases where marriage preceeded the babies.
Before passing judgement spend a day in a judges divorce hearing calendar call.