Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Perhap the man could file for rape.

Doubtful, as they already ruled that he left a "gift" for her that was given freely.... However, I can see where you're coming from in regards to the ultimate outcome of that "gift". Plus, there weren't really any other indicators, or mentions of body parts normally "required" for a rape to occur.

So it's not rape if you use a different hole? Good to know.

Laws are funny like that, I guess... and yes, I'd say child protective services are the best bet. It's the woman who came up with this plan that fethed up both the man and the child that was born because of all this mess; he shouldn't be forced to take a child if he doesn't have any interest in raising one. That's another recipe for disaster.

If you give someone a gift and they use it to beat someone to death, do you go down for murder, or does the responsibility for what is done with the gift rest with the person who got the gift?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If you give someone a gift and they use it to beat someone to death, do you go down for murder, or does the responsibility for what is done with the gift rest with the person who got the gift?

Depends on the gift. I don't think giving someone a WMD as gift would be a gray area like this.

Though I don't think I'd ever see sperm as a gift.

This is clearly an donkey-cave move on the ladies part here. However, I'm not so sure the kid should be left out in the cold because their mother is an donkey-cave. It sucks for the dude I guess but at the end of the day you have to go into knowing every time you ejaculate there is some non-zero chance it's going to get somebody pregnant, no matter how convoluted the series of events for that to occur is. You've got to keep that baby juice inside you, or accept there is some chance however small you're winding up a dad.

At the end of the day it's just about managing your risk.

Culpabit Victima! If only the sperm had had a gun, we would have known what the son with a toothbrush moustache would have looked like. Or something like that.

This reminds me of a defence that a serial rapist tried to use.


His defence (I kid you not.) was that twenty years previously he had a sexual partner. She would give him oral sex so on so forth and kept the sperm frozen over time. When they broke up she waited for 20 years to have her revenge. Then she would break into old peoples houses with a massive syringe and use it to pump his sperm into them (because this would explain why his sperm was located on their bodies.)

The lawyer who defended him said he was proud of the fact that he was able to convince two members of the jury that this story was true.

I'm truly liking this judges ruling, apparently all neighbours parcels are up for grabs. Delivered it next door?? That's ok you meant to put it on my doorstep.

Seriously, this is completely nuts. I'm almost speechless , how can he be forced to pay child support for a child when he did not even participate in the creation of it. Should this not be treated as though he was a sperm donor and not a birth father ?Truly , truly bizarre. So in effect if you have safe sex with someone you better be damn sure you get securely rid of the condom and don't just tie a knot and sling it into a bin.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Perhap the man could file for rape.

Doubtful, as they already ruled that he left a "gift" for her that was given freely.... However, I can see where you're coming from in regards to the ultimate outcome of that "gift". Plus, there weren't really any other indicators, or mentions of body parts normally "required" for a rape to occur.

So it's not rape if you use a different hole? Good to know.

Actually, there are states in the US where the law is/was written in such a way that a man cannot possibly be raped. (growing up in Oregon, my home state was one of them, I dont know if that has changed since I've been gone in the military)

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Those damn women, making men accountable for things.

Did you REALLY just type that?

I hope you get the same in the future. Better keep an account of your kleenexs.

This story is super-insane. It boggles the mind.

I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure you had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

And the interests of the child likely do not rest in the care of a woman who is clearly several kinds of crazy.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure you had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

And the interests of the child likely do not rest in the care of a woman who is clearly several kinds of crazy.

EXACTLY!

Moral of the story: don't sleep with crazy.

This sad case is an good example as to why the law contains grey areas.

The point that should be remembered first, yet was added only as an afterthought for sensationalist reasons is thr child support is due for the child, not any parent.

Its an odd day when it takes Frazzie to put this point across.


My first comment would be whether the father can insist all the lawfully due child support is paid into an escrow account for the childs education. As while paying for the support of the child is still his responsibility, even if it isnt his fault, but he should be under no obligation to provide any sustenance directly or indirectly for the welfare of the mother.
Therefore he should be able to insist that his portion of child maintenance is spent as he sees fit.

Reminds me of the stupid "oral sex is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy" rants in one of the last abortion threads...

 d-usa wrote:
Reminds me of the stupid "oral sex is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy" rants in one of the last abortion threads...

That's what swallowing is for.

What a sticky situation.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.

The father isn't being punished. The child is being protected.

Probably doesn't make a difference to you, but it's a huge difference in the intent of the law and the ruling.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.

He isn't being punished. He's being forced to support a child he is responsible for.

Lesson 1: Don't feth crazy.

 d-usa wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.

The father isn't being punished. The child is being protected.

Probably doesn't make a difference to you, but it's a huge difference in the intent of the law and the ruling.

The mother is notably a doctor (it is not specified if it is of medicine or a PHD). I question whether or not the $800 is actually needed in order to support the child.

 kronk wrote:


He isn't being punished. He's being forced to support a child he is responsible for.

Lesson 1: Don't feth crazy.

