OK, so you’ve been living with her for a while, and you went and knocked her up. She decides that you’re an idiot, and that she’d rather rip out her eyeballs and boil them in oil than raise a kid with you. Being the modern, liberated woman that she is, she decides that the logical choice is to kill that pesky little shit you planted in her before it has a chance to screw up her life and her prospects of hooking up with someone who is less of a loser in her estimation. Your recourse? Ha ha ha ha! You have none, slick. So sit down, shut up and just be glad you won’t be paying child support for the next 20 years.
Now, let’s suppose she doesn’t decide that you’re enough of a loser to slaughter your unborn progeny. Let’s suppose that you’ve had a change of heart, and you’ve decided that she is a demon from hell, and that you’d rather try your hand at gay prostitution in Tehran than raise a child with her, or pay her to do it without you. What is your recourse in this circumstance? Well, if you live in Michigan, it’s now the the same. Zip, zilch, nada. Oh, and should you try to put the squeeze on her, you’re going to jail.
Coercive Abortion Prevention Act Assumes Male Guilt, Opens Door to Unfair Prosecutions
HB 5882, which passed the Michigan House 67-38, amends the Michigan Penal Code to create the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Its purpose is to prohibit the putative father of a pregnant woman’s child from coercing or intimidating the woman into terminating her pregnancy. While preventing violence or threats of violence against pregnant women is an admirable goal, HB 5882 goes way beyond this by interfering with constitutionally protected personal prerogatives.
HB 5882 actually makes it a crime for a man to “change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement” with a pregnant significant other, to “file or attempt to file for a divorce” from his pregnant wife, or to “withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support†from a woman who he has been supporting, if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
This violates men’s rights. The U.S. constitution’s protected liberty interests safeguard privacy in areas such as contraception, abortion, marriage, procreation, child rearing and sexual conduct between consenting adults. Do Michigan legislators believe these protections don’t also cover the basic personal choices HB 5882 proscribes?
In a stunning development regarding laws that favor women and penalize men, the Michigan NOW chapter is opposed, but not because they care about the rights of Penised-Americans.
The Michigan National Organization for Women and other women’s advocates have declared their opposition to CAPA because they see it as a step towards limiting women’s reproductive freedoms. Yet to date HB 5882 has only drawn comment for its potential impact on women’s reproductive rights and not its serious consequences for men.
The bill is also laden with unfair presumptions of male guilt. There are many legitimate reasons why a man might be angry over his wife or girlfriend’s pregnancy. He may leave because he doubts that the child she is carrying is his. He may want her to terminate a pregnancy because he felt he was deceived into getting her pregnant, and doesn’t want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support. He may leave because she blames him for not being a good enough provider, or lashes out at him during pregnancy-related mood swings. None of these behaviors are particularly chivalrous, but they are certainly understandable.
A talented district attorney, who may be looking for publicity as a defender of pregnant women, could frame a man’s decision as an attempt to coerce an abortion. The accused needn’t be convicted to suffer egregious harm–the cost of criminal defense is often ruinous, and the emotional toll can be worse.
Related: Men’s Reproductive Rights, redux
Perhaps the gals at Feministe will be able to break away from Supporting gender-variant children and Bashing “Godbags” long enough to chime in on this. We can hope, can’t we?
UPDATE: Those who are arguing that a man should be responsible for any child conceived of his seed regardless of his intentions or desires are requested to comment on this case pending at Kansas Supreme Court:
Kansas Supreme Court hears case of sperm donor’s rights
TOPEKA, Kan. – A state law that gives sperm donors no parental rights unless there’s a written agreement between the man and woman is ambiguous and should be struck down, the attorney for a Shawnee County man told the Kansas Supreme Court on Monday.
Kurt James asked the court to reverse a lower-court ruling that said Daryl Hendrix didn’t have paternal rights to twins conceived with the use of his sperm in 2004. James acknowledged there was nothing in writing, but said Hendrix assumed he and Samantha Harrington agreed that he would be involved in the children’s lives.
Now, we’re not talking about prenatal reproductive rights, we’re talking about the right to parent your born children. We’re talking about the right that is the flip side of the parental responsibility that so many insist should be imposed.
Susan Barker Andrews, attorney for Harrington, said her client didn’t coerce or trick Hendrix into giving sperm samples and that she always intended to be a single mother.
