| Skyy God |
11-09-2011 02:24 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by gochiefs_va
(Post 8095020)
We're not even at the 'best interests of the child' phase yet. That's the custody portion of the case.
This is about the step prior to that. There are two sets of laws governing standing to pursue these actions, and they currently only use one set of them (which are judge made not legislature based) *If they had used the other set i would have won*.
This is about the inequality of laws like these that only men have to abide.
And someone has to go first, else it will never change. I have no delusions of grandeur...shit I'm a Chiefs Fan...but it isnt right that these laws are used to strip fathers (and fathers only), women dont have to endure "standing" when they ask for a DNA test on men (ask Justin Beiber)..and if no one ever fights, it will never change.
|
Yeah, I'd go with the lawyer's interpretation of the law as opposed to your uninformed perspective. Amno's referring to the overriding goal of parentage through the legal system, which is to support the child regardless of the circumstances.
I'll add to his list of crazy scenarios. You can be in a coma and raped by a nurse, and the courts will still find you liable for child support.
You f***ed a married woman and may have fathered a child. You're no saint and you have no rights under the law. If you want to have an appellate court overturn the law (and spend 5 figures in legal bills in the process), by all means, knock yourself out. Strike a blow for strangely virtuous cuckholding assholes everywhere!
But if I were your attorney, I'd advise you to save your money. I tend to doubt UT courts are likely to strike a blow for adulterer's rights. |
