Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:05:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
266 times
|
| |
|
|
James Simpson at jsimpson@rice.edu wrote:
> 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.
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 thinking it was his own.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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 (...) (24 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