OK, so what about a guy who always intended not to be a father? Do paternal responsibilities come hand in hand with paternal rights or do they not? How can maternal rights exist where paternal rights do not while meeting the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should women be the sole arbiters of all paternal rights/responsibilities questions?
Don’t worry, Pablo: I’m just a snarky Euro douchebag with nothing relevant to to offer!
For every reason a woman might want an abortion, a man might wish a woman would have an abortion. Some might actually be chivalrous- he could be worried about her health, for example, or concerned for her mental well-being. All the things we tend to assume and be told are the reasons a woman gets an abortion.
We don’t see many pro-choice articles pointing out that a woman might have an abortion just to spite her partner, or threaten one to manipulate him. Why do the men, even in an article defending their rights, have to be bad?
This whole issue is unbelievably heterosexist.
The woman’s right to manifest her desires is sacred, while the man’s is nonexistent.
BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY!!!
Right, but I think the more important question is whether or not society has a reason to prefer one choice in this matter over another. In the event that a women does want to go through with the pregnancy, this policy would help prevent her partner from pressuring her into aborting it, so there would be more babies and more families. Is this a social benefit that outweighs discriminating between men and women in this case? I think so.
So what stops the woman from unilaterally aborting? How is that same interest served when the shoe is on the other foot, and why should men be the only party with no say at all in the matter? Why should we hole sacred the wishes of a woman who wants an unborn child to die while we jail a man who wants the same?
Why is discrimination OK here?
Zach,
So,do you believe, with that social benefit in mind, that if a woman does want an abortion, and the father objects, she should be legaly prevented from aborting the baby?
You know, so there will be more babies and families.
Of course the obvious answer is to keep yer dick in yer pants. You know, ‘do as I say…’
I doubt the battle of the sexes will be settled with legislation, litigation, or lamentation. Better the govmint should keep their noses out of this one.
TW: make27. Geez, I hope not!
Would Equal Rights insist it is a crime for a woman to ‘deceive or attempt to deceive him into pregnancy’?
In any case, I thought we women had assumed all reproductive responsibilites way back when we said ‘it’s my body, it’s my choice’ ipso facto, he is absolved from assuming any responsibility; home, financial support, or otherwise.
The reality is that pro-choice is only one choice, that’s NOW’s choice. In this day and age, women should know by now the pleasure of the orgasm doesn’t ensure her protection from it’s price.
And the other obvious answer is to keep your pussy shut, and we’re right back where we started. It takes two to make hot monkey love. So then what?
I’m sorry, did someone replace personal sovereignty and free speech with mob rule while I was sleeping?
Screw “society”. And let’s get a clue how stuff’s supposed to work, shall we? At least for the time being.
Bigger point: WTF gave lawmakers the right to pass bullshit that’s a clear example of feel-good might making right? Let’s just cut to the chase and make all legislation a simple majority vote, shall we, and do away with this pretense of principle and constitutional theory…
Who are these people that are having relationships like this? I wag my finger at thee. Tsk tsk tsk.
Stupid godbag.
Outside of certain, uh, specialty services, I’m amazed that such a thing even exists.
If you’re somewhere populous enough to support the ass trade, and you can’t get yourself on your favorite end of a free anonymous porn-quality turdburglary within an hourâ€â€maybe two hours if it’s Christmas morningâ€â€you’re a busted freak and shouldn’t be fucking.
The political embourgeoisementâ€â€the Sullivanizationâ€â€of gay men hasn’t penetrated to street level. On TV and in the news, they’re all bitchy soccer-mom douchebags, but down in the dives, they’re still men, still free, and having a good timeâ€â€largely because laws like the above-described don’t apply to them.
Jealous. But not for long.
Hey actus
What does fucking have to do with relationships, you puritian uptight prude!
Making discriminations between men and women in cases related to reproduction is already well established by the Supreme Court. To what extent a policy furthers “important governmental interests” is the usual justification for making such discriminations, and I think this holds in this case as well. This law lends itself to judicial overreach but is far from mob rule.
Nothing, and treading there would probably violate Roe v. Wade. The woman choosing to abort does seem the same as her partner coercing her to abort, in the sense that in both cases one of them is unilaterally causing an abortion. Usually, however, it will be the man pushing for an abortion rather than pleading for the child–there are deep social and biological reasons for this. Removing his ability to ditch his pregant partner or withdraw financial support as a means of forcing an abortion helps blunt the amount of pressure he can apply here.
