Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
Ex-girlfriend hid sperm and used for in-vitro pregnancy: suit
A Long Island man was stunned to find out that his 4-year-old twins weren’t an accidental pregnancy at all — his desperate girlfriend secretly stashed away his sperm and used it for an in-vitro procedure, he charges in a lawsuit.
Elmont resident Joseph Pressil, 36, wasn’t planning on having children with Anetria Burnett, with whom he was in a relationship for six months in 2007, he said.
So she took matters into her own hands, he told The Post, in order to remain in his Texas house and make a legal bid for half of his possessions.
“A gold digger is an understatement. She was trying to get community property and alimony. She’s ruthless,” he said.
Pressil is suing the fertility clinic that performed the procedure.
“This is more than a nightmare — it’s a horror story,” he told The Post yesterday.
Pressil, a telecommunications manager, said he hooked up with Burnett, 34, when he lived in Texas — and was a little surprised when she announced she was pregnant.
“We always used condoms,” he said. But when a DNA test proved him to be the father, Pressil said he began paying $800 a month in child support.
“At first, I doubted [the children were mine], but I figured I would wait until the twins were born,” he said. “But when the kids were born, they looked just like me.”
The real bombshell dropped last February, when Pressil got a strange receipt in the mail for sperm cryopreservation.
Confused, he called the company that had sent him the paperwork, which referred him to the Advanced Fertility Center of Texas, where a manager asked him to sign a release form.
That’s when he said he uncovered the bizarre plot.
“She was taking [the semen in condoms] after the fact and running down to the clinic with it,” said Jason Gibson, who is representing Pressil in his suit. He now has joint custody.
The fertility clinic’s manager simply assumed he and his ex were married when she got the successful in-vitro fertilization procedure that resulted in the birth of the twins, his suit says.
Pressil then said he confronted Burnett, an exotic dancer, who allegedly told him, “Oh you’re not stupid. I thought you knew.”
“Her reason for doing it was to stay in the home — because I had told her she had to leave my house when we broke up,” he said.
She even filed to have him declared her common-law husband, he said, which would have entitled her to half his property. The filing was denied.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
If this story is true, then Pressil has a lovely lawsuit against the fertility clinic. Also, he shouldn't have to pay child support.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
RJ1
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/19/05
Posts: 5164
|
|
I bet he makes them swallow from now on.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
I don't want to be gross here, but I saw a case where a woman in a one night stand performing a BJ, took the "stuff" and inserted it into her private area and became pregnant. In court, it was ruled that once the "stuff" had exited his body, it wasn't his property anymore, and she had the right to do whatever she wanted with it.
He has to pay child support.
I suspect the result of this case will be the same.
|
Spring
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7972
|
|
So....a womans body is her's to do as she pleases and make the decisions regarding pregnancy....but a man's "stuff" is only his prior to "spilling it"? Men...you better just stop ejaculating, you never know who is going to steal it and go make a baby. Oh wait...when you ejaculate, its no longer your property....but then hang on, if it isn't your property....why is the baby? BAER
--------------------
Never consider the possibility of failure; as long as you persist, you will be successful.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
Sounds like she ordered from the dollars menu.....
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"Oh wait...when you ejaculate, its no longer your property....but then hang on, if it isn't your property....why is the baby? BAER"
I wouldn't consider a child anyone's "property", but I do see a difference between dna that leaves the body versus dna that does not. I don't agree with a father having to pay cs after a child is conceived through deception. Then again, it's not the child's fault and a child deserves to be supported by both parent, so not sure what the answer is. It would be nice if the mother's actions came into play if dad is interested in physical custody.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
If the average child support order is $500/month, it comes to a $108,000 over 18 years. If a person used deception to get that kind of money in almost any other act, it would probably be a criminal act with serious repercussions.
I think there should be serious repercussions....I'm just not sure what they should be.
The law states that one cannot profit from a criminal act, thus you can't write a best selling book about all the banks someone robbed or whatever.
