gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
Wow, so now we have gone from the taxpayers paying for the actions of a fraud and a thief, to saying the taxpayers would actually be COMPENSATING Dad for his "loss".
You are REACHING, and its in a REALLY weird direction.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19807
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
This is not paternity fraud, she named the actual father.
---> Gr8Dad didn't say that this was 'paternity' fraud.
The laws exist that can fix this.
---> And those would be.............??? I don't know of a single case in which a woman has been charged and/or convicted of paternity fraud.
How do you fix this for the deceived parent, and the child, while not allowing the deceiver to profit...the remedy is available, it is just not being used.
---> What remedy?
So what should happen to the child?
---> If the sperm donor wants to be a father, then he should be granted sole legal and physical custody. If he does not, the Mom has sole legal and physical custody.
Two seperate things, how do you right the situation with the father, and how do you treat the actions of the mother.
---> If the sperm donor doesn't want to be a father, then he doesn't have to pay child support. If he does, see above. The mother is charged, convicted and goes to jail.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26700
|
|
What can be righted? What does the child have to do with with the fact that a crime was committed against me? I didn't want to have children...either at this time of my life or with this person and I took responsible precautions by using a condom with spermicide. There is a BIG difference between a condom malfunction and someone deliberately stealing your sperm.
Which is wrong, because he is a victim of theft/fraud.
answered your own question
The father, in ANY situation where the mother is in the picture, NEVER EVER EVER has the option to place the child up for adoption. He is saddled with child support. Not sure why you think MAKING UP a scenerio that is impossible helps the situation.
The impossibility is not in the law, what prevents a judge from awarding custody to the father.
In THIS case, the taxpayers. He is a VICTIM of a crime, she is the PERPETRATOR. Taxpayers have historically been held accountable for losses of criminal behavior, hence the whole restitution thingy.
So that is what we should do then, insure there are no losses for the victims of crime/theft/fraud through the taxpayers. In fact I actually said give him custody, and he can put the child up for adoption. The taxpayers have the responsibility to the victims, and insure there are no losses? Very progressive.
Not sure why you think MAKING UP a scenerio that is impossible helps the situation.
But what if it was...
Okay, if the father is offered custody, and refuses, Mom is jailed, and the child is placed for adoption, WHERE is the taxpayer paying ANYTHING?
The child is placed for adoption, it actually depends on where he places him for adoption, as long as it is a private organization, great, a public state facility, that is the difference.
At no point did I suggest that the woman should not be held accountable, and I never said the father should be forced to pay CS to the other parent. That is the wrong that would happen to him. We are held accountable for the consequences of our actions all the time, even if we took the proper precautions. Why is this so different...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
"In fact I actually said give him custody, and he can put the child up for adoption."
And the FACT that you KNOW thios is NOT how it works makes your suggestion flat out stupid. IF he was the CP, and IF he placed the child up for adoption, the MOTHER would get custody, and he would pay child support. When BOTH parents are known, NEITHER can solely place the child up for adoption and walk away without child support. NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19807
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
You award him custody, if he turns down custody, who foots the bill if he walks away scot free?
---> 'Scot free'?!? He is the VICTIM here, NOT the criminal.
The deceived parent has the freedom to choose.....
---> And exactly what choices are you offering him...the frying pan or the fire; a rock or a hard place? It's like telling someone who has had their television stolen...you have the choice to buy a new television or a used television. Uh HELLO...shouldn't the person who STOLE the television pay to replace it?
---> Custody or adoption is NOT a choice, because unless the mother ALSO agrees to the adoption, the sperm donor is going to pay child support.
If the mother in this case, is looking for support, chances are the taxpayers would kick in, if the state takes the child because the father wants to walk away, the taxpayers kick in.
---> "Wants to walk away"?!? Why do you insist of treating the victim like a criminal?
You give the father ultimate control, the mother in this case get's nothing, and the father does as he pleases, and the cost to the taxpayers is minimal.
---> What control?
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26700
|
|
That is just not true, the state takes children, and keeps them for years, and does allow them to be adopted, or founder in foster care. She can legally be denied parental rights by the state, happens all the time. The state giveth, and the state taketh away.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
But she WANTS the child support, so she is NOT going to reliquish rights.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19807
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
So why should the taxpayers get screwed over. Is it the taxpayer's responsibility to support and pay for a child, when the father has the choice to raise the child or put him up for adoption.
---> Sorry, but unless the mother ALSO consents to the adoption...it's NOT happening.
Nothing like a bailout for something that is not the taxpayers responsibility.
---> No...it is not the taxpayers responsibility, but it's also not the responsibility of the victim either.
Out of the two groups, who has more responsibility, the taxpayer, or the father....
---> Aren't there THREE groups...or did you forget the woman...the person who committed the crime? Where is HER responsibility?
The father has the same remedy that already exists, civil court....
---> And what remedy would that be? I can see it now...sperm donor has to pay child support and goes to civil court and sues mother to pay him back child support...and gets tossed in jail (contempt) for filing a frivolous lawsuit and has to pay her attorney's fees. And of course, while he's in jail, he's not paying child support and then gets slapped with another contempt motion.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26700
|
|
'Scot free'?!? He is the VICTIM here, NOT the criminal.
And we have no remedies for the victims of crimes when they lose things, of course we do, they can always sue in civil court....I mean if the family of Nicole Simpson can do it, why can't this guy...
And exactly what choices are you offering him...the frying pan or the fire; a rock or a hard place? It's like telling someone who has had their television stolen...you have the choice to buy a new television or a used television. Uh HELLO...shouldn't the person who STOLE the television pay to replace it?
Uhhh hello, what does the vicitm do if his television is not recovered. He can sue in civil court....and what can he do if they still cannot pay.
Custody or adoption is NOT a choice, because unless the mother ALSO agrees to the adoption, the sperm donor is going to pay child support.
That just means a judge cannot remove a parent's parental rights.....yeah, that never happens. There are already laws in place for this. A judge can determine a mother unfit, end all her rights, and give the father total and legal custody. In fact I am not sure there is a better set of circumstances that prove unfitness.
---> "Wants to walk away"?!? Why do you insist of treating the victim like a criminal?
Why do you insist on treating him like a charity case. Give him custody, give him the choice of raising the child or putting him up for adoption, how is that treating him any different than any other victim of fraud. When you are the victim of fraud and theft, there are costs, punish the criminal. But why should this victim of fraud or theft not have to incur any losses, like any other victim of fraud or theft.
---> What control?
What are not understanding about control, the ability to make all legal decisions for the child, and himself, or is it something else.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19807
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
.....I never said the father should be forced to pay CS to the other parent.
---> Actually you did when you said "if he turns down custody, who foots the bill if he walks away scot free?" and "because the father wants to walk away, the taxpayers kick in".
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
