Rick 67 #101 September 12, 2013 True story: a woman I know decided after her 4th marriage she wanted a baby but not a man. She looked around and found the candidate that fit her requirements. Seduced him (told him she was on birth control so no condom needed) had a baby. He did not know she got pregnant until 3 or 4 years later when she decided it was tough financially to raise a kid. She took him to court for child support and he paid up until the child was 18. Shitty on her part yes. Totally devious but that in no way decreases his responsibility to the child.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #102 September 12, 2013 Bolas *** Quote The man in this case has absolutely no choice... He could have chosen to wear a condom And if he wore a condom but has physical/video evidence showing the woman getting pregnant by taking the condom from the trash and inserting the sperm into herself? Gross............... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #103 September 12, 2013 Wow - you guys can really ruin a perfectly decent Zapp Brannigan quote thread ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 September 12, 2013 Darius11 Some day when you have half my balls you might actually learn to be honest. Also you need to get laid more, so you’re not so desperate for a hook up that you will say any thing you THINK woman want to hear. I'm pretty sure you're not getting any with the sort of shit you've been posting in this thread. So clearly you are the one telling women what you think they want to hear. Anything but the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,169 #105 September 12, 2013 I agree it's totally devious and totally shitty. I'm glad the man is manning up. He got fucked over. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #106 September 12, 2013 RickTrue story: a woman I know decided after her 4th marriage she wanted a baby but not a man. She looked around and found the candidate that fit her requirements. Seduced him (told him she was on birth control so no condom needed) had a baby. He did not know she got pregnant until 3 or 4 years later when she decided it was tough financially to raise a kid. She took him to court for child support and he paid up until the child was 18. Shitty on her part yes. Totally devious but that in no way decreases his responsibility to the child. this is a good example really - and you argue the point about dad vs child - there is a responsibility the others will argue about the other interaction - dad vs mom - also legitimate, but it certainly comes to the opposite conclusion, doesn't it I think there is a serious question about whether he should be LEGALLY required to support the child (morally is pretty much what the people here are talking about and that's a different discussion). However, let's break it down then on who did what and separate the kid, from the actions of the mother: For this example - we'll assume that the father is to be responsible for his share of the kid. (this is NOT a given, but it's not the point I'm wanting to make). Does the father have recourse, to sue the mother for every and all expenses he incurs in the course of caring for the kid. She committed fraud against him. legally - 1 - mom sue dad for child support - and wins 2 - dad pays child support - dutifully, he's a good guy 3 - dad sues mom for reimbursement as he was damaged financially due to her fraud - legitimate claim, it was fraud, he wins it's circular, but it does define the 1 on 1 interactions involved, doesn't it? one thing should be perfectly and clearly defined in the PC world - if the 'fetus' is not a 'human' until after birth and the 'choice' is 100% the mom and 0% the dad (then it magically becomes 50/50 the second the cord is cut) - then the dad should not be responsible (legally) in ANY way shape or form for costs incurred during the pregnancy or even the delivery. How does that compare to the real world? again - talking legal fairness - morally, most dads have a decent moral compass and will act as expected, but this is about society's expectations and how it's been coded into law. If a poster can't keep their thermostat down for the discussion, then it's a pretty big waste of bandwidth here. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #107 September 12, 2013 wmw999Quote. . . but it was done by the girl, so that makes it ok, right? I have not seen anyone in this thread think that it's OK. It's not OK, it's shitty, devious, deceptive, and cruel. It totally, totally, sucks. Hopefully that kind of deception is rare. Just as hopefully the guy who gets a woman pregnant and doesn't hang around is rare (i.e. some guys lie about their name). Guys do lie to get women in bed, too, and she can end up just as pregnant. Wendy P. Being rare does not mean there should not be legal and financial consequences. Somewhere lines need to be drawn: Level 1. No financial support from the other parent or the government, putting child up for adoption or relinquishing custody to the other parent is suggested. Level 2. Parent loses custodial rights. Child is put up for adoption or other parent can petition for custody.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #108 September 12, 2013 Countersuit for fraud. Interesting idea. Even if it doesn't work, the court costs might nullify any benefit of the child support payments.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 643 #109 September 12, 2013 Very well said. Some quite interesting thoughts too. I could foresee a need for a contract I suppose. Sort of like a marriage certificate? Legally I think the courts have simply decided to do what they can in the best interest of caring for, raising, and protecting the child and not so much about the legalities between the adults. I personally think that is the bottom line anyway. It doesn't always work right nor fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #110 September 12, 2013 totally agree re: moral versus legal responsibility it does seem he would have a claim for fraud against the mother but if you hurt the mother financially it is also affecting the child negativelyYou can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #111 September 12, 2013 BolasCountersuit for fraud. Interesting idea. Even if it doesn't work, the court costs might nullify any benefit of the child support payments. What? Here in Ohio you don't get a choice as to what you pay. They take mom's info and dad's info and plug it into a formula and it spits out how much to pay in child support. The only thing that is contestable is the information used to determine mom or dad's info. I can assure you the courts are not interested in who did what to whom. So on top of that expense you suggest a lawsuit? Who wins in that scenario, other than the attorney.