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.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

The problem with allowing anyone to cut off support will primarily punish the child and give some men the opportunity to evade their responsibilities.

But its not his responsibility, and if the woman makes enough money which in this case it would seam she does, he should not have to pay.

Who would pay if the father was dead? Nobody.

If the father had an estate? The estate would pay.
If the father had life insurance? The life insurance would pay.

It's no different than if I were to die tomorrow. Who would pay for my daughter?

This woman is clearly the villain in this situation, and is being rewarded for her actions.

It's not that she is rewarded. It's that the child isn't punished. Big difference.

In fact she is currently in the process of getting punished for her actions in civil court.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.

My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
So, he'd be forced to take the child? What if he didn't want kids? Now he MUST take the kid because the woman decided to do such a blasphemous plan? It's ridiculous!

Do you know how many fethtons of adults have to take care of infants they didn't want? They still don't want? They'll never want? Yes, now he MUST take care of the kid, the only question is weither he'll do it properly or not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.

And I agree completely on that. I've never heard of such a large monthly amount awarded for child support, and I really don't see what essential needs adds up to that much.

If the father had an estate? The estate would pay.
If the father had life insurance? The life insurance would pay.

And if the father had no estate or insurance?

It's that the child isn't punished.

Oh, I was unaware that a Dr. could not support her child on her own.

The woman is a villain, not only for getting pregnant, but for actually having the nerve to come after support. She should be thrown in jail and have her money put into a trust for the child. She should also have to pay for the emotional distress caused to this guy.

Do you know how many fethtons of adults have to take care of infants they didn't want? They still don't want? They'll never want? Yes, now he MUST take care of the kid, the only question is weither he'll do it properly or not.

Yes but thats because they were engaging in behavior where pregnancy is a reasonable outcome. There really is no reasonable chance if getting pregnant from oral.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
But its not his responsibility

Its his bloodline. How is that not the very definition of 'his responsibility'?

and if the woman makes enough money which in this case it would seam she does, he should not have to pay.

This is child support, not alimony. Regardless of how much the legal guardian earns, there would still be child support to pay.

This woman is clearly the villain in this situation, and is being rewarded for her actions.

The husband's lawyer is clearly the inept in this situation. And you can bet your donkey he's getting rewarded too. Life's unfair, and whatnots.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

If the father had an estate? The estate would pay.
If the father had life insurance? The life insurance would pay.

And if the father had no estate or insurance?

Well, what happens if we have a happily married couple with children and the father passes away without any sort of estate of insurance?

It's really not a difficult concept.

It's that the child isn't punished.

Oh, I was unaware that a Dr. could not support her child on her own.

She could. And a child with two wealthy parents has an even better life.

So you don't punish the child by removing the income from one parent just because the other is wealthy just as you shouldn't take more from one parent because the other is poor.

The woman is a villain, not only for getting pregnant, but for actually having the nerve to come after support.

And the state is a villain for forcing a man to take care of his genetic offspring. We get it.

She should be thrown in jail and have her money put into a trust for the child.

Our jails are already overflowing from men that were thrown in jail for getting women pregnant who didn't want to be pregnant to begin with...oh wait...

She should also have to pay for the emotional distress caused to this guy.

Which he is currently suing for. So less rage and more reading the facts please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
There really is no reasonable chance if getting pregnant from oral.

It's amazing how often this stupid statement gets typed out in this thread.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

.

You MASTURBATE and throw away the tissue? You've abandoned it and it can be taken by someone. You haven't even fethed in that case.

Not the fault of the child.

And this is where you lose ALL credibility. If you are legitimately suggesting a man should be on the hook for an activity without a female involved except where she takes property and inseminates herself after the fact, then you clearly don't have the sense to be involved in this debate.

Leave. The adults who actually understand the problems and legal ramifications of the current system are talking.

You basically want everyone to go back to the stone age sexually, instead of actually crafting reasonable legal solutions.

What part of "this has nothing to do with the child" do you not get?
Its akin to strict liability, same as if you were playing with dynamite or other attractive nuisances (puns fully intended).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.

You must not have a child.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.

My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.

Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.