Perhaps the person deceived should get primary custody by default. That way, the deceiver doesn't profit, and the child will still be supported by both parents.
|
MrsB
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/03/10
Posts: 6355
|
|
The entire situation is truly disgusting. How anyone can do this is beyond me - even moreso, some laws need to be seriously changed to protect those who are victim to this.
Spring - BAER indeed!
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"If the average child support order is $500/month, it comes to a $108,000 over 18 years. If a person used deception to get that kind of money in almost any other act, it would probably be a criminal act with serious repercussions."
The mother is the one who committed the act. Cs is intended for the child, the mother does not directly benefit from cs unless it is misused. It is also questionable that $500 will cover 100% of the expenses a child adds, so financially speaking, the mother (or another party) contributes as well. I don't see this as a get rich quick scheme.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
I don't get how someone can breeze in with someone else's sperm and freeze it and use it later without some sort of process that obtains consent from the donor. Things like the clinic's manager 'simply assumed' this was OK seems like a major area that should be looked into.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
As wrong as this is, there are only three options, the CP does it alone, the NCP helps, or the state steps in. Honestly, none of those are fair to the child under the circumstances, but in a case like this, I think the deceived parent should be offered full custody. And let this be a lesson, men, police up the jimmy hat, and women, provide your own,, make sure it is your helmet on that soldier, you never know when some scheming man will poke holes in the one he brings along....
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
The only trouble will be when two parties insist on using their own helmets...then maybe they should call a truce and hold fire.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"but in a case like this, I think the deceived parent should be offered full custody. "
With the deceiving parent paying cs.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
check firing on one...:) cease fire freeze.....:)
|
Spring
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7972
|
|
"It would be nice if the mother's actions came into play if dad is interested in physical custody."
If there are no reprecussions for women who pull these kinds of stunts, then they will never think twice about doing it...much like having babies gets you more welfare dollars.
No, it most ertainly is not the baby's fault...answers are certainly hard to find...but here's one to consider....how about branding this type of woman unfit and allowing the baby to be adopted out to a caring couple that has been waiting for a baby? Definitely the Dad in question should have full options of custody before the egg doner. I am just really tired of women getting away with using kids as a means of cashing in. Something needs to be put in place as a deterrant...and no, maybe my suggestions aren't the answer either, but something!
...and yes, I agree...a child is not property...simply an expression used to make my point.
--------------------
Never consider the possibility of failure; as long as you persist, you will be successful.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
Condoms are not 100% safe. The only safe sex is none.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
""If the average child support order is $500/month, it comes to a $108,000 over 18 years. If a person used deception to get that kind of money in almost any other act, it would probably be a criminal act with serious repercussions."
The mother is the one who committed the act. Cs is intended for the child, the mother does not directly benefit from cs unless it is misused. It is also questionable that $500 will cover 100% of the expenses a child adds, so financially speaking, the mother (or another party) contributes as well. I don't see this as a get rich quick scheme"
Oh, I'm not labeling it a get rich quick scheme. But, when you add in the possible state contribution, it could be a couple thousand more a month in total costs. Regardless, one shouldn't be rewarded for bad behavior. If she had to pay a price (CS) and the ultimate price (reduced time for deceiving behavior), then justice will have been served.....and the child still has support and the benefit of both parents. It's not the perfect solution, but I can't think of a better one.
I really think their should be the potential of prison time just like there would be in any crime where you steal a hundred grand or more (or say a deadbeat that owes that kind of money from not paying CS), but it's probably not what's best for the child in the situation described.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
I don't think anyone is denying that condoms as well as BC aren't 100% safe. But they definitely lose their purpose when people sneak them away used, freeze the semen, then use it later to create a child (if that is the case).
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Then again, it's not the child's fault and a child deserves to be supported by both parent.....
---> I can agree to a certain extent, but the problem here is that the man is held responsible, but the woman is not. She is being ALLOWED to commit a criminal act with NO repercussions and that is WRONG.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
How would you sneak condoms away? Don't most have spermicide and lubricants that mess with the contents? Also, by the time you'd get them to the cryogenics place wouldn't most of the contents have died? I just don't get it.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
She would have had to make a quick trip to the freezer after the act and put them on ice for the trip to the place.
Could it be any more deceitful?
