Posted on 08/24/2009 6:47:55 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
* Man paid prostitute for sex
* She gave birth to his baby
* He is refusing to pay child support
A MAN who paid a woman for sex is resisting child support requests after the prostitute had his baby.
The married Melbourne man argues the child is potentially a breach of the Trade Practices Act.
He told a federal magistrate he shouldn't have to pay for the inadvertent offspring given the circumstances of the conception, the Herald Sun reports.
The accidental dad - who can be referred to only by the pseudonym Mr Lilley - told magistrate Grant Riethmuller he'd had "a consumer transaction" with the child's mother.
Mr Lilley argued an implied term of the "contract" between clients and sex workers was that women would take measures to avoid pregnancy.
Mr Lilley told the court he was not disputing paternity.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
This is a child, not a business deal. The sex was the business deal, the child is a human life, the most precious kind and deserves to be taken care of. Dad has to pay.
That post just took the edge off my monday morning, thank you
I see your point on that condition above. That one is a bit more difficult but in general child support should go to the child, and be regulated on the custodial parent's end. Right now it is just a windfall for women who want a baby or women who just get tired of a relationship. It should not be reward like it is now(privatized welfare) that the women can use to support the new boyfriend (is shown every day on judge TV shows.)
"I'm getting a fine tootsy-frootsying right here ..."
No choice?
Why should you assume the man must pay? Is it beyond the realm of possibilities to think that maybe HE can be awarded custody, raise the child himself, and the prostitute be ordered to pay him child support?
I hope the feller here has to pay, but who in God’s name thinks this is a fit mother? Best chance for the kiddo is a foster home IMHO.
I'm inclined to agree. After all, the money is really for the innocent kid, not to "punish" the father or "reward" the mother. And anytime anyone, male or female, has unprotected sex, they have to face the possibility that a pregnancy might result, and be prepared to take responsibility for it.
Always happy to provide a service to a fellow FReeper.
Now pay me.
(lolol)
Yet another reason to avoid visiting prostitutes.
Um... Condoms are not 100% effective... latex and lambskin do break and tear.
Unfit mother and unfit father. Kid goes to a foster home. Case closed.
All jobs have inherent risk, which the worker accepts as a condition of employment.
It seems to me that unless there was a prior notification of the customer that he assumed the risk of pregnancy or that the laws of the state put the responsibility on the customer then the customer would naturally assume that the risk of pregnancy would be bourn by the prostitute or the brothel.
A customer would naturally assume that part of the service he was paying for is the freedom from the risk of fathering an unwanted child.
Somewhere in the world a guy is having some fun and we’re
to put a stop to it!
Bingo - the Fun Nanny Patrol is at High Alert!
Cant Have That!
He’s got a good mind to join a club and beat her over the head with it.
“the Trade Practices Act”
So, that’s what he was up to.
“No choice?
Why should you assume the man must pay? Is it beyond the realm of possibilities to think that maybe HE can be awarded custody, raise the child himself, and the prostitute be ordered to pay him child support?”
Or maybe she would give up the kid so the natural father could raise it.
“I’m inclined to agree. After all, the money is really for the innocent kid, not to “punish” the father or “reward” the mother. And anytime anyone, male or female, has unprotected sex, they have to face the possibility that a pregnancy might result, and be prepared to take responsibility for it.”
Therein is the problem and the Child is caught Square in the middle of this,Even if she smelled money and set a trap.
You might be overlooking the vast majority of child support situations, in which the children live most of the time with one parent, and the other parent pays child support to assist with their legitimate expenses. Why would the child support “go to the child” if the custodial parent is providing their food, shelter, health care, etc., etc. ?
RTE :”You might be overlooking the vast majority of child support situations, in which the children live most of the time with one parent, and the other parent pays child support to assist with their legitimate expenses. Why would the child support “go to the child” if the custodial parent is providing their food, shelter, health care, etc., etc. ?’
In those cases, that use of the money could be highly regulated like welfare and SS for kids (when one parent dead) used to be to make sure the parent is not benefiting from it. To be honest, the mother should be a little more worse off without the father in the picture. We were much better off with those unhappy marriages where the kids were involved. and and women avoided the wrong men prior to welfare rights 1960s, and fault divorces. The one that leaves, or cheats should be the one at fault again.
Bush pushed a single Mom tax credit, Pelosi family values.
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.