Man fcuked over by his Ex

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm still interested if he is legally obliged to pay child support.

I imagine so. I doubt circumstances like this are allowed for by the law, and even then it would be argued that it's not the childs fault, and the child is indeed still his and so withdrawing support would be punishing the innocent party. It's not paternity fraud, it's definitely his child and the law doesn't really do moral nuance when it comes to footing the bills.

I assume he'd be reluctant to pursue that avenue anyway, if he loves his child he's not going to want it knowing he a) didn't want them to exist, b) didn't want to provide for their care, and finally c) wanted to have it's mother punished for having them. He's between a rock and a hard place.

And of course all of this makes it all the more unfair, as the mother gets away with the fraud and he pays all the consequences. That said, I'm sure he loves his kid and wouldn't be without them now, not that it mitigates what the mother did.

bucketybuck

Candie wrote: »

I imagine so. I doubt circumstances like this are allowed for by the law, and even then it would be argued that it's not the childs fault, and the child is indeed still his and so withdrawing support would be punishing the innocent party.

Its not withdrawing support in a sense though, its reassigning the burden for that support to the person responsible for creating it.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its not withdrawing support in a sense though, its reassigning the burden for that support to the person responsible for creating it.

I think it would be hard to get past the child being his biologically, legally.

Besides, he seems to love the child and wants to support it. I'd assume he'd feel withdrawing support would be targeting the wrong person. I'm not saying she shouldn't have to pay in some way for what was, after all, a crime, I'm just saying I don't think the legal system will act on the best interests of the father above that of the child.

Ken.

Here's a thought experiment for ye. How much more trouble would the guy in this case be if

He finds out he can't have kids with wife #2. Goes to clinic gets wife #2 to forge wife #1's sig and wife #2 ends up giving birth to his and wife#1's baby. For some reason unknown to us wife #2 can't donate eggs to try ivf with her own stuff.

I'm imagining jail time for the guy.

PeterParker957

Conspectus wrote: »

Here's a thought experiment for ye. How much more trouble would the guy in this case be if

He finds out he can't have kids with wife #2. Goes to clinic gets wife #2 to forge wife #1's sig and wife #2 ends up giving birth to his and wife#1's baby. For some reason unknown to us wife #2 can't donate eggs to try ivf with her own stuff.

I'm imagining jail time for the guy.

And widespread condemnation for sure.

Conspectus

Conspectus wrote: »

Here's a thought experiment for ye. How much more trouble would the guy in this case be if

He finds out he can't have kids with wife #2. Goes to clinic gets wife #2 to forge wife #1's sig and wife #2 ends up giving birth to his and wife#1's baby. For some reason unknown to us wife #2 can't donate eggs to try ivf with her own stuff.

I'm imagining jail time for the guy.

Its not a comparable scenario though, since wife number two is not the biological parent, and the father in this case indisputably is.

And the second wife would also be guilty of theft, and morally much worse by virtue of making herself pregnant with another womans baby without that womans consent. I can't imagine how that would impact a person with fertility issues, to have their prospective child stolen. I can't imagine her getting off scott free.



Note: I absolutely have no support for the woman is this case, just in case anyone thinks my disagreeing with the comparability of this scenario indicates support. These threads get so touchy that I shouldn't feel I have to underline this, but just in case.

Sweetemotion

Conspectus wrote: »

Here's a thought experiment for ye. How much more trouble would the guy in this case be if

He finds out he can't have kids with wife #2. Goes to clinic gets wife #2 to forge wife #1's sig and wife #2 ends up giving birth to his and wife#1's baby. For some reason unknown to us wife #2 can't donate eggs to try ivf with her own stuff.

I'm imagining jail time for the guy.

If I was in that situation. I'd hire Conor74.

beefburrito

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If I was in that situation. I'd hire Conor74.

He'd make a great Barrister.

I'd definitely hire him to be on my side.

By the way I still think the guy didn't consent.....

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Come on people, why do you absolutely need to convince the ONE guy who is on a complete wind up to agree with you all, which he is not going to do and is having a great laugh about it.
We have simply argued this one point over and over for severely pages now and we just need to move on.
I'm still interested if he is legally obliged to pay child support.

So the poster who thought repeating the same point again and again was gas - until rebuked by the mods - is now critical about arguing the same point over and over.

You clearly don't do irony.

Of course he should pay child support. The child is his and child maintenance is based in the child's needs, not his. He may have forgotten about the embryo, but hopefully this case will remind him of his child.

Roger Hassenforder

Conspectus wrote: »

Here's a thought experiment for ye. How much more trouble would the guy in this case be if

He finds out he can't have kids with wife #2. Goes to clinic gets wife #2 to forge wife #1's sig and wife #2 ends up giving birth to his and wife#1's baby. For some reason unknown to us wife #2 can't donate eggs to try ivf with her own stuff.

I'm imagining jail time for the guy.

(AFAIK in the U.K. embryos aren't regarded as property - open to correction!!, so he might not have have stolen them).

Let's spice it up the thought experiment:

Throw into the mix above that wife1 is much more wealthy. Now that the child is living with the parent with care (childs father and wife2) , would the now non resident parent (mother/wife1) be expected to pay support...?

Hardly fair either

Sweetemotion

Candie wrote: »

Its not a comparable scenario though, since wife number two is not the biological parent, and the father in this case indisputably is.

And the second wife would also be guilty of theft, and morally much worse by virtue of making herself pregnant with another womans baby without that womans consent. I can't imagine how that would impact a person with fertility issues, to have their prospective child stolen. I can't imagine her getting off scott free.



Note: I absolutely have no support for the woman is this case, just in case anyone thinks my disagreeing with the comparability of this scenario indicates support. These threads get so touchy that I shouldn't feel I have to underline this, but just in case.