That being said, it seems like the law is too broad and could lead to judicial overrreach.
Roe vs Wade was violated when Roe lied that she was raped.
And all this time I thought progressive “men” were so just in order to get laid: I have a hell of a “relationship”; I just do whatever my little feminist says…
You’d best check your math, Zach.
Which is to say that if he were forcibly performing an abortion, you’d be right.
Whether it’s mob court-rule, extrapolating “governmental interests” as a matter of course—in family law they being anything counter to the oppressive, elite patriarchy—or an unnamed special interest forcing trash legislation like this, I’m not sure I care if there’s a distinction, Zach, between populist overreach or popular nannyist legislation. It all smells. It’s all frightening.
Usually legal distinctions between men and women are seen as enforcing the patriarchy, not undermining it. Most feminists don’t like such distinctions because they are usually founded upon suppositions of innate biological differences, something they would like to downplay.
In any case, I’m sure the people pushing for this bill are Christian conservatives–hardly the people you would point to as being dedicated to opposing an “oppressive, elite patriarchy.”
That statute is clownish – wouldn’t pass the first half-assed Consitutional challenge it got. The author of that bill should be made to go sit in the penalty box and feel shame.
None dare call it no-fault. Any party may dissolve any family—married or otherwise—at any time for any reason using any tactic without any moral cause and without any penalty for any effect caused—including harm to or death of a disaffected party—but only a guy can get thrown in jail for talking a woman out of child-bearing in the first place.
Next up? Criminalizing marriage counselors. In a land that prides itself on “choice” above just about anything else. As long as it’s hers.
And all this from the people’s gulag of Michigan, where unfaithful AG Mike Cox once tried out an alienation-for-free-pizza scheme for all the state’s fine fatherless welfare cases to turn in pop for “child support”.
Long version of that story shortened: Single parenting is a huge business. Anything to keep em coming is money in the bank.
Either that or:
Agreed about the undoubted religious influence here. But you missed the irony: anything male is elite, Zach. Even a urban crack dealer going around knocking up the ho’s. Politically, everybody loves to hate dad.
Once I advised actus that the combination of welfare reform and welfare itself put fathers in the crosshairs. Oh, the howls I heard. Thanks for pointing it out again.
In most states a child conceive during a marriage is presumed to be hubby’s–perfectly legit in the 19th century.
California, though, got ahead of the curve:
With the rise of DNA testing, more and more fellows found that the child they paid support for all those years was not their’s, after all. Some of those fellows were pissed, and sued for fraud.
The California Legislature rushed down town to pass a law to the effect that ripping some guy for hundreds of thousands of $$$ over 20 years by falsely claiming the child was his was explicitly NOT fraud. Married OR NOT.
Thus were women exempted from 1000 years of common law responsiblity with the stroke of a pen.
For the Childrenâ„¢
Doesn’t the money go to support the children, and not the mother?
Doesn’t matter, male is still paying for children who aren’t his, and mother’s responsibility to secure financial support for her children from the father or support them herself is still abrogated.
So the child is cared for like it was, right? I think thats the concern: to keep the child cared for.
Should it matter to whom the money ultimately goes, if it’s obtained under false pretenses?
It’s not my child. I don’t give a damn if it’s cared for.
Certainly should if we’re calling it fraud. Fraud requires gain. But the gain is for the child, thats supposedly innocent in the deception.
And i’m guessing thats just the sort of attitude the law is fighting against. There isn’t just a business deal here. There is a child—probably innocent—that needs care, and has been getting it.
How I wish I could stay away…
First, we aren’t all “gals.” Two of us are female, one is male. Just a clarification.
Second, the whole point of reproductive rights is that they only extend to your own reproductive system. Men don’t have a right to abortion because they can’t get pregnant. Arguing that disallowing men from coercing women into abortion is some sort of violating of reproductive rights is pretty ridiculous.
Third, the law limits coercive actions all the time (think bribery, extortion, etc), particularly where there are financial incentives/threats involved. As the author says, “The U.S. constitution’s protected liberty interests safeguard privacy in areas such as contraception, abortion, marriage, procreation, child rearing and sexual conduct between consenting adults.” This doesn’t cover coercing another adult into making a particular reproductive choice by using threats of removing financial support if they don’t do what you want. Sexual privacy covers what you do sexually; it no more gives you the right to coerce someone into abortion than it does to coerce someone into sex or marriage (you might be able to do those things, but they aren’t Constitutional rights). When the author says that this violates “men’s rights,” he fails to make the case for any right or class of rights that’s violated here.
