Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:35:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
201 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Here's one that's sure to get the blood boiling. Any thoughts?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/03/childsupport.civ.ap/index.html
>
>
> Dave!
It's kind of like being convicted of manslaughter and given 18 in prison,
and upon being found not guilty, still having to serve the term.
The woman is not punished for fraud. The real father does not carry the
burden of his actions. AND the deceived man can be prevented from seeing
the child he still cares about and has to pay for. Of course, how often
that kind of moronic ruling actually happens is something else entirely.
But at the same time, if the man still wants to see the child and be a
parent, then he should be willing to continue support.
I suppose the courts can claim that the not-really-the-father has accepted a
foster-parent roll that still carries responsiblity, which may be acceptable
as long as he has rights along with the responsiblities.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
48 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
