This unbelievable... words fail me...

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

that was sex? I guess that depends on the definition of 'is'....

Well it was oral sex.

I thought according to one of your ex presidents oral wasen't defined as sex

Well the woman could have impregnated another woman the guy didn't have sex with, so sex of any kind with the mother would hardly be a requirement under these circumstances.

[EBSB52 0]

One word...

V - A - S - E - C - T - O - M - Y

[Tink1717 2]

Yet another reason I'm SO glad that women are not interested in me.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[lummy 4]

WAIT!!! You mean to tell me my Mom was wrong and you CAN'T get pregnant from oral sex????

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[happythoughts 0]

What if she was a member of a lesbian group that needed a sperm donor without sex with a man?

It would be 10 women pregnant by him.

It would be time to just leave the country.

With DNA research going the way it is, women will be able to use DNA from hair to have kids. Guys will have to lock up their combs and vacuum daily.

Next someone will dig up Elvis for his hair, have kids and want part of the estate.

Eventually, people will have to get a signed consent form of some time before sex. Maybe a contract. Just to use terms that people are familiar with... we could call it a marriage license.

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

I think all the guys in this thread will agree with me that she should have swallowed, and from now on I'm going to make that a condition of unloading in anyone's mouth.

You can't be too carefull.

I'm just curious...how do you plan on making sure that "she" has swallowed?

And do you plan on telling her that she has to swallow so that you could avoid being a father without your knowledge?

I personally think that the woman is a weirdo...Anyone who purposefully knocks themself up and then wants child support should be in the nut house...

~R+R...People will astound you everyday...Stupidity is rampant......

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[freethefly 6]

***I'm just curious...how do you plan on making sure that "she" has swallowed?

Shove it to the back of her throat, keep it in untill she turns blue followed by a beer shotgunned

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

Guess you have to ask for it back or make sure they swallow.

I see a snowball in your future.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I can't wait until Tom Leykis gets hold of this one!!!

I was listening to Tom Leykis tonight just to hear his opinion on this one. They somehow managed to get the lawyer on the phone. The guy had no idea what he was in for when they started taking calls.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>She performs oral, uses the sperm to get pregnant but the guy has to pay child support?

I think it's stupid too. But if the same man had sex with the same woman, and the woman claimed to be using 100% effective birth control - would you still say that it's a load of crap?

The difference is that she had to take action to impregnate herself.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[cameramonkey 0]

I'd appeal. Its a "gift" and now its hers (according to her). it was given to her in a way that she cant possibly get preggo...

SOOO..... Doesnt that mean that by the time she... um... USED the sperm for its original purpose, it was no longer his? that means she should pay her own child support!


Thats kinda like me abandoning a dead car on your property with the assumption that you are going to dispose of it. Then after you have the engine rebuilt you go out and run over a kid... then sue ME because it WAS (not IS) my car.

Its also right up there with having unprotected sex with a woman that claimed to have had a hysterectomy sue you when she gets pregnant...

Two wrongs don't make a right, however three lefts DO!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Its also right up there with having unprotected sex with a woman that claimed to have had a hysterectomy sue you when she gets pregnant...

No matter what the deception, it would certainly still be "legally" binding. He is paying $800 a month for 18 years is over $170,000. Crime does pay.

No one has answered an earlier question. What if the deception involved sharing it with other women interested in children? Maybe then he has 6 kids. And the court would say...?

[Dougiefresh 0]

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that everyone in this case is missing the point.

He took his dick out, and let her stimulate him to orgasm. That's basically all we really know about the case. What actually happened in the room between these two people is none of our business, nor should it be.

That being said, a DOCTOR should know the effect that one tiny little sperm cell can have on a fertile female. It doesn't matter what he's a doctor OF, he's got enough education to know that if you jizz, you've taken responsibility for that act, no matter what happens to the semen once it leaves your body.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. --Douglas Adams

[Ron 10]

Quote

He took his dick out, and let her stimulate him to orgasm. That's basically all we really know about the case.

She admitted to giving oral and taking it out and using it to get pregnant.

