Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:38:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > Well let me see.
> > Woman gets pregnant.
> > Lies (or isn't forthcoming with the truth) about who the father is.
> > Damn right he shouldn't have to pay child support.
> > It's called Fraud.
>
> 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 is a Filthy Wretch if by cutting the purse-strings
> he causes some amount of harm to the child's wellfare.
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 who, in the meantime, faces no financial burden or
obligation. The minor's well-being is unquestionably of great importance,
but why should the victim of deception be forced to foot the bill?
Dave!
>
> james
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) 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)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