If I had to spend $2400 a month on my children (all 3 of them), then we'd be flat out broke. $800 is incredibly excessive. After just a portion of my bills (rent, auto loans, etc...) I end up with $2,000 a month roughly. Then I still have to pay credit cards, internet, insurance, food, etc...

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.

My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.

Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.

Plus school, doctor appointments, saving for college, etc..

 d-usa wrote:


If you can show me a case where a woman stole a tissue from a man and used it to get pregnant then I will take this scenario seriously. Until then I will remain consistent with my statements that I will never advocate the punishment of a child for the actions of both parents.

You've crafted a legal principle that allows such an activity to take place. Explain to me how your legal principle prevents the above scenario from happening, and I'll take your arguments slightly more seriously.

The legal principle is important, and you're just ignoring the potential unintended consequences of it.

Frankly, the idea of mandated abortions in accordance with state laws on abortion in criminalized cases of DECEPTION is not really that different from what the state already does to criminals. When you commit a crime, certain rights and privileges are stripped from you. Your freedom is constrained, you can be mandated to take medication, etc. Removing a bunch of non-living cells that only came to be because of a criminal activity doesn't suddenly jump across some huge line.

But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem:
"In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."

Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

Again, caring for the child is important, which is why the laws I originally proposed being enacted still required child support, but also punishment of the one who enacted the deception.

The problem with the current situation is that is REWARDS DECEPTION via the holes it leaves open. We have crafted a system that rewards the morally repugnant activity of lying and deceiving with NO punishment, legal or civil, for the one who enacted the deception, punishment on the one who was deceived, and in fact rewards the deceiver monetarily and through allowing them to keep the child.

It's a simple rule: if the child is yours, you owe child support.

There are a few rare instances where it is unfair or stupid, but nearly any complications to the system would probably result in more men that should pay getting away then protecting reasonably innocent fathers.

If we want to have the broader argument about how child support is determined, and how it is spent, that's fine, but that's nothing but quicksand.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem:
"In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."

You already never have to pay any support or compensation to the mother, deception or not. So that part of the law is not even needed. The child never gets punished and gets the support he or she deserves from both biological parents.

Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.

Problem solved. Sucks for the dad, but maybe he shouldn't have taken it out of his pants.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
She should be thrown in jail.

For what crime? It's not rape, its not fraud, it's not theft... You can try all day but you wont find a charge that will stick. And there's no reason whatsoever she should be jailed. She started a legal proceeding in which she was awarded child support. Claiming she should be jailed for this is akin to claiming that the judge was her accomplice.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes but thats because they were engaging in behavior where pregnancy is a reasonable outcome. There really is no reasonable chance if getting pregnant from oral.

Responsibility doesn't stem from expected or reasonnable outcomes. The man who ejaculates in his pants while grinding his girlfriend and somehow gets her pregnant despite all the layers of cloths had no expectation of conceiving with her. He is still fully and completely responsible for the child.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
[
Frankly, the idea of mandated abortions in accordance with state laws on abortion in criminalized cases of DECEPTION is not really that different from what the state already does to criminals. When you commit a crime, certain rights and privileges are stripped from you. Your freedom is constrained, you can be mandated to take medication, etc. Removing a bunch of non-living cells that only came to be because of a criminal activity doesn't suddenly jump across some huge line.

You've gotten away this for a while, but you need to stop. Forced abortions are simply monstrous to suggest. Voluntary abortions are only legal because a woman's right to bodily autonomy is more pressing then the state's interest in the unborn. And that's by an eyelash. Fetuses and Embryos are still beings of moral value. Actually forcing abortions is a heinous act that is not only a terrible punishment to a woman, but also ends a potential life.

But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem:
"In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."

Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.

I find it interesting where you draw the line on "morally repugnant."

It's probably not a terrible rule, but what deception? that's a huge grey area.

The problem with the current situation is that is REWARDS DECEPTION via the holes it leaves open. We have crafted a system that rewards the morally repugnant activity of lying and deceiving with NO punishment, legal or civil, for the one who enacted the deception, punishment on the one who was deceived, and in fact rewards the deceiver monetarily and through allowing them to keep the child.

Again, only if its in the best interest of the child. If a mother is that horrible, then the father can get custody and sue for child support.

Odds are, she's not a terrible mother.

How about a compromise?

In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.

The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.

If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.

