Posted on 01/23/2014 6:05:28 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Edited on 01/23/2014 6:12:15 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Trust me, you can’t.
The so-called partner had no legally recognizable relationship to the child, neither based on genetics, nor on adoption, not on marriage. It’s baffling to me why “partnerluv” would have any rights or responsibilities in this case.
I agree. He’s the father. Pay to support your child, pal.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience. I’m a lawyer and I talk to people all the time who have had these experiences. All I can do is the best I can to help people through difficult times while keeping true to my ethical and moral boundaries. I am all too aware of how to twist the system. I choose not to.
Can I sign a “contract” to “waive” all my responsibilities to all people everywhere? ? Kind of a meta-mega-humunga-material-moral bunkruptcy?
Exactly. Vendor insemination should be banned.
Civil contracts which are contrary to state statue are not enforeable. Most states do not permit child support obligations to be dismissed by anything other than a court order.
This guy’s not too bright. A free, 5-minute phone consulation with a family law lawyer would of told him this.
As far as visitation rights, the case I was involved in had a very conservative judge. His position was that these children were bonded to the “mother” who technically had no legal rights. She was their “psychological parent.” He had to focus on the best interest of the children rather than whether the adults in their lives had made good choices. He found that he had a common law ability to order the visitation. My client was well aware of my conservative Christian beliefs. I told her that this had been a poor way to make a family. But I too believed that to take her out of the lives of these two young children without at least a transition and some counseling, would have been harmful to them. She eventually quit seeing them.
Trusting you isn’t even in the playbook. I put no value in your opinion so why would I care to hear it. Any person who thinks it’s cool to be known as 1rudeboy, and acts out such, occupies no position in my thoughts. Good day to you!!!
Oh, I see how that works, now. Anyone who thinks it’s cool to be known as ontap shouldn’t be drinking so early in the morning, and certainly not quoting Shakespeare.
America, is this a GREAT country or what?
While not justice, that part of it was generally judged tolerable because she had gone through gestation and childbirth, which is a sizeable contribution in itself; and the law judged that a baby is better off with a married adopted mother and father.
I think that kinda went to hell when they began allowing adoptions to gay/lesbian singles and couples. In these cases, it practically seals the child's fate of being permanently motherless or fatherless.
"On the other hand, if she so chooses, she can keep the baby, choose not to work and receive public assistance and hefty child support payments from the biological father"
If that's the way the system is set up, it's economically rational for her to do that. I don't say that's how the system should be set up. NO support system works equitably EXCEPT a marriage culture that ensues that the vast majority of children are born into married-mother-and-father families.
It can be done. It was done as recently as in the 50's.
"It is perfectly legal for the woman to not lift a finger to earn money to support the child, but if the man, despite his best efforts, falls behind in his slut support (I mean child support) payments he can face all sorts of penalties including losing his drivers license, and being incarcerated."
That is skin-crawlingly unjust. I know a decent, blameless divorced man who was put through a wringer in the way you describe. I wouldn't blame him for pulling down the Court House brick by brick.
" She could also choose to legally murder the baby in the womb and the father would have no say in the matter."
This is the most barbaric of all. Murder is murder and, in a civilized society, would be treated by the law as such.
" When it comes to children, women have all the rights and no responsibilities and men have practically no rights and all of the responsibilities."
There are incremental ways the law could be tweaked here to yield a more equitable result, but as a whole, Sex, Marriage and Reproduction are likely to turn into a Controlled Demolition at best, a Catastrophe at worst, for all concerned, outside of a traditional marriage culture.
Exactly.
I agree.... of the lesbian couple wanted to use a doctor for artificial insemination then this guy wouldn’t have been involved at all.... What in the world was he thinking???? (yeah he wasn’t)
See lesson (2) above ...
Dude should sue for full custody. He's an idiot, so it might not make much difference for this child ... but the precedent might tend to dissuade people from creating similar situations in the future.
OOOPS sorry: I meant “he” should get a free breakfast out of the deal, and total distribution rights on the video.
As my mother says “Time wounds all heels”..............he/she’ll get what’s coming to him.
Adoption, yes. But only by two legally married adoptive parents, one being a woman and the other a man.
True. None of these problems are resolvable without a strong marriage culture. Sex, Marriage and Procreation all go to hell unless we have traditional understanding of what they are.
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.