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I am just really tired of women getting away with using kids as a means of cashing in. Something needs to be put in place as a deterrant...and no, maybe my suggestions aren't the answer either, but something!
---> Actually, the answer is pretty simple. Once actual fraud has been determined, it would be as if the woman had go to a sperm bank to conceive and there would be NO child support.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"---> Actually, the answer is pretty simple. Once actual fraud has been determined, it would be as if the woman had go to a sperm bank to conceive and there would be NO child support. "
That is pretty simple... unless dad actually wants to be dad.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
Easy solution, fathee wants to parent, he pays what he thinks is needed to support the child, all parents who want to parent support their kids if they are able. He should also get custody if he wants. If he decides he does nto want any part no foul, there are plenty of single parents who make it a choice. Even adoptions now, for single parents, are nto uncommon, so like an intact couple, it turns out to be another parent(s) who decided to have a child and raise it.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Regretfully, states don't have common sense laws to deal with unusual cases. Instead, dad by DNA pays and gets EOW when not married. How conception occurred doesn't matter. A woman could pick up a used condom thrown out the door of a car at a "lover's lane," inseminate herself (and write down the license plate of the car so she could find the guy later) prove my DNA who the semen came from....and the result would be the same.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
He didn't notice that she picked up the used condoms and secreted them away to the freezer? Why didn't he flush the condoms and the contents after use? Weird and gross.
How about, since he does't want kids, he gets the big V? or abstains completely?
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Whatever seems to be the right thing to do, punishing, or whatever doesn't matter.
Found DNA pays, no matter the source.
V or abstain is the only safe way for men (from the courts, that is).
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
I just think the whole thing is nasty. Beginning to end.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
SRS is right, as much as you try to mitigate it, it does not eliminate the risk. We don't need a common sense law, that is the problem now, we think we need laws to make everythign perfect. Bottom line is whether he likes it or not, he is a father. The common sense comes in asking for custody to raise his child, the common sense is in the judge that gets to determine custody. It is not the law, it is the people....
She has the option to raise the child alone, he has the option to sack up and parent. Yeah, it sure sucks to be him, but maybe he just needs to step up to the plate....
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Of course, he is male so even if she is a coniving criminal bytch, is somehow STILL his fault and he should have been MORE careful.
So I guess that rape victim shouldn't have been dressed so provocatively, or been in that neighborhood, huh? Or maybe she should have learned to use a gun or knife, right? Or is it only MALE victims that take the blame. Your post is SICKENING.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
BeckaLeigh
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/08/05
Posts: 6875
Loc: Texas
|
|
Wow. The greed of some people still amazes me.
--------------------
I tried being normal once. Worst five minutes of my life.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"He didn't notice that she picked up the used condoms and secreted them away to the freezer?"
I'd be willing to bet she "kindly" removed them for him. A condom on the floor is going to be full of dead sperm in a very short time. She would have needed to get them to the freezer pronto.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
Calm down cowboy.
I just think the whole thing is disgusting.
Also, he needs the big V if he truly doesn't want kiddos.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7949
|
|
Only thing he's guilty of is having the unfortunate circumstance of having a relationship with a conniving wh0re. He took proper precautions, and she manipulated them. It's no different than if a man/wife agree not to have children at a point in time, and the wife tells the husband she's on BC, decides not to take the BC and purposely deceives him. No one is going to blame the husband for not using a condom based on the circumstance. So here, there shouldn't be any blame placed on him either. He acted responsibly, she did not. She manipulated the situation.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
So you have wanted to have children with EVERYONE you have EVER had sex with?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
So you have wanted to have children with EVERYONE you have EVER had sex with?
So you have not wanted to support every child you helped create?
Neither are fair questions.