Quote

That being said, a DOCTOR should know the effect that one tiny little sperm cell can have on a fertile female. It doesn't matter what he's a doctor OF, he's got enough education to know that if you jizz, you've taken responsibility for that act, no matter what happens to the semen once it leaves your body.

If dump load in a girls mouth...I have reasonable knowledge that she will not get pregnant. If I dump a load in a girls ass I also know she is not going to get pregnant.

If I have vaginal intercourse even WITH protection I am taking a risk...But oral and anal I am not.

She took a sex act that had NO chance of pregnancy and then later used other methods to get pregnant.

He should not owe child support.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

If I have vaginal intercourse even WITH protection I am taking a risk...But oral and anal I am not.

Apparently that's not the case anymore. Some people are just fucking nuts.

Quote

He should not owe child support.

I couldn't agree more. Perhaps one of our legal eagles could research the case and explain to us how the judge came to his ruling as that's the most disturbing piece of this article.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I was professionally involved in a case here in the UK which could be seen as a prior authority (albeit cross jurisdictional so actually has no effect).

I'll reiterate the bits that made the press as the matter was quite high profile.

Childless couple – woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer. They go through early stages of IVF – her embryos are fertilized with his sperm and frozen. She then has cancer treatment rendering her infertile. The couple then breaks up for unrelated reasons.

She wants to use the fertilized embryos (now her last chance to conceive with her own embryos) to complete the IVF treatment. He's not happy that little spawns of him and the ex. will be running round demanding maintenance. He takes out an injunction against her use of them. They went to court.

Whilst the trial turned on the precise provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, it was clear that in order for implantation to take place, both parties must consent. It cannot be left to one party alone to decide on the positive use of the others genetic material.

Whilst this could be distinguished from the present case by way of the legislative framework in which the case rested, I think the two scenarios could be seen as highly analogous. Both involve the use of the other's DNA without their consent.

Think if this present case had come before the court before she made use of the sperm. The sperm is sat frozen in a cup in her kitchen and an injunction lands on the judges bench seeking a court order preventing the woman from inseminating herself. What judge in his right mind would allow her to do that without the man's consent? It's his DNA - it doesn't cease to be his DNA once it's left his body.

I think this is an entirely bizarre state of affairs and a prime example of the disarray that is common to both our jurisdictions with regards to paternity and fertilisation legislation. It's high time things were done about these problems on both sides of the pond. Men deserve rights too.

As for the case I was involved with... long after I dealt with it, the case went on up to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the woman's claims, which were again rejected by the House of Lords in only November of last year. She cannot use his DNA without his consent. I believe that should have been the outcome here. It's a pity it wasn't.

[cameramonkey 0]

I also get the strange feeling that this guy representing himself is probably not helping matters. I doubt he is a lawyer...

Can anyone else think of a profession that you NEED to have one of your own to protect yourself from the other guy's? I am at a loss. The only times I can think of (like having your own auto mechanic) is when the other side is trying to defraud you.

If it werent for lawyers, we wouldnt need lawyers!

You know what you call a bus full of lawyers going over a cliff with one empty seat? a waste of space!

You know what you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!

Two wrongs don't make a right, however three lefts DO!

[Ron 10]

I have heard of a csae like the one you were on....I *Think* it was a case in the US however.

The outcome was the same.

The problem is after the fact. Once the woman has already become pregnant you can't force an abortion, and in this case she had already given birth.

The only real problem I have is that the courts granted her request for child support?!?!?

If I were the judge in this case I would have the guys total child support be for him to give her a bottle of wouthwash and maybe a new toothbrush.

That would be to handle the sperm in a manner that he intended it to be used.

But liberals will scream, "Think about the child!!!"

Even this report had it...

Quote

"There's a 5-year-old child here," Mirabelli said. "Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth."

How about the simple fact that his Mom is a nutbag?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The problem is after the fact. Once the woman has already become pregnant you can't force an abortion, and in this case she had already given birth.

The only real problem I have is that the courts granted her request for child support?!?!?

Exactly - I simply don't agree that the courts should be set up to compound the womans actions like that.