Actus like to engage in a popular legal fiction (redundant, I know) that child support is only for the child. Guess who the check is made out to? The mother. Guess who foots the bill if daddy can’t be located? The mother. Guess who is relieved of some financial burden? The mother. Child support is for the mother and any argument otherwise ignores facts. actus’s specialty.
A general problem with this whole argument is that extending “reproductive rights” to abortion/infanticide is bullshit to begin with. Once you allow a contradiction, you can both prove and disprove anything based on that. I think the present scenario is good evidence of that.
Damn, I better stop threatening to break off paying my share of my roommates’ grocery bill unless they buy my TV dinners.
Because the law prevents such coercion.
I’m not sure I disapprove of the proposed law. Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that a man, having impregnated a woman, has incurred some responsibility for her well-being and that of her child? For pro-lifers, at least, it seems that financial responsibility for a child must begin before birth. Granted this is inconsistent with the NARAL outlook on pregnancy and responsibility, but why should that bother us?
Third, the law limits coercive actions all the time (think bribery, extortion, etc), particularly where there are financial incentives/threats involved.
Could we make it illegal for a pregnant woman to leave her boyfriend (or get an abortion) if he refuses to get a better job to support her and the new babe? That is the flip-side situation to this proposed law.
If she is pregnant and the fetus isn’t considered a person, how can he be legally responsible for financially supporting the woman carrying it?
I wonder how explicit he would have to be. What if he kicks her out because he doesn’t want the baby. Is that enough to make it illegal- just her knowledge that she might get him back if she had an abortion? If he simply says he doesn’t love her and she gets an abortion because she thought they’d always be together- is that coercion?
There’s no right to financial support from another individual in the US Constitution. Threatening to remove your financial support can’t be unconstitutional, and using the witholding of your own financal assets to suggest someone participate in a perfectly legal activity (abortion) seems a weak coercion case.
Finally, I’m not seeing how a man’s right to privacy in procreation and child rearing are being protected if it were to become illegal for him to express his desire not to be a father.
No. There is no accountability whatsoever. The parent receiving support can do whatever they please with the money and the paying parent has absolutely no say in the matter nor recourse for funds misspent.
Jill,
Just to nail this all the way down, it’s 2.5 gals, isn’t it? One of you is playing it up the middle, right? Let’s be supportive of the gender-variant blogger.
It’s a good thing that no one has said that, isn’t it? That’s not what this law does. It attacks a man’s right to live where he wants, be married to who he wants and spend his money as he wants. But I get your point that men have absolutely no reproductive rights other than to keep yer dick in yer pants. Not the least bit sexist, that.
No, it covers coercing another adult into making a lifestyle choice that is fully available to any other person by threat of jailing them if they don’t do as the pregnant woman wants. As for the coercion, you know how a woman can resist that. Just. Say. No. But this creates a shiny new right to keep both the man and his money, and also to keep him in line by restricting his choices to live as he pleases.
The law coerces men out of doing what the want to do, such as dump the woman, by making it illegal. In fact, it makes telling her you want to do so illegal. Do you see that this law says a guy can’t leave or attempt to leave his wife? Can you imagine your outrage if a law were passed saying a woman can’t leave or attempt to leave her husband? The reason that you don’t see that as a violation of men’s rights seems to be your resistance to the fact that such things exist.
Damned good question, MayBee. Extending that logic dictates that it isn’t your child, it’s your choice.
So? If you obtain property from me fraudulently, and then give it to an innocent third party, I can nevertheless maintain an action for conversion against that third party. The third party’s innocence is wholly irrelevant.
Iit’s an “attitude” that men who don’t have paternity interests in children shouldn’t be forced to support those children?
Which is an argument for forcing the man who has been fraudulently induced into supporting the child to continue to do so… how, precisely?
Turn it around. Suppose for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court walks back on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and finds spousal consent laws to be constitutional. Suppose further that most states promptly pass such laws.
Would Jill support jail sentences for women who, in order to obtain that consent, threaten their spouses with divorce, loss of custody, and financial ruin?