What happens to the child in real time. She is sleazy, who knows, maybe she had a collection of condoms in the deep freeze, waited until she found the best prospect for getting support, and chose accordingly, who knows, she is beyond sleazy. But the one thing that does not change is that there is a child in the world created by two people. Willingly or not, the child is here. The whole women get to choose, abortion, etc, does not apply because the child exists. So what is the answer, what should a person do, when they have a child they are responsible for, as in they created them. Best case scenario to right this wrong is to give the deceived party custody. The decieved party has options at that point, that does not mean that taxpayers support the child, or the deceived parent has to cut a check to the deceiver. I think the deceiver should lose the right to custody, through their deception. As a person, i would want custody to raise my child. Someone else may make the decision to put the child up for adoption. The child can go to a loving home with parents who will raise and love them. The child is not a burden on the taxpayers, and there was a free choice involved by the deceived party.
I do not think denying the deceived party a choice in the matter is fair. But regardless of the fairness, the priority is the child, and there are options available under current law to right this wrong. Criminally, I have no idea, but when it comes to the child, it can be righted.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
There are no options in the situation described for the guy. He is the father, he has an infinitely tiny chance to be the primary parent and he will pay support by guidelines.
Heck, only a few states even have paternity fraud statutes on the books. For most it's legal....you can name 500 of the richest Americans as the father, and all of them have to submit DNA to be ruled out....any of them that don't can be named the father....now there's a horrible unethical scam...that is perfectly legal.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"So you have not wanted to support every child you helped create?"
He "helped" create the child in the same way you would be supporting a bank robber, because it was YOUR money he stole. Does that make you an accessory to the crime?
"But the one thing that does not change is that there is a child in the world created by two people."
Yeah, and if someone sneaks into my lumber supply and builds a house, am I now responsible for half of the TAXES on the place?
"But regardless of the fairness, the priority is the child, and there are options available under current law to right this wrong. Criminally, I have no idea, but when it comes to the child, it can be righted."
Criminally, it is a no brainer, its THEFT, plain and simple. Its FRAUD, plain and simple.
But you can SEE the responses. First men are told to "wrap it up if you don't want kids", now people like SRS are saying he should have gotten a VASECTOMY. Somehow, its ALWAYS the man's fault, and women are given a pass, again, and again, and again.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
This is not paternity fraud, she named the actual father. The laws exist that can fix this. Whether the legal system applies them or not, is another matter. No one is saying it is right. But the child exists. 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. The first step is not to allow the deceiver to profit or benefit in any way from the deception. The criminal aspect is something totally different.
He "helped" create the child in the same way you would be supporting a bank robber, because it was YOUR money he stole. Does that make you an accessory to the crime ?
This is not a bank robbery, if it were, then any laws that apply to bank robbery would apply.
Yeah, and if someone sneaks into my lumber supply and builds a house, am I now responsible for half of the TAXES on the place?
No, but you should own the home, and decide what you want to do with it, live in it, sell it, tear it down, and if you do decide to live in it, then you should pay the taxes...you should have the choice.
So what should happen to the child ? Two seperate things, how do you right the situation with the father, and how do you treat the actions of the mother.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"Two seperate things, how do you right the situation with the father, and how do you treat the actions of the mother."
Easy, you OFFER him custody, if he declines, he walks away, scott free. As for her, you treat her like you would any OTHER thief or FRAUD (not paternity fraud, FRAUD FRAUD), and put her in JAIL. If that measn the kid goes to adopted parents, so be it. A baby she got BY fraud should NOT be a reason to NOT charge her with fraud.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Crap like this is messed up. I read a case where a dad was awarded custody, so mom kidnapped the kids and moved around often to not get caught. She finally did after 10 years....and a family court judge awarded shared custody to her because she felt it would be too traumatic to take the kids away at that point. Can you imagine the same outcome for a man?
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
You award him custody, if he turns down custody, who foots the bill if he walks away scot free? Award him custody, and let him make his decisions. Two things that happen. The deceived parent has the freedom to choose, and the tax payers are not stuck with the bill for raising the child. 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. 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.
Charge the mother in this case with fraud, let her get her due process.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"You award him custody, if he turns down custody, who foots the bill if he walks away scot free?"
The adoptive parents. Tell me, who foots the bill if your mugger goes to jail? The state. Saying its OKAY to screw over a guy who is INNOCENT, so that the TAXPAYERS don't have to cover thew costs of a THIEF is ridiculous.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
How about, since he does't want kids, he gets the big V? or abstains completely?