How isn't it comparable? Wife 1 created a baby without the mans consent and stole his sperm to do so.

Outlaw Pete

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So a woman could break in to a man's house, fish a **** tissue from the bin, extract some semen, become pregnant and successfully sue for child support. Very hypothetical, I know.

You'd like to think, but there's worse believe it or not as in the states male child abuse victims have been sued for child support:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf

There's loads more but where the woman involved weren't convicted (given that they weren't reported mostly) that pay child support for children they fathered as a result of being statutorily raped. The most well known of which would be Nick Olivas.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How isn't it comparable? Wife 1 created a baby without the mans consent and stole his sperm to do so.

In the proposed scenario the husband implanted the first wifes embryo in another woman. There's more there. The original case involved the child of the two players, the other scenario puts another persons child in a third party.

Sweetemotion

Candie wrote: »

In the proposed scenario the husband implanted the first wifes embryo in another woman. There's more there. The original case involved the child of the two players, the other scenario puts another persons child in a third party.

But the third person just done exactly what the wife done, had the consent of one partner of the embryo to produce a child.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

But the third person just done exactly what the wife done, had the consent of one partner of the embryo to produce a child.

But it's not just the theft of an embryo by one of it's 'owners', it's the theft of an embryo and it's implantation into an unrelated third party. It's simply not the same situation. The third party has no biological claim or ownership over the embryo.

I don't support the woman in this case at all, and it kind of diminishes the impact of the whole thing if we start inventing ever more convoluted scenarios. It's bad enough on it's own merits.

Sweetemotion

Candie wrote: »

But it's not just the theft of an embryo by one of it's 'owners', it's the theft of an embryo and it's implantation into an unrelated third party. It's simply not the same situation. The third party has no biological claim or ownership over the embryo.

I don't support the woman in this case at all, and it kind of diminishes the impact of the whole thing if we start inventing ever more convoluted scenarios. It's bad enough on it's own merits.

Thanks for the replies. I don't want to derail the thread also.

dr.fuzzenstein

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You'd like to think, but there's worse believe it or not as in the states male child abuse victims have been sued for child support:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf

There's loads more but where the woman involved weren't convicted (given that they weren't reported mostly) that pay child support for children they fathered as a result of being statutorily raped. The most well known of which would be Nick Olivas.

As the article says, that is off the charts crazy and ridiculous. But I think America is a wonderful country for mindlessly and belligerently applying laws regardless of sense, logic or circumstances.
Imagine a rape victim paying child support. I just have no words for that.

bucketybuck

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Imagine a rape victim paying child support. I just have no words for that.

I would imagine lots of rape victims have to pay child support, just in the more direct form of having to raise a child for at least 18 years.

PeterParker957

bucketybuck wrote: »

I would imagine lots of rape victims have to pay child support, just in the more direct form of having to raise a child for at least 18 years.

Always oneup(wo)manship going on.

At the risk of going off topic rape victims aren't FORCED to bring up a child.

I'm sure the sistahood will finally take my membership card off me but this not a feminist issue, this is a scheming conniving **** who wanted what she wanted and took it anyway.

She's no better than a rapist imho.

bucketybuck

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Always oneup(wo)manship going on.

At the risk of going off topic rape victims aren't FORCED to bring up a child.

I'm sure the sistahood will finally take my membership card off me but this not a feminist issue, this is a scheming conniving **** who wanted what she wanted and took it anyway.

She's no better than a rapist imho.

What are you going on about? What feminism or oneupmanship?

I was simply pointing out that its not exactly unprecedented that a rape victim suffers consequences as a result of that rape, that the US law quoted is perhaps not as arbitrary as it might seem at first.

PeterParker957

bucketybuck wrote: »

What are you going on about? What feminism or oneupmanship?

I was simply pointing out that its not exactly unprecedented that a rape victim suffers consequences as a result of that rape, that the US law quoted is perhaps not as arbitrary as it might seem at first.

Men are - in this case, quite rightly - viewed as the victim.

The next post feels is necessary to point out that women are also victims.

Not needed and not relevant to the thread.

bucketybuck

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Men are - in this case, quite rightly - viewed as the victim.

The next post feels is necessary to point out that women are also victims.

Not needed and not relevant to the thread.

Whats not relevant is you interjecting your crusade to the discussion, the only way I could be described as having feminist views is if you see everything in terms of feminism. In which case, get over yourself.

PeterParker957

bucketybuck wrote: »

Whats not relevant is you interjecting your crusade to the discussion, the only way I could be described as having feminist views is if you see everything in terms of feminism. Get over yourself.

I have no crusade, I don't see where you'd get that from ?

I haven't raised a non-sequitor to the discussion here.

Carlos Orange

bucketybuck wrote: »

I would imagine lots of rape victims have to pay child support, just in the more direct form of having to raise a child for at least 18 years.

I imagine few rape victims have to. Generally they have alternatives like abortion or adoption. They may feel a moral,ethical or emotional obligation but it isn't really comparable to a legally imposed burden.

PeterParker957

psinno wrote: »

I imagine few rape victims have to. Generally they have alternatives like abortion or adoption. They may feel a moral,ethical or emotional obligation but it isn't really comparable to a legally imposed burden.

+1,000

givyjoe

Shemale wrote: »

Absolutely it's a disgrace that she stole his signature, the clinic should not carry out something like this without witnessing both signatures.

At the same time he knew they had broken up and he knew his sperm was in the clinic and he would have known his ex. If it was me the first thing I would have done was got an injunction against using the embryo. He is not without some blame here.

He didn't need an injunction! She did need his written consent however!!!