Sure, I understand the child is always the first consideration and the court probably sat there thinking - "well, we know this guy is the biological father, even if it is by hook and by crook. Somebody's gotta pay for the kid, it might as well be him".

I simply don't agree with this stance. It's happening here too in other ways. Contact is a classic example. The legislation allows courts to punish the woman who withholds contact. They never do. If a man withholds maintenance he gets stuck in the clink.

In my view - where contact is sought and warranted, if contact is withheld I see no issues with withholding maintenance. Sort of a, “you want money - you let me see my son” scenario. This simply never happens. Of course the child needs to be protected from hardship – but when withheld contact is the cause of the problem it should be the mother at fault and not the father.

The courts are so caught up in looking after the kid's welfare (as of course they ought to be) that they forget about the fathers’ rights. (Note it’s almost always the father in this situation, although there is nothing technically preventing it from being the mother). There has to be balance.

IMO the courts on both sides of the pond have lost sight of the fathers’ rights. He's seen as a third class citizen - behind both the kid and the mother. I think he should be a second class citizen - behind the kid, EQUAL with the mother. At the moment that’s just not happening.

I think this case is just yet another example.

[only_at_120 0]

"The courts are so caught up in looking after the kid's welfare (as of course they ought to be) that they forget about the fathers’ rights.:

Yes but if the courts were really looking out for the childs welfare, then what is the child doing with the "crazy lady". That is totally sick, and she but lots of forethought into what she was doing to this man who obviously didn't want a child, or for that matter sex with the women. That tells me he had oral sex for that reason. Or just needed a BJ. The man should not have to pay child support! And the lady should have to go for mental eval.
What the hell ever happened to morals, honesty, and self respect?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The only real problem I have is that the courts granted her request for child support?!?!?

This is one of those things that sucks (no pun intended) but is the way the law is set up in most places.

Here in Cali, the law is pretty clear - if you father a child, you'll support it. That's really the key inquiry - is the child yours. If not, you don't support it. You can take DNA tests to prove you aren't, but that wouldn't have helped this guy.

This is a situation where two things have occurred: 1) the lawmakers probably didn't ask this question; and 2) lawmakers wouldn't care - you make it, you pay.

This thoroughly sucks, but in most states the laws would support it.

I DO, however, believe that the emotional distress claim is valid.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[cbain 0]

Quote

Quote

The only real problem I have is that the courts granted her request for child support?!?!?

This is one of those things that sucks (no pun intended) but is the way the law is set up in most places.

Here in Cali, the law is pretty clear - if you father a child, you'll support it. That's really the key inquiry - is the child yours. If not, you don't support it. You can take DNA tests to prove you aren't, but that wouldn't have helped this guy.

This is a situation where two things have occurred: 1) the lawmakers probably didn't ask this question; and 2) lawmakers wouldn't care - you make it, you pay.

This thoroughly sucks, but in most states the laws would support it.

I DO, however, believe that the emotional distress claim is valid.

Also, found out that they can wait until the child is the day before it's 18th b-day and then file for back support all the way up to when it was born, even if the father never knew about the child. But that's the way the laws are set up. The father (in most cases) has no rights. If the father doesn't pay, he can end up in jail but see what happens when the father tries to find out what the mother is spending the money on. The father always ends up being the "bad guy." And it's getting worse in most states.

Christina

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

found out that they can wait until the child is the day before it's 18th b-day and then file for back support all the way up to when it was born, even if the father never knew about the child.

Not in California, at least. First, it can only be retroactive to the date of the filing of the motion for support. Governmental agencies can go back one year from the date of filing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Here in Cali, the law is pretty clear - if you father a child, you'll support it.

OK, so if I donate sperm and it gets used to create a child...I have to pay child support?

Quote

I DO, however, believe that the emotional distress claim is valid.

My rulling would be that the emotional stress would be paid monthly and always equal the amount of child support due.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

My rulling would be that the emotional stress would be paid monthly and always equal the amount of child support due.

I like it - that's the kind of ruling Denning would have come out with (very influential "militant" judge we had over here who died a couple of years back).