---> Sorry, but that bullcatmonkeyshit! That's like saying that it's YOUR fault that you were robbed...because you bought this or that.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
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.
Nothing like a bailout for something that is not the taxpayers responsibility. A good example of a concentrated gain with a dispersed cost....
Out of the two groups, who has more responsibility, the taxpayer, or the father....
You are blending the two issues again, when they catch your mugger, and nothing of yours is found, do the taxpayers then give you what is lost, what it cost you, or do they punish the mugger, which goes back to the criminal portion, against the woman. The father has the same remedy that already exists, civil court.... Punish the woman, the father can sue, the taxpayer should not be held responsible.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
But regardless of the fairness, the priority is the child, and there are options available under current law to right this wrong.
---> And exactly what options would those be?
Criminally, I have no idea, but when it comes to the child, it can be righted.
---> 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.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
Can you imagine if we compensated everyone who was the victim of fraud just because it wasn't fair, Bernie Madoff comes to mind, enron, how many others...where is this money coming from..why do victims of fraud suddenly need a bailout.....
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
There are no options in the situation described for the guy.
---> Which is wrong, because he is a victim of theft/fraud.
He is the father...
---> No...he was a sperm donor.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
No, YOU are the one clouding the issue.
"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."
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.
"Out of the two groups, who has more responsibility, the taxpayer, or 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.
"The father has the same remedy that already exists, civil court.... Punish the woman, the father can sue, the taxpayer should not be held responsible."
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?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
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: 19803
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: 26679
|
|
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: 30199
|
|
"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: 19803
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: 26679
|
|
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: 30199
|
|
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: 19803
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: 26679
|
|
'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: 19803
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!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
Actually I didn't unless you consider all parents who have custody paying CS . I guess he could write himself a check.
Aren't there THREE groups...or did you forget the woman...the person who committed the crime? Where is HER responsibility?
Her initial responsibility would be the criminal prosecution under the fraud and theft you mentioned. She has no parental rights, so anything else is a non issue, until he goes to civil court to recover the costs of adoptiong the child out, support, etc.
Sorry, but unless the mother ALSO consents to the adoption...it's NOT happening.
There is no law that prevents a judge from stopping that, it has to be a consideration, sure, no different than removing a child from the home against the parents wishes. Just the fact that these things go to court shows that a judge has the ability to make a decision in adoptions against parent's wishes for various things. It happens today.
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.
So, no television then.....
The situation is not good, she can be prosecuted for fraud and theft, as you described since those laws already exist.
He can be given sole custody, and given the sole right to put the child up for adoption. Sorry he doesn't have all the choices in the world to make it like it never happened, that is the way of the world. He should nto have the option of dumping the child on the state's expense account. He can sue the criminal for the costs involved in her crime, like anyone else. A judge has the authroity to make the adoption happen.
You make the victim as whole as possible, you give him the choices he deserves. But you cannot just go around using tax dollars to offset the losses someone suffers because of a crime, we would be broker than we are now.
If you are saying this doesn't happen because of the bias in judges, or society in general, that means educate the judiciary, and society, but more laws will never change that.....
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
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...
---> I think you need to go back and reread.
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.
---> Uh huh.
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.
---> LOL...I'm sorry to laugh...really I am.
---> 1) The mother's parental rights would NOT have to be terminated for him/her to give the sperm donor sole legal and physical custody.
---> 2) Having actually worked in Juvenile Dependency, I can tell you with all certainty, under THESE circumstances (theft/fraud), that a Judge would NOT terminate the mother's parental rights.
---> 3) Even when one's parental rights have been terminated, one STILL has to pay child support...until the child is adopted or emancipated.
Why do you insist on treating him like a charity case.
---> I'm not.
But why should this victim of fraud or theft not have to incur any losses, like any other victim of fraud or theft.
---> I don't know too many victims who have been robbed who 1) have to pay for their 'losses' for TWENTY-ONE YEARS, and 2) who would have the cost of their 'losses' increase and their income increases.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"The situation is not good, she can be prosecuted for fraud and theft, as you described since those laws already exist."
