http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1481012.htm
Uh… yeah. He shouldn’t have to pay for child support for a child that he was not even responsible for. If anything, the other mother should pay the damned child support. This is… annoying. If I was that man I’d refuse to pay.
It wasn’t smart for him to sign as the biological father in the first place, and as far as the documents go, he IS their father and the law says this is the correct procedure.
But yeah, it’s really a stupid technicality. Wasn’t there any loophole anyone could find that would allow the law to be bent in favor of, you know, common sense?
“Law” and “common sense” do not belong in the same sentence. Unless the sentence begins something like “Law, unlike common sense …” or something.
Or
Senator Slaw had refused to vote on the narrowly-defeated bill, upholding his moral integrity but at the same time jeopardizing his personal safety. The gruff men from yesterday had a surprisingly silky way of speaking which seeped threats that were far from idle. The senator was tightening up on security, but alas, it was too late. A revolving doorway. Two men from an unidentifiable car streaked out at the exact time the senator was about to pass through the door, and, jamming it, coloured the floor crimson with the life-blood of Slaw by means of their Beretta pistols. It was the end of a life, and an end so tragically common: Sen. Slaw.
That’s what he tried to do.
It’s not a technicality, not as long as the man knowingly signed a legally binding document which black on white states that he’s the biological, and since the second woman presumably didn’t adopt the child, also necessarily the juridical parent. He made a mistake.
So basically, if he wouldn’t have signed the paper, he would have been fine?
Yes, pretty much.
He didn’t sign a paper that said he should take responsibility for the children, he signed a paper that said that he was the BIOLOGICAL PARENT. If he didn’t sign the paper, he’s lying, and if he did then he’s suckered into paying for children that were agreed not to be his responsibility.
Tell me how this is a fair choice. Tell me exactly how he was supposed to deal with this problem.
Sweden…? O_O
I feel embarassed. What a stupid incident.
Since he’s now the caretaking father apparently, he should sue for joint custody and visitation rights. You know, get all the good things that come along with being a father. Hey, he should even try to get full custody of the children! Unless of course the mother waives all child support responsibilities…
He should also get to bang her at least once.
Aggreed.
This whole situation sucks.
Exactly, he admitted he’s the biological parent, and as long as the child remains unadopted, there’s no difference between being the biological parent and the responsible parent. What he should’ve done is a) not admitted he’s the biological parent, and yes, lied, b) had the second woman adopt the child, so that she’d be the juridical and responsible parent. I would’ve gone with b).
It isn’t, and no one has said that he wasn’t struck unfairly, but he wasn’t struck by a technicality. He was struck by the same law that forces men to take responsibility for their one night stand accidents, despite what they might have agreed to with the unlucky mom.
To obey the law to the letter rather than the spirit of the law when there is evidence that this man is a special exception is foolish at worst and corrupt at best.
984: I would agree, but that’s using children as a means to get what you want, which I really despise. Why should one sink to this crazy person’s level?
I think 984 was talking about enjoying the good things of being a parent, like being with your children and seeing them grow, not just being a hindrance to the mother out of spite. Of course, that all depends on whether he’s the kind of person who actually enjoys these things and not just someone who only wanted to leave a genetic heritage.
Bah, the problem with laws is they don’t try to be what works for anyone, they try to be “The One Right Way To Live.” (Sorry, I’ve been reading Ishmael for class …)
Well, if he’s going to have to pay for them, he might as well get to enjoy the kids too. As for full custody, well, going even further, he may make a better parent, and since he has to help support them, he should want them to be raised as well as possible. Of course, this is all assuming he has to pay for their upbringing; all claims of visitation and custody rights would easily be waived if he had no hand whatsoever in their lives.
This is why females sholdnt get child support if they are well off. Using children, and the person you once loved to get money. Cruel.
Simmer: Did you even read the article? You say simultaneously makes no sense and reeks of sexism.