The woman can regain right of custody (assuming the father has refused custody, and the child is in the care of the state) upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.

The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.

Honestly, you're probably better off quitting while you're ahead at this point.

There may have been a point to make at one time, but I feel like you're doing the opposite job you think you are.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

Frankly, the idea of mandated abortions in accordance with state laws on abortion in criminalized cases of DECEPTION is not really that different from what the state already does to criminals. When you commit a crime, certain rights and privileges are stripped from you. Your freedom is constrained, you can be mandated to take medication, etc. Removing a bunch of non-living cells that only came to be because of a criminal activity doesn't suddenly jump across some huge line.

Do an opinion poll on this. I'm fairly sure you'll find that state-mandated forced abortions is pretty high up on the list of 'things that suddenly jump across some huge line'.

But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem:
"In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."

Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.

''Sucks for the kid'' is why I'm fairly confident you'll never be in any position to legislate on the issue. Also, because your statement is so goddamn large, I could wave my responsibility to pay child support because my partner faked orgasm during the baby-making.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
How about a compromise?

In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.

The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.

If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.

The woman can regain right of custody upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.

The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.

You still aren't really getting how family law works. No one factor should (or does) control custody. If the mother was deceptive, but the father is a travelling salesman with a drinking problem, should the dad autumatically get custody?

And the child would be better off with the mother most of the time, then with the State.

Like I've said, it's a solution without a problem. This guy got struck by lightening. Sucks to be him, but he's obviously reasonably well off if he's paying $800 a month in child support, and he walks away.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
How about a compromise?

In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.

The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.

If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.

The woman can regain right of custody (assuming the father has refused custody, and the child is in the care of the state) upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.

The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.

Here's my compromise. THE LAW.
keep it in your pants. This is not difficult for most men. If you can't keep it in your pants you might become a Baby Daddy and have to deal with the consequences.
Its a rule so simple even a drunken fratboy could figure it out.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.

At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.

My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.

Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.

Plus school, doctor appointments, saving for college, etc..

Children are expensive. There's clothes, which you have to buy constantly for growing children, vaccines, medicines, all sorts of things. And what if there is more than one child?

 DogofWar1 wrote:
How about a compromise?

In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.

The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.

If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.

The woman can regain right of custody (assuming the father has refused custody, and the child is in the care of the state) upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.

The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.

Also can the woman charge "deception?" In that case a lot of Da Menz are going to be in Da Penz.

And Child support is based on the income of the father, not the needs of the child.

Which, to be fair, is one way to regulate it. But... it makes the crude assumption that a person shoudl pay roughly the same for non-custodial children as for those in his custody.

This is an area where the law figures that an upper middle class person should support his child at roughly that level. I'd listen to reasoned arguments that we should scale it down.

Children are expensive. There's clothes, which you have to buy constantly for growing children, vaccines, medicines, all sorts of things. And what if there is more than one child?

This is why Frazzled's view was that: you need either
1. really strong one you can send off to the coal mine at 8. Kid's gotta EARN.
2. have two smart ones. One of them will be #8 in their class or get all A's in college and can procure that genuine Vought F4U Corsair with fully functioning automatic paintball guns you always wanted to strafe the soccermobiles with.

the lady should be charged with sexual assault,

how come when a man deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, its sexual assault,

but when a woman deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, she is rewarded with money?


men are jailed when they do this... un the uK, canada, where ever, just google "man thrown in jail for poking holes in condom" there are plenty of examples...

and there are numerous examples of women committing comparable crimes, with a complete 180 as they get rewarded instead of punished.

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/craig-jaret-hutchinson-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-191402256.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257162/Man-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-looses-appeal-assault-charge.html

 easysauce wrote:
the lady should be charged with sexual assault,

how come when a man deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, its sexual assault,

but when a woman deceitfully circumvents contraception with the inent of causing unwanted pregnancy, she is rewarded with money?


men are jailed when they do this... un the uK, canada, where ever, just google "man thrown in jail for poking holes in condom" there are plenty of examples...

and there are numerous examples of women commiting comparable crimes, with a complete 180 as they get rewarded instead of punished.

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/craig-jaret-hutchinson-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-191402256.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257162/Man-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-looses-appeal-assault-charge.html

I completely agree with you.

