posted
I agree with Pixiest. If this woman is making a good salary, she should bare the vast majority of the financial cost of raising this child.
The man should have very liberal vistitation and a nominal financial burden, if anything. Or perhaps he could pay for the child's higher education. That way he could invest the money for many years with the promise that this woman would never benefit from it - that all the money would go toward the only person he is obligated to in this case. Michelle
Posts: 152 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you see the Sex-Ed class where the kid corrects the teacher when she says you can't get pregnant from oral sex? Michelle
Posts: 152 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily I'm married and immune to such shenanigans, but if I was single and looking this story would make me nervous about women giving me that "Come hither" look.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that if she gives you that come hither look she might transfer it from hither to thither. Michelle
Posts: 152 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
A medical woman named Irons, Wanted a kid to color with crayons. So this lascivious taster, took a small turkey baster, And moved stuff to her lower environs.
posted
Having very little knowledge in the legalities, I will proceed to offer my opinions on what should be the case.
I absolutely agree that he should pay child support. Child support should be based on the needs of the child, not the worthiness of the mother. But some cause ought to be found under which he can sue her for damages equal to that amount. And he should be permitted whatever involvement in the child’s life he desires, including shared legal custody. (Probably not physical custody, though, since that could be disruptive to the kid.)
And then he should voluntarily use the money he’s getting back from the mother to pay for some of the child’s expenses directly, or set up college funds or whatnot.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not that she had the child with out his knowledge that pisses me off. Its that she took some of his sperm, from oral sex, got her self artificialy inseminated with out his knowledge, got pregnant with out telling or asking him, gave birth, and then two years after all of this sued him for child support. That's... argh. Its like she planned to do exactly this to him, and he's suffering the burden. She raped him. And what she's done to the poor kid here... the whole situatoin is entirely the woman's fault and it looks like one way or another the guy is going to suffer quite a bit too. Not to mention the poor kid.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, if a nurse at a clinic stole some sperm from a patient that was having his sperm tested and impregnated herself, would you hold him liable? It would be great if he agreed to it willingly but I find the idea that he be forced to pay when he was deceived to be wrong. And what would be the point of forcing him to pay and then allowing him to recoup those losses with another lawsuit?
posted
And what would be the point of forcing him to pay and then allowing him to recoup those losses with another lawsuit?
The important thing is the lawyers get paid and for once, our idle court system finally get something to do.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point would be that requiring child support is not holding anyone "liable." It's not about guilt, it's about parents' responsibility to their offspring.
The point of charging her the damages would be that her deliberate and deceitful actions led to him having a financial burden he would not otherwise have had. He still has the responsibility, but her wrongdoing led to it, so she should pay it on his behalf.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Alcon and punwit. I don't see how any of this is the guy's fault. If anything I have gross doubts about the mother's mental competence to raise a child. Something has to be seriously wrong with you for you to even conceive of a plan like this, much less carry it out.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it seems like needless litigation to me. I'm assuming that this is the only case where you would advocate responsablity for something that you had no control over?
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what would be the point of forcing him to pay and then allowing him to recoup those losses with another lawsuit?
To make it clear that the reason we have child support is not because someone is your "fault," but rather because someone is your child.
quote:I guess it seems like needless litigation to me. I'm assuming that this is the only case where you would advocate responsablity for something that you had no control over?
Responsibility does not rise solely from choice or control.
posted
Dag, you're taking the responcibility of the lying (apt, but inappropriate compound word omitted) and transfering it to someone who's only crime was to trust her.
The child will be taken care of as the woman is a Doctor and probably has plenty of money.
One should have responsibility for his actions, not the actions of a lying (compound word omitted).
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, what if you donated a collectible shotgun to an organization and they assured you that it would never be fired, that it would be purely for display. At some point the organization attempts to fire the gun and someone is killed or injured. The gun was determined to be faulty and they hold you responsible?
posted
We are assuming the "father" can recoup his damages from the mother and that the mother does not really need the money. But what if the mother were poor and really needed the child support? Would that change anyone's position?
If she really need the money, should the biological father be allowed to walk away from the child?
On the other hand, if there is no way the father can recover the money he paid for child support from the mother via another lawsuit, would it still be fair to make him pay?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not the same. One can waive ones right to collect, and one can transfer property with conditions. A child is not property.
The child has a claim on the father for support. Because the child is a minor, this money is actually paid to the mother.
The father has a claim on the mother for, what, illicit use of sperm.
Suppose they exactly cancel each other out. That doesn't mean the father doesn't own the child. It means the father can use the money he receives from the mother to pay the child.
Now suppose the other can't afford to pay the father, but the father can afford child support without receiving his damages from the mother. He still has to pay the child. Because the money is owed to the child.
Suppose you owe someone $100,000. Suppose that person crashes into your house and causes exactly $100,000 in damage. Do you just wipe out the debt and call it even? No. Why? because that would let that someone's insurance company off the hook.
The introduction of a third party makes keeping track of individual liabilities separately critical.
posted
I do understand what you are saying Dana. I'm not trying to say that children or child support is a punisment. I just disagree with the idea that someone be responsible for anything when they've been lied or duped. In a perfect world, the donor would contribute and the mother would allow visitation if that was so desired.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, the issue of responsibility rests upon foreseeability. I have some sympathy for this woman's case because pregnancy from oral sex is not an entirely unforeseeable scenario.
But what if this woman took the sperm and gave it to ten of her closest friends, who also successfully impregnated themselves.
Are we still prepared to say that this guy is responsible for crushing debt for an entirely unforeseeable result to his actions?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, I think the mother should indemnify the father for child support. In the 10 mother situation, all the mothers would indemnify for their own kid, plus the sperm-gatherer would indemnify for all.
Of course, in that case, the man is still responsible if the mother(s) can't pay. And I think that's right.
What about if the man WANTED the child. Should he be able to take it from the mother? (I hate calling children "it" I'm gonna call her "her" from now on even though I don't know the gender.)
Should the father be able to sue the mother for custody rights for the little girl since the mother has already shown herself to be a lying (compound word omited)?
If he has to pay child support then he has the right to at least be concidered for custody.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely agree he should be eligible for custody. At minimum joint physical, at maximum, main guardian with her getting visitation rights.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Dag, if psycho-doctor-woman spit the man's "boys" into a cup and under a microscope seperated it into teeny tiny containers....
Then went onto the Internet and gave them away to anyone who asked... the man could conceivably be responsible for thousands of women becoming pregnant and become financially responsible for thousands of children.
quote:Of course, in that case, the man is still responsible if the mother(s) can't pay. And I think that's right.
I don't agree with that view, but I understand it and respect what you are saying.
Having said that....
quote:If you let your boys out, you've got to take responsibility for them.
Is 29 too young to get a vasectomy?
I know you're kinda of joking on the last sentence there Dag, but the "let the boys out" comment is somewhat based on foreseeability as well. Would your views change if the woman was the plaintiff's housekepper and covertly liberated some of his sperms while he was sleeping in bed?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