I know. because they’re the custodial parent.
That he’s constructively assumed parenthood. Basically at some point you decide if the child is yours. After that, you don’t change your mind.
Men don’t have a right to abortion because they can’t get pregnant
I hope Jill returns to explain the utter nonsense that only women get pregnant. Has some mutant strain of female developed in which she is able to conceive without the necessity of the sperm?
Feminist activists have no idea that the only achievement their activism has attained is female infantilism.
Let’s see if I have this right, Actus. Fifteen years ago, the woman I’m living with gets pregnant. For any of a number of reasons, we go our separate ways. Two years later, she sues me for child support, and wins. This year, DNA tests prove the child isn’t mine. But I’ve still constructively assumed parenthood?
Clearly the first asshole that came up with the idea of; “important governmental interestsâ€Â; even existing did not have the faintest clue as to the principles upon which this country was founded. I’d say I hope they are burning in hell except that I suspect they were on staff all along.
In case I wasn’t clear above there is absolutely no “important governmental interests†that override the wants/needs of a single individual citizen of this country.
Aside from the legalese and the idealistic “it’s for the children” chatter, it comes down to the following:
1) A pregnant woman may abort or not without constraint, and
2) She may pick any man she likes to pay child support, and the burden of proof that it’s not his child is on him, and
3) A married woman may divorce at any time, with or without cause, sue her husband as abusive to get custody of her children, then take him to the cleaners for child support–and again, the burden of proof is on him, and
4) Women may sue in absentia for child support, and men may or may not be notified that they’ve been sued for child support until they’re being sentenced to jail for nonpayment, as happened in California, and
5) In some states, men may be required to pay child support for children that aren’t even theirs because the mother lied to them–and upon discovery of that fact, men have already “assumed responsibility” and therefore have to continue paying child support for children that aren’t theirs.
But at least the children of these witches are theoretically provided for, right? Never mind the poor bastards sitting in jail because they spent all their money on legal fees fighting paternity claims and now have nothing left to pay child support.
So the People’s Republic of Michigan decides to go one better–not only is childbirth/abortion/childrearing/determining paternity the sole province of women, NOW they also demand that men have to stay with them–and can be prosecuted for trying to leave. As in, the heinous creature that lied to you to get herself pregnant can also sue you for not loving her anymore and wanting to leave.
Why don’t we just go the route of Sweden and add a tax all men have to pay for the abuse their gender has perpetrated? For the children, of course.
And I say all this as a woman who has HAD. IT. with these irresponsible, conniving, backstabbing, extortionous oxygen thieves. And an Airman that’s seen some very nice men due jail time for children that weren’t theirs. One, memorably, whose ex-girlfriend (who cheated on him) picked him as the father because she was hoping he’d die in Iraq so she could collect his death benefits. For a child that wasn’t his.
The state of California gave him a warm, salary-garnishing welcome when he got back from the desert. To my knowledge, he’s still sitting in courtrooms.
But again, screw justice. I’m sure the children of the type of woman that would do this stuff are doing EXCELLENTLY. The only one that doesn’t have reproductive freedom in this country is the man. If I were a man, the priesthood would look pretty appealing.
Hey Zoomie, if you like the idea of men being forced to pay for kids that aren’t theirs, you’ll absolutely LOVE this story, where a man was forced to pay dearly for a child that never existed.
Making the world a better place – One billboard at a time
We need more of you and Shelly and less of NOW, Zoomie. They drove right past equality into matriarchy and misandry with nary a glance at that point which was supposed to be the destination.
Zoomie, as a woman of 45 who for most of my life has been subjected to feminists claptrap I say you are my kind of woman.
Indeed, feminism is just another form of totalitarianism.
A “You’ve got to be fucking kidding me” update to the story in my previous comment.
Viola Trevino has been sentenced to 16 months in prison. So they prosecuted her for paternity fraud, right?
Well, no. The Feds got her for tax evasion via claiming exemptions for the child that did not exist. So, you can make up a kid and steal thousands and thousands from the guy you finger as your mark.
But you don’t fuck with Uncle Sam, capice?
You’re basically arguing that merely supporting a child, despite being ignorant of the child’s actual paternity, is sufficient to constitute equitable adoption. Which is nonsense: even in the minority of states that permit equitable adoption, there still needs to be some manifestation of intent to adopt (which implies knowledge of actual paternity).
