To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8474
8473  |  8475
Subject: 
Re: Family values?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:50:14 GMT
Viewed: 
287 times
  
James Simpson wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
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.

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 a child's well-being is involved, then the functioning father's
rights must be measured by the necessities of a child.


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          Netscape Communications Corp
|      Please do not associate my personal views with my employer



Message is in Reply To:
  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)

48 Messages in This Thread:















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR