 | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | (...) In cases involving a minor's well-being, not just the letter but the spirit of the law must be weighed. Fraud or no, if the functioning father has demonstrated a commitment of care, love, involvement, etc. to his non-biological child, then he (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Family values? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) No one here is saying that the man, having established his role as caring father, can just turn away when he pleases. The issue is that in cases involving deception, the decieved man should not be required to support the child of another man (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Family values? —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | (...) While I agree that he is a low down goodfernuthin if he just ditches the kid that he was taking responsibility for up to X point, I don't agree that it makes him legally responisble for someone else's kid... especially if he was duped into (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) Again, the spirit of the law versus the mere letter. Were we discussing his obligation to his wife's bad credit in some wierd scenario of marriage under false pretenses, for example, then she's up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But if (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Family values? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) So someone's money should be stolen from them for up to 18 years because of another's (and THEIR PARTNER'S) deception. Nice world you live in - take everyone else's money, whether they need it or not. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