Show me that statute in any state. This women isn't going to be prosecuted for anything.
Family law Judges have the power to make any decision they want, but do you seriously think they would grant custody to the father? It's never going to happen.
Do you understand the underlying powers that control a family law judge's decisions?
Have you heard of NOW as an example? They provided attorneys for Andrea Yates and blamed the children's father for their the kid's deaths Why? Because organizations like them back only 1 gender, regardless of the circumstances.
Do you think a judge that makes a strong "anti NOW" stance will be a judge for long? You underestimate their power. Judges are under pressure to preserve the status quo of women getting custody, unless there is overwhelming evidence to support a different decision.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
What are not understanding about control, the ability to make all legal decisions for the child, and himself, or is it something else.
---> I understand 'ultimate control'...it's YOU that doesn't, because YOUR idea was for the sperm donor to either take the child or give the child up for adoption. Since adoption is not the sole providence of ONE person...there is NO 'ultimate control'. And if the mother doesn't want to place the child for adoption, or if the state terminates her rights and the child is placed in foster care awaiting adoption...the sperm donor has NO control over the fact that he WILL be forced to pay child support.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
O. M. G.
I suppose you're one of those people who think that a woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape or incest should be forced to give birth.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
Pressil says he never discussed IVF with his former girlfriend and they had never intended to have children.
Under Texas' Uniform Parentage Act, an unmarried man must consent to the use of sperm for assisted reproduction, and that consent "must be in record signed by the man and the unmarried woman and kept by a licensed physician."
The clinic claims to have that document, but Pressil told ABCNews.com his signature was forged and "doesn't match."
That's why Pressil's lawyer, Jason Gibson, says this is a case of theft.
"If they've got him listed as patient they need his consent to do anything," says Gibson. "They violated their own policies and procedures by not getting that consent."
Danny Sheena, the attorney who represents the clinic, could not be reached by ABCNews.com, but this week he told KPRC-TV in Houston, "[Pressil's] insurance was billed for it, and we do know that his credit card was used to pay for the visits. … His presence in this thing, as far as my client is concerned, is absolute."
Pressil said his ex-girlfriend was an exotic dancer and didn't have insurance of her own. Because they were domestic partners, he added her to his insurance after she told him about her fibroids, he said.
The ex-girlfriend's lawyer, Derek Deyon, told ABCNews.com that Pressil filed the lawsuit to avoid paying child support, and that his client denied ever taking semen from a used condom.
"They [the clinic] had to test his blood and her blood for STDs," Deyon said. "The clinic is saying they had his blood."
But Pressil said he never gave a blood sample.
He currently has joint custody of the children, and plans to seek full custody "because of all her scandalous ways."
In the lawsuit he's asking for a jury to determine how he ought to be compensated for child support and mental anguish.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
Must have been one of those magnum condoms if she got his credit card, his blood, his presence, and his signature, wow, I guess it will get worked out.....
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
Now, granted, she may be lying through her teeth and the clinic has reason to cover their butts if this went how he claims it did... but I thought the other side was interesting... and some of this should be easily provable... either the clinic has his consent and blood or they don't... either his credit card was charged or it wasn't... either his insurance was billed and he got EOBs for it or it wasn't...
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Those are all some interesting twists. I'm going to follow this story and see the final result.
|
RJ1
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/19/05
Posts: 5164
|
|
He either puts the capital letters in the name Richard Cranium, or she's a ninja stripper with super powers and a swiss army knife with a secret syringe in her thong. There is always his story, her story, and the truth somewhere in between I suppose. I thought erotic dancers made good money? Not that I would know anything about that...just what I've read...on CNN...or something like that. :)
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7949
|
|
You should always use the stripper's mouth as the cum dumpster.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
So, how did she get his blood without his knowledge? Lol....
In addition to freezing condoms (ewwww), she stuck him while he was asleep?
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Interesting enough, the statement from the fertility clinic manager in the FIRST version on page one indicates an ASSUMPTION of marriage...interesting twists, it will be neat to see how it comes out.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
Isn't the saying around here -there are 3 sides to every story?
I waiting to see what we hear next.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
