bkmunroe
|
posted on July 16, 2001 12:41:18 PM
Since there are several threads about parental responsibility, I thought I'd throw in another one.
I read about a man who had sex with a woman, he used a condom and disposed of it in the wastebasket. The woman later retreived it and used the contents to get pregnant.
So, does the man have to pay child support?
|
toke
|
posted on July 16, 2001 12:46:07 PM
I'd be interested to know how the man managed to prove she did that. Also, how long do sperm remain viable?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 16, 2001 12:47:17 PM
Given only the facts presented, I think not.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on July 16, 2001 12:59:00 PM
This woman has a strange way to get pregnant. I would say, no, I can't see the mans responsiblilty in this situation, as you said, he used a condom, and that was being responsible on his part. Just IMHO.
[email protected]
|
Zazzie
|
posted on July 16, 2001 01:00:45 PM
I think someone has been reading too much National Enquirer.
|
uaru
|
posted on July 16, 2001 01:15:19 PM
Has that been on the national news? Seems like I remember a custody case between some man and a wastebasket. Am confused and thinking of some Monty Python sketch?
|
hepburn
|
posted on July 16, 2001 01:37:51 PM
Yuck. Just imagining how she supposedly did it grosses me out.
|
sulyn1950
|
posted on July 16, 2001 01:55:13 PM
While I really can't fathom this case, I do know of a man who had a very short term relationship with a woman. She just up and left the state with no explaination.
He eventually met and married another woman and they had 3 children and seemed quite happy.
Then, out of nowhere he gets the notice he is being claimed as the father in a paternity suit and that the woman was asking for back support as well as continued child support on the child. The child was 13!
Long story short. He had never know the first woman had a child by him. He was proven by DNA test to be the father and he was ordered to make the back payments and continue on until the child was 18. The back support was thousands of $$. He and his wife have had to put off plans and make dramatic changes in their life because of the financal strain these back support payments AND the ongoing support payments have placed on them.
He does not get to see the child because the mother has full custody and still lives in the other state. He feels wronged. What do ya'll think?
The other case I am personally familiar with is a man being told by a woman he was involved with that she was unable to have children. She had been married before and had wanted children and that was when she was told she was infertile. The guy believes her. She becomes pregnant and ends the relationship without any real explaination other than she didn't really want a husband and she thought the guy should consider himself lucky she wasn't asking for support.
That lasted about 5 years. He was named in her paternity suit and he too had to make back payments and will continue with child support payments until the child is 18. He has seen his child only a few times in the past 5 years and she doesn't even know who he is! How about that one????
My personal belief is that if you have sex with someone, there is always the chance for pregnancy EVEN if you take "precautions". If that happens, then the child MUST be considered. However, after these two cases, I think if I WAS a man, I would JUST give up on "relationships"! 
|
jlpiece
|
posted on July 17, 2001 12:30:13 AM
I think if the woman gets pregnant through such devious means, then she needs to get a damn job and deal with the mistake she made by herself.
|
krs
|
posted on July 17, 2001 01:01:51 AM
There was a case a while back in which a woman fellated a man, didn't swallow but spit the result into a bottle she had in her purse. She later injected his semen into herself. She made the simple error of telling a friend what she planned to do before doing it, and even though there was a DNA match presented by her lawyer the testimony of the friend raised sufficient doubt for the case to result in a hung jury. I think it was Boston.
|
uaru
|
posted on July 17, 2001 02:44:15 AM
I think it was Boston.
No, you're thinking of Washington D.C. Not much press on that one all links were removed from the web, but it is rumored the father was a high ranking politician.
|
krs
|
posted on July 17, 2001 04:23:09 AM
It was also determined that he'd been victimized by a republican plot. The girl was a low priced call girl (cheap republicans). It was rumored that the plan was set in place by Bush CIA agents, the same motley bunch who had tried to kill Castro with an exploding cigar.
|
Femme
|
posted on July 17, 2001 04:56:44 AM
The Culinary Institute of America tried to kill Castro????
WOW!!!!
|
krs
|
posted on July 17, 2001 05:44:52 AM
Not with the cigar. THEY tried posing as Canadians on vacation to get some Poison Jalapeno Peppers into Cuba to his cooks but were caught when a customs inspector dropped dead on the spot after opening the packaging box. Evidently he had expected to find macaroni and cheese.
|
eleanordew
|
posted on July 17, 2001 07:06:20 AM
I think the alternative to being a "victim" in such weird child support cases is to keep it in your pants.
If you don't leave a deposit, you can't be caught up in legal proceedings later.....
El
"The customer may not always be right, but she is always the customer."
|
Femme
|
posted on July 17, 2001 08:16:57 AM
What?!?!
...he used a condom and disposed of it in the wastebasket.
No indoor plumbing???
|
barbarake
|
posted on July 17, 2001 04:07:45 PM
Problems like this would be solved if *everyone* (men and women) understood that *everytime* they have sex, a baby may result and take that into consideration.
NO method of birth control is foolproof. Even vasectomies and tubal ligations. Both are *close* to foolproof but not perfect.
(On a side note, I read about a couple who had two or three children and were happy with that. The father had a vasectomy. It grew back, had another baby. This time the mother had a tubal ligation. You guessed it. Yup, another baby. I think they ended up suing some doctors at this point. Analysts figured the odds at millions-to-1.)
|
Femme
|
posted on July 17, 2001 04:14:22 PM
It grew back?!?!
His name wasn't Bobbitt, was it. LOL
|
ashlandtrader
|
posted on July 17, 2001 05:26:21 PM
These are weird! :0) Good thing weird makes me laugh.
We have a friend who was in a long term relationship, she got pregnant and they married. Didn't work out so they divorced. Kid lived with mom, dad didn't see him but paid support. Years pass It comes out that the mom had an affair so dad gotDNA test. Turns out he is not the father at all. He tried to get a judge to stop support payments-- no can do! He has to pay almost $1000 a month (i think it is around $800 to be closer to exact). Oh we are friends with the dad-- that wasn't very clear as I was re-reading my paragraph.
The mom is a psycho too-- I feel bad for that kid.
Makes you wonder how so many get away with not paying anything!
|
dejapooh
|
posted on July 18, 2001 02:50:40 PM
If you don't want to have a child, do not do the deed. If a child results, you are partially responsible, and you have to pay. There are no excuses, there is no way out. If you don't want one of these female dogs to have your child, do not lay with the dog... for you shall surely rise with fleas.
|
reamond
|
posted on July 18, 2001 08:09:36 PM
The intent of child support is to support the child. It is not supposed to be punishment for the father/mother or used as a weapon.
These primitive artificial inseminations are not new. At least a decade ago, 2 lesbians used a turkey baster(sp?) to successfully artifically inseminate.
However, the law seems slow to catch to "technology". In Ohio, a man found out after a divorce that one of the children of the marriage wasn't genetically his. The Ohio supreme court said too bad, he still must pay.
So we now have parents who pay for children that are genetically theirs, those who pay for children that are not genetically theirs, and we have people having children that genetically belong to neither parent. In the near future we will have children that are genetically engineered.
How should child support responsibilty be decided ? Right now the decisions are all over the map, and who the "biological" parents are and what significance parental "genetics" plays gets more clouded all the time.
|