Why not just come straight out and say that you support the right of women to enlist the coercive power of government to shake down innocent guys for child support of crotch-dropplings that aren’t even theirs, actus? That’s what this really boils down to.
I hope that Actus isn’t planning on going into Family Law….
Or procreation…
Let’s see if I have this right, Actus. Fifteen years ago, the woman I’m living with gets pregnant. For any of a number of reasons, we go our separate ways. Two years later, she sues me for child support, and wins. This year, DNA tests prove the child isn’t mine. But I’ve still constructively assumed parenthood?
Posted by Randy
Yeah. Under any other system it would be called theft by deception
There is always the option of everybody keepnhg their knees together, but I guess it’s a right to get pregnant. Well. Profitable anyway.
See, this is what I think the law is addressing: this anger at the otherwise innocent child caught in the middle of this.
In most litigation, you don’t get to reopen it with evidence that was available in the past.
Only if you’re honest, accountable, self-sufficient, productive and possess those other endangered human characteristics once known as honorable.
For those who are not, if actard’s leftist radfem Democrats can’t import voters illegally, they’ll just breed them.
It’s not a child, it’s a choice, actus! You’re not going pro-life on us, are you? And besides, shouldn’t the government see that everyone has food and shelter and health care, etc…?
Ah, yes. There’s the conundrum. Which is more important, the sanctity of abortion as birth control, or outbreeding the godbags?
Decisions, decisions…
Unless you’re a lesbian radfem. Then it’s pretty clear, huh?
Are we talking about before or after birth? Or is that a confusing concept for you?
This is what i think these laws do. At least for some children.
Don’t try this arguement on a judge, actus. Fraud requires LOSS, not gain, and even if there is gain to an innocent party.
Beside the point. If you buy a car that turns out to be stolen, it’s still not yours just because you paid the registration, changed the oil and contructively assumed ownership.
Look up the difference between intrinsic and extrensic fraud.
Just not your day for jurisprudence, actus.
actus, you aren’t really asserting that “there oughta be a law” just to address people’s anger, are you?
What’s your stance on flag-burning?
As long as it’s her choice, it should also be mine, right? Is that too confusing for you?
No it isn’t. That’s the government forcing a citizen to do it by threat of force. And you’re a fucking lawyer? The door of your office should bear a warning placard.
And the money does NOT go to the child, it goes to the mother who can do as she pleases with it, without any accountability at all. There is absolutely NO compulsion whatsoever for her to spend the received money on the child.
I’ve got an ex that like gold a hell of a lot more than she likes buying clothes for my kid. And she knows I won’t stand for having my daughter busting the seams of her clothes, or running around in the winter with no coat, and she counts on my concern for my child in that regard as yet another de facto manner of extorting more funds to relieve her of responsibility for providing for the kid with what I already pay her, ostensibly to do so.
I have, in fact, absofuckingloutely no legal recourse. And my child has no legal right to the benefit of the funds I provide for her support.
It is NOT my daughter’s money. It is for her mother’s use, period.
I have the perfect solution!
Whenever a child proves not to be the offspring of the man claimed as the father, the putative father is off the hook—and actus will step up to the plate and pay the child support!
After all, what really matters is to keep the child cared for, and that will do it.
And destroying the non-paternal male’s financial well-being on behalf of this innocent child is likely to make the guy less resentful and angry?
Or is it okay for him to be angry, just as long as he’s destitute, too?
Quite. What are you saying, that you want to be able to force or stop abortions? Thats not how it works.
Some transfers have the concept of a Bona Fide Purchaser. But we’re not talking about buying cars here. Nor buying. But support for a child.
Not really.
You really think its extrinsic fraud to fail to get a paternity test done in support litigation?
Probably not. But it will keep the child fed. Get those DNA tests!
But it will keep the child fed.
And you continue to fail to make a rational argument for why this is a non-paternal male’s problem, absent some kind of election.
Actus is arguing such precisely because it’s irrational. That’s just what actus does.
Family law threads are the surest way to expose the Typing Telephone Pole’s staggeringly incompetent and mendacious outlook. actuse’s lack of experience certainly hasn’t stopped it from slathering other law all over family law, such as it it.
Doesn’t work that way, acthole. So wrong again, actard:
-Unless there’s a law permitting such, DNA testing typically does not exempt a male from “child support obligations”. Any male. Pick a male.
