Ex wants me to father a child that she will raise without me.

HRE wrote:

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Erm no. She can legally waive it. BUT the states can have HAVE overturned legal waivers and forced fathers to pay child support. Because states have ridiculously decided that "the best interest of the child" trumps any legal agreements or laws.

Having a kid grow up with insufficient support and his or her "best interests" neglected because his or her parents made some stupid agreement is ridiculous?

Was that a question or statement?

Probably more a question. I'd like to know how someone thinks a court ruling for the best interests of the child is ridiculous.

HRE wrote:

Probably more a question. I'd like to know how someone thinks a court ruling for the best interests of the child is ridiculous.

It can be ridiculous because courts often just side with the woman, in the name of the child, without consideration for anything else. I am a feminist, but I think the way some men are treated in family court is completely unfair.

Here's an example. John gives sperm to Jane and signs an agreement saying he will have not financial responsibilities. John goes on to start his own family and has three kids. Jane decides she wants more money and the state agrees that it is in the best interest of Jane's child to have more financial support so they go after John for child support. The money John is forced to pay ends up taking away from his own three children who's best interests were not even considered by the state.

I don't think it's ridiculous for the court to give Jane more money for her kid. What seems ridiculous to me is that Jane likely underestimated what raising the kid would cost both in terms of money and effort and John thought he could go ahead and create a child that he'd have no responsibility for. In the midst of all that, I'm glad to see someone looking out for the kid.

HRE wrote:

I don't think it's ridiculous for the court to give Jane more money for her kid. What seems ridiculous to me is that Jane likely underestimated what raising the kid would cost both in terms of money and effort and John thought he could go ahead and create a child that he'd have no responsibility for. In the midst of all that, I'm glad to see someone looking out for the kid.

Are saying that sperm donors should have to support the children conceived with their sperm? That would be truly ridiculous.

ntrght wrote:

HRE wrote:

I don't think it's ridiculous for the court to give Jane more money for her kid. What seems ridiculous to me is that Jane likely underestimated what raising the kid would cost both in terms of money and effort and John thought he could go ahead and create a child that he'd have no responsibility for. In the midst of all that, I'm glad to see someone looking out for the kid.

Are saying that sperm donors should have to support the children conceived with their sperm? That would be truly ridiculous.

It's been repeated here multiple times that there are special rules regulating this situation. You may think those rules are too restrictive, or not restrictive enough, etc. However that is nt the situation which the O.P. was positing nor the situation you are replying to.

I honestly think men often get a raw deal in family court a lot of the time, however I don't think expecting a father to support his child is an outrage. (If you want to get outraged, look at the times courts have ordered men to support kids that are not theirs, often after fraud by the other person).

ntrght wrote:

HRE wrote:

I don't think it's ridiculous for the court to give Jane more money for her kid. What seems ridiculous to me is that Jane likely underestimated what raising the kid would cost both in terms of money and effort and John thought he could go ahead and create a child that he'd have no responsibility for. In the midst of all that, I'm glad to see someone looking out for the kid.

Are saying that sperm donors should have to support the children conceived with their sperm? That would be truly ridiculous.

I suppose I am. The kid IS their kid. Now, if you've got a situation where the donor went to a clinic and the mother doesn't know who the father is that's different. But yes, if you conceive a kid I think you should be responsible for the kid and if you don't want that responsibility don't conceive the kid.

Maybe she can find somebody here. http://modamily.com

HRE wrote:

Probably more a question. I'd like to know how someone thinks a court ruling for the best interests of the child is ridiculous.

Stop and think a for a minute.

As soon as courts are involved, even peripherally, in a child's life.. Well, it's not a good situation for the kid.

Just keep putting it in her butt, all the fun w/o any worries of impending responsibility.

True. But if a court is at all involved in a kid's life it was not a good situation for the kid before the court got involved.

That's an interesting ruling. Thanks for posting the update.

I do think that some laws around sperm donors and presumptive parenthood are due for some rethinking. In particular, a married gay couple (which is not the case here) would both presumably be the biological parents of any child born of their union, if they were treated the same way as married couples are traditionally treated.

I personally think anybody who would rely on such a ruling as precedent is taking a huge risk. One that I personally would not take and that I would advise anybody else not to take.

Why would anyone even consider what the OP is asking? If it is to get laid then spend the $500 and get a really hot prostitute. It will be a lot cheaper in the long run. Both emotionally and financially.

So... what happened?

I appreciate the update on the Kansas case...common sense wins again.

mmmmk wrote:

What the What wrote:

As nature ordained? That's pretty funny.

What nature ordained is that children would be raised within a group of 30 - 150 individuals, more than likely having no idea who his/her father was, scrabbling a living by hunting and gathering and more than likely getting devoured by a hyena before the age of 6.

Ummm, never heard of Natural Law Theory? According to Natural Law Theory, which is usually credited to the ancient Greeks so please don't try to blame some traditional tribe if you find it objectionable, sex in humans has a procreative and unitive function ( babies and bonding if you prefer). A "drive-by" pregnancy such as the OP has introduced is procreative but lacks unity. Has it ever dawned on you why breaking up is often the most difficult thing many people experience? Do you think it wise to have single-parents raise kids?

Ummm...ever heard of each situation is different?

In SOME situations helping a woman have a child without you planning on being involved in the rearing of that child is a bad idea.

In SOME situations helping a woman have a child without you planning on being involved in the rearing of that child is NOT a bad idea.

I know, just a bit too complex for your brain, huh?

Oh, but I do like your moronic language. Very cute.