By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS

trexmeyer wrote:

The mother is notably a doctor (it is not specified if it is of medicine or a PHD). I question whether or not the $800 is actually needed in order to support the child.

By that logic, does the $800 a month affect the father that dramatically, if he's also a doctor?

But there are venues for challenging the need for child support. Of course, many state laws simply have guidelines based on income of the father, not the need of the child.

By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS

I will now spend my life hoping your moral and logical conclusions never effect me in anyway, because you're being neither.

His life isn't ruined. He has to pay child support. I know plenty of guys doing that right now, and so do you, I"m sure.

Intent has no matter in child support. A burst condom isn't hte intent of the father, but he still pays. (or a dislodged IUD, which I learned can actually happen).

As for CPS.... well, there's a difference between a person doing something crazy, and a person being crazy. CPS is traumatic to children, and nearly every study has shown that keeping a child with it's parents in cases outside of abuse/neglect is better than foster care.

This is bad luck. It's not a system run amok, it's not a perversion of justice, and its not ruining anything. It's unfair, but lots of things are unfair.

trexmeyer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.

The father isn't being punished. The child is being protected.

Probably doesn't make a difference to you, but it's a huge difference in the intent of the law and the ruling.

The mother is notably a doctor (it is not specified if it is of medicine or a PHD). I question whether or not the $800 is actually needed in order to support the child.

Well, the good news is that the person that decided that is an actual judge with access to actual facts and access to actual finances to make an actual decision for an actual human being.

You however are a random guy on a forum dedicated to pushing little plastic/resin/metal/restic soldiers across the table while going "pewpewpew". There is a reason why you didn't make the decision for the well-being of this child.

 kronk wrote:


He isn't being punished. He's being forced to support a child he is responsible for.

Lesson 1: Don't feth crazy.

By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy.

Well, he's an idiot. As is anybody that thinks that there is a way to prevent pregnancy 100% of the time during any form of sexual activity.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.

Its not punishment. Why do you not get this? Its funds to support the 3rd party baby you just made.
The State has a compelling interest in protecting the life and health of the child. That support is for the health and maintenance of the child.
If Baby Mamma was just walking along, accidentally dropped an egg in the river, and Baby Daddy came along, accidentally fertilized the egg and then died, the State still would have an interest in taking funds from both to support the baby Salmon er child.

You don't like it? Life's hard. Put on your big boy panties before you go outside. You're going to need them.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure you had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.

Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.


Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.

And the interests of the child likely do not rest in the care of a woman who is clearly several kinds of crazy.

EXACTLY!

Moral of the story: don't sleep with crazy.

W, I'm agreeing with frazzled....
They said this day would never come *looks at post by christain not anymore friend with picture of self with anti-christ symbol*
explanation:
I used to be friends with a heavily christain girl, when I showed her warhammer, and told her I'm not christain, she litterally screamed and denounced me as the anti-Christ. Hence, me agreeing with frazzled, would be equivelent to a chaos space marine and an ultra smurf having a beer together.
Bad joke...
Ot: what frazzled said.

Lesson 1: Don't feth crazy.

Hey I already said that!

But listen to the man, anyone who's sacrificing to singlehandedly raise the birth rates in both Japan and Europe back to sustainable levels must be listened to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS

Because its half his dna dimbledore. Not quit thinking of ways to be deadbeat dad already.
Sorry but I have real issues with this type of attitude, having raised two kids from who had vermin for a bio father.

agreeing with frazzled, would be equivelent to a chaos space marine and an ultra smurf having a beer together.

Hey I played Zinc (Iron) Warriors and all Demons before there was a Demon list boyo. So lets grow some tentacles and pass the beer!

As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/572514.page#6421614

 Frazzled wrote:

The State has a compelling interest in protecting the life and health of the child. That support is for the health and maintenance of the child.
If Baby Mamma was just walking along, accidentally dropped an egg in the river, and Baby Daddy came along, accidentally fertilized the egg and then died, the State still would have an interest in taking funds from both to support the baby Salmon er child.

It also has a compelling interest in not paying for the child's support. Now, there's probably not as much of that in this case, assuming the mother is working, but a lot of child support is based on the idea that the father, not welfare, should pay for children.

On an unrelated note, I"m guessing this woman's life is pretty lousy right now. I mean, everybody is going to know her for this. there are reputations, and then there's this.

I prefer the UK jurisprudence on this topic, that there is no property in a body. Thus the using of the sperm against the donor's will and intentions (I'm sorry folks, if you engage in oral sex then on the facts it would strongly suggest that you are not interested in helping conceive a child) cannot be a "gift".

?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I prefer the UK jurisprudence on this topic, that there is no property in a body. Thus the using of the sperm against the donor's will and intentions (I'm sorry folks, if you engage in oral sex then on the facts it would strongly suggest that you are not interested in helping conceive a child) cannot be a "gift".

Well, the case discussing the use of a gift related to the father suing for fraud/ and infliction of emotional distress, not the actual child support.

A lot of posters here seem to be confusing the two.