-Due process is not extended to men on the wrong end of a support attempt. By design.
-Support has nothing to do with care. NOTHING will keep the child fed, unless it’s the final social backstop of the State taking the kid away from mom, having already taken it away from dad.
-Not paying support is grounds for imprisonment, 200 years of anti-debtor’s-prison legal tradition and prior rights notwithstanding.
-Pursuant that, impoverishing dad behind bars is the bench’s ultimate tool for extracting cash from dad. To be destitute is to be jailed, that surely “feeding” the kid. You figure it out.
-Family law depends on equal parts bench despotism and vague prior law. Making it up from up there as you go is pretty much unappealable. A jury of your peers? Surely you cannot be serious.
-Killing dad is not in the child’s best interest. Occasionally live dads even persevere and figure out how to actually parent a kid virtually kidnapped by the State.
-Feminists are behind the family law status quo. Feminists challenge all efforts to reform the family law status quo. The money trail is a five lane highway.
In short, actdood knows nothing about family law. Maybe cuckholding works that way.
Had you read further in the Wiki, you’d have come hard up against the Nemo Dat Rule. I assume you don’t use Title Insurance, you just rely the UCC and on being a BFP?
Mr. Justice Actard has the parties suddenly reversed–extrinsic fraud is explicitly NOT something a victim fails to do.
Which says “Actard gets his legal knowledge from the Wikipedia”.
When do we get to the part of the thread where you start referring to me as “she”?
I looked into this once, and the cases are pretty clear on this. Its not a debtor-type situation. This isn’t an arms length business deal. This is the life of a child we’re talking about.
Not all transactions give you a BFP. But we’re not really talking about business transactions here anyway, are we?
Oh. I’ll never be in the courts, or family law system. Running into a 6gun type as part of my job? hell no.
Oh puh-leeze. Even you can’t posture your way into so much as appearing to back up 5% of that baldfaced lie. As always.
Why, thank you. Reason, principle, personal integrity, and accountability being your strong suits, right?
One of hte cases that i found was like a hawaii or CA case where the non-custodial parent was refusing to pay 50 bucks a month. 50 bucks. On the grounds of the 13th amendment. He was though, assessed costs, because of the frivolity of the appeal.
Oh yes. Its more the “gun” part of it the thing I’m <a href”http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2086555″>worried about</a>. Sometimes its not healthy to be the face of the law.
Show me a single child who has perished for lack of paternal payment. Just one, actus. And then tell me how jailing a father with no money resolves the problem. Children do not die for want in America unless their custodian is a complete fucking idiot.
In nearby Massachusetts, I know at least a dozen guys who have been jailed for CS contempt. And not for not paying, but for not paying enough.
Right. You’re not much for shame.
perished? I can’t find any. But that dude that shot his judge had refused to pay for her to have electricity.
I believe the theory is one of deterrence.
Because there aren’t any. So we’re not talking about the life of a child, are we?
And he murdered her. But we’re not talking about murder or electric bills either. And I don’t think the electric bill was especially at issue in the Mack case, given that he was ordered to pay his wife $10,849 per month. You can buy a lot of electricity for that kind of money.
Hey, that’s brilliant! Why don’t we deter everybody who doesn’t have enough money? And we can make them work for the money they owe and don’t have by building more prisons to hold the rest of the people who don’t have enough money.
I think you just solved poverty, actus. All we have to do is criminalize it. Wait ‘til the Africans hear about this! And The Children™ are sure to love it.
We’re talking about what kind of life they’ll have. That rich guy that shot that judge? his kid was without electricity.
They can join the army. Although, i hear that if they dont fulfill that obligation, they go to jail too.
That’s just awful, actus. How could anyone ever hope to survive on $2375 a month, let alone TWO people? I think I’m going to cry.
That might not give them enough money. And the Army might not have them. But the solution is just so simple!
Yes, that’s in the contract you agree to when you join. What did the contract the Macks signed say about electricity? And murder?
It said the house was worth a million bucks. I’d imagine the mortgage payments could easily be that much.
Yeah, but he also was ordered to pay the mortgage on top of the $10,849, and it’s not like the Judge would let it get foreclosed out from under her. He could just keep ordering and ordering.
Until she got murdered and he got shot and Mack went to jail. Then things were different.