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #112 September 12, 2013 true Mark the woman may be a conniving bitch but that does not diminish the needs of the childYou can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #113 September 12, 2013 Rickbut if you hurt the mother financially it is also affecting the child negatively absolutely not, he paid his child support, why is it his problem the mother is a deadbeat on her legal responsibilities? ..... (see what I did there?) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #114 September 12, 2013 airdvrSo on top of that expense you suggest a lawsuit? Who wins in that scenario, other than the attorney. turn down the thermostat - this is a separate legal case between dad and mom - it has ZERO to do with the kid. that was handled in the child support lawsuit - a totally different action. the winner in the civil suit about fraud (between two adults) is whichever person wins that particular lawsuit trying to tie the FRAUD lawsuit to the ability of the mother to raise the kid is a non sequitor - would she have the right to play that card if someone sues her for driving her car through a store front? "OH NO! if she has to pay for the damages due to her poor driving, she won't be able to buy school books for Johnny!!" Dad is responsible for his share of the kid. BTW, Mom is also responsible for her share of the kid. Mom is responsible for her act of fraud against another. three separate things - dealt with completely independent of each other (frankly, turn it around if you are all squishy about the female - scenario if Dad frauded MOM into getting pregnant? she'd also have legal recourse to recoup her losses - maybe this is more palatable to those matriarchal tending amazon worshippers out there) your dislike of lawyers really has nothing to do with the issue and for the expense of the court cases to straighten it out? well, maybe they both should have kept their pants on before deciding how adult they'll be about consequences; and before committing fraud against another. Cleanup is messy and expensive - too bad ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #115 September 12, 2013 Quoteit does seem he would have a claim for fraud against the mother Don't get me wrong... I think that what she did is unforgivable, however... He made the choice not to wear a condom.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #116 September 12, 2013 good analogy I think I was looking at it emotionally WRT hurting the child by financially hurting the mother. Unless you are Jessie Jackson jr. and his wife it matters not to the judge what your responsibilities are you need to "pay up" if you are on the losing side of a court case.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #117 September 12, 2013 labrysQuoteit does seem he would have a claim for fraud against the mother Don't get me wrong... I think that what she did is unforgivable, however... He made the choice not to wear a condom. one more time: His choice is addressed in the child support case. it's covered. HER choice is address in the fraud case. Separate issue. you went off on the tangent ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 643 #118 September 12, 2013 I don't recall you ever meeting my ex-wife. Huh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #119 September 12, 2013 no Mark but I have heard some wonderful stories You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #120 September 12, 2013 You are operating in a different dimension if you think this case would ever see a courtroom. Courts are not interested in who did what to whom in a relationship, unless there is a contract signed by both parties.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #121 September 12, 2013 hey it's all hypothetical right? I thought that verbal contracts were just as binding as written. Maybe harder to prove but still binding.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #122 September 12, 2013 Rickhey it's all hypothetical right? I thought that verbal contracts were just as binding as written. Maybe harder to prove but still binding. because they're impossible to prove, it's a pointless argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #123 September 12, 2013 airdvrYou are operating in a different dimension if you think this case would ever see a courtroom. Speaker's corner <> reality - look up the word "hypothetical", it's for friendly debate...what courtroom? - I'm just illustrating a way to look at it that treats people as individuals that are equally responsible for their own actions and not the actions of others. the hope was to drive the discussion away from mushing all the crap together resulting in a bunch of pointless emotional jabs and reactions - one can just do a search if they want to see those kinds of abortion/parenthood discussions - we have plenty already. and you still got it wrong - it wasn't 'this case'. the scenario posits TWO cases that are treated independent of each other. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #124 September 12, 2013 I could be mistake but I believe fraud is a criminal offense. Someone is going to have to be charged with a crime. Sorry, not going to happen. The rest of it is domestic and the courts don't give a rat's ass about who did what to whom. Here's an example of 2 attorneys getting a divorce. See a pattern anywhere? No end in sight for 10-year-old divorce case http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/08/connecticut-divorce-case-10-years-old-rages/2782981/Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #125 September 12, 2013 kelpdiver ***hey it's all hypothetical right? I thought that verbal contracts were just as binding as written. Maybe harder to prove but still binding. because they're impossible to prove, it's a pointless argument. This is where supporting evidence such as subpoenaed prescription and medical records come in. Witness testimony. Yet another reason to video sex. Could start with a video liability waiver. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
