News My fathers' rights case - Page 3

rageeumr · 11-09-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs_va

you dont want to know...it's cost me a fortune, and will continue to.

And that doesnt count the travel costs associated with flying to Utah every other month for hearings

Well, man, you'll get nothing but respect from me. If someone tried to take either of my kids away from me I'd fight with everything I have. I commend you for doing the same.

Inspector · 11-09-2011, 01:31 PM

It was my understanding that fathers don't really have rights.

Well, except to pay out some dough. You can almost always get that right.

**Dave Lane** · 11-09-2011, 01:32 PM

I'm really struggling to know why you'd like to take on 20 years of paying child support. Marry the woman let the husband pay you child support for your own kid.

Win?

Nightfyre · 11-09-2011, 01:32 PM

Maybe he wants to do the responsible thing and be a part of his childs life? Maybe you're the insane one, Brock.

**Predarat** · 11-09-2011, 01:35 PM

That bitch is a slore.

Nightfyre · 11-09-2011, 01:35 PM

Okay, given that she has testified that it is your child, do you not receive any parental rights?

Window Licking Whiner · 11-09-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Okay, given that she has testified that it is your child, do you not receive any parental rights?

None...because the laws say that the only way I can petition for custody and visititation is with DNA test results that show a 99.9% result of it being my kid...and the only way to get a DNA test is by having standing to ask for one...which their double laws wont allow me to.

Sofa King · 11-09-2011, 01:36 PM

Amnorix · 11-09-2011, 01:41 PM

To be blunt, the LAW, which is based on ancient precepts long pre-dating such things as DNA (at least in the field of family law) does not give a goddamn about your "rights" as the father. It cares about one thing and one thing only -- "the best interests of the child."

Because it is in the best interests of the child, there is usually an automatic and conclusive presumption that the husband of a woman giving birth IS THE FATHER.

Your wife gave birth even though you're both Swedish and the kid is clearly biracial? The law doesn't care. Oh, you had a vasectomy too? The law doesn't care. Wait, your penis was actually removed in a horrific wood-chipper incident 8 years ago and the kid is now 2? The law doesn't care.

That law is changing, but VERY slowly. Not sure what the law is in your jurisdiction, but in some places, all the testimony in the world won't work to change it.

Window Licking Whiner · 11-09-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

To be blunt, the LAW, which is based on ancient precepts long pre-dating such things as DNA (at least in the field of family law) does not give a goddamn about your "rights" as the father. It cares about one thing and one thing only -- "the best interests of the child."

Because it is in the best interests of the child, there is usually an automatic and conclusive presumption that the husband of a woman giving birth IS THE FATHER.

Your wife gave birth even though you're both Swedish and the kid is clearly biracial? The law doesn't care. Oh, you had a vasectomy too? The law doesn't care. Wait, your penis was actually removed in a horrific wood-chipper incident 8 years ago and the kid is now 2? The law doesn't care.

That law is changing, but VERY slowly. Not sure what the law is in your jurisdiction, but in some places, all the testimony in the world won't work to change it.

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.

Skyy God · 11-09-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs_va

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.

**Ming the Merciless** · 11-09-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pittsie

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.

This is exactly why he is fighting....

Your post is so ridiculously stupid....

Do you not see that this is one of the exact reasons he is fighting the case?

Brock · 11-09-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

This is exactly why he is fighting....

Your post is so ridiculously stupid....

Do you not see that this is one of the exact reasons he is fighting the case?

He isn't liable for child support, unless I've missed something.

Skyy God · 11-09-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

This is exactly why he is fighting....

Your post is so ridiculously stupid....

Do you not see that this is one of the exact reasons he is fighting the case?

Don Quixote, categorically, is going to lose. Moreover, it's entirely unclear that having the kid flown across the country periodically to mom's HS sweetheart is the best way to ensure he's not completely f'd in the head.

**DeezNutz** · 11-09-2011, 02:35 PM

You invited drama into your life with a married woman with two children. No surprise that more, and exponentially more serious, drama is following.

11-09-2011, 01:31 PM	#2
Inspector MVP Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: K.C. Casino cash: $9914975	It was my understanding that fathers don't really have rights. Well, except to pay out some dough. You can almost always get that right. __________________ As always, this is IMO.
Posts: 7,917

11-09-2011, 01:32 PM	#3
Dave Lane Space Cadet and Aczabel Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Kanab, UT, USA Casino cash: $9333275 VARSITY	I'm really struggling to know why you'd like to take on 20 years of paying child support. Marry the woman let the husband pay you child support for your own kid. Win? __________________ Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about RICO, espionage, sedition, impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.
Posts: 40,584

11-09-2011, 01:32 PM	#4
Nightfyre MVP Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Helena, MT Casino cash: $1298849	Maybe he wants to do the responsible thing and be a part of his childs life? Maybe you're the insane one, Brock.
Posts: 18,647

11-09-2011, 01:35 PM	#5
Predarat Run Chiefs fans, run!! Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Nashville, TN Casino cash: $9963863	That bitch is a slore.
Posts: 10,776

11-09-2011, 01:35 PM	#6
Nightfyre MVP Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Helena, MT Casino cash: $1298849	Okay, given that she has testified that it is your child, do you not receive any parental rights?
Posts: 18,647

11-09-2011, 01:36 PM	#8
Sofa King Bump it Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: South Dakota Casino cash: $-460000 VARSITY
Posts: 23,467

11-09-2011, 01:41 PM	#9
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	To be blunt, the LAW, which is based on ancient precepts long pre-dating such things as DNA (at least in the field of family law) does not give a goddamn about your "rights" as the father. It cares about one thing and one thing only -- "the best interests of the child." Because it is in the best interests of the child, there is usually an automatic and conclusive presumption that the husband of a woman giving birth IS THE FATHER. Your wife gave birth even though you're both Swedish and the kid is clearly biracial? The law doesn't care. Oh, you had a vasectomy too? The law doesn't care. Wait, your penis was actually removed in a horrific wood-chipper incident 8 years ago and the kid is now 2? The law doesn't care. That law is changing, but VERY slowly. Not sure what the law is in your jurisdiction, but in some places, all the testimony in the world won't work to change it. __________________ "I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 43,125