 Polonius wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:
How about a compromise?

In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.

The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.

If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.

The woman can regain right of custody upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.

The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.

You still aren't really getting how family law works. No one factor should (or does) control custody. If the mother was deceptive, but the father is a travelling salesman with a drinking problem, should the dad autumatically get custody?

And the child would be better off with the mother most of the time, then with the State.

Like I've said, it's a solution without a problem. This guy got struck by lightening. Sucks to be him, but he's obviously reasonably well off if he's paying $800 a month in child support, and he walks away.

Perhaps I should have clarified that competency requirements should be in place for the father, in that if he is unfit to be the father he is not given the right. That being said giving presumptive first right of custody to an individual who has created a deception (as many states and courts lean in favor of the mother when rewarding custody; ideally there'd be no such lean) should not be the rule either, especially if such deceptions are criminalized. Perhaps allowing for a comparative competency hearing upon the mother's release could work even if custody is awarded to the father while the mother pays her societal debt.

At the end of the day, the child would end up with a parent who was competent, or, if neither parent is considered competent, with the state, which isn't ideal, but would be in the best interests of the child.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Also can the woman charge "deception?" In that case a lot of Da Menz are going to be in Da Penz.

If a woman can prove she was deceptively impregnated (which would probably involve further sexual assault and/or rape), then certainly. I'm trying to think of a hypothetical where a man could impregnate a women via deception that wouldn't already be a felony though.

Maybe if he injected her with sperm while she was sleeping or something? That's probably a crime somewhere in the books, but I don't think it fits under the traditional definition of rape.

Regardless, if such a case arose, I would be all for fairness under the law.

Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?

 easysauce wrote:
the lady should be charged with sexual assault,

how come when a man deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, its sexual assault,

but when a woman deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, she is rewarded with money?


men are jailed when they do this... un the uK, canada, where ever, just google "man thrown in jail for poking holes in condom" there are plenty of examples...

and there are numerous examples of women committing comparable crimes, with a complete 180 as they get rewarded instead of punished.

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/craig-jaret-hutchinson-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-191402256.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257162/Man-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-looses-appeal-assault-charge.html

Well, for starters, it's different jurisdictions. And that's a minty fresh case that is going to be overturned, because as the dissdenting judge in that case pointed out, a woman that forgot her birfth control could be charged with rape.

No US jurisdiction defines sexual assualt in that way.

I'd go easy on the outrage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?

What about married couples that use fertility treatments that eventually divorce?

trexmeyer wrote:

Are personnel insults and character attacks really necessary?

No, but they happen. Get at least a 5++ ward save.

trexmeyer wrote:

Frazzled is awesome

Fixed

trexmeyer wrote:

Is this common for this site......

The answer to the first half of the question is a resounding YES!.

trexmeyer wrote:

......or did I simply stumble upon a pack of grumpy old men by happenstance?

I don't think we are grumpy old men, just gamers with opinions.
Don't mock it, the wargaming community is apparently the second highest IQ by hobby group after astronomers.

Stick around in Off Topic long enough and you will learn something, enough people here know how to formulate
an intelligent argument and are worth listening to, even though you may vehemently disagree with them.

You found Dakka, one of the best net communities out there with a very wide cast opinion base but a generally
a decent lot. Do yourself a favour and stick around, and, yeah: Welcome to Dakka!

 DogofWar1 wrote:

Perhaps I should have clarified that competency requirements should be in place for the father, in that if he is unfit to be the father he is not given the right. That being said giving presumptive first right of custody to an individual who has created a deception (as many states and courts lean in favor of the mother when rewarding custody; ideally there'd be no such lean) should not be the rule either, especially if such deceptions are criminalized. Perhaps allowing for a comparative competency hearing upon the mother's release could work even if custody is awarded to the father while the mother pays her societal debt.

At the end of the day, the child would end up with a parent who was competent, or, if neither parent is considered competent, with the state, which isn't ideal, but would be in the best interests of the child.

Well, odds are the best interests of the child aren't to have his mother do time while he is young, and then carry a criminal record going forward.

it's not that I don't agree with you that peopel who do this should be punished, its just really hard to think of ways that don't just hurt the kid.

And since it is so terribly rare, it's just not worth trying that hard.