Child support after blow job?

Kipling is right. The Court's focus is on the child's best interest, and expenses, not the conduct of the woman involved.

[quote=ninasastri;1204352]Oh , is it true that there are cases where its prooven that the supposed father is not the father (via DNA) and he STILL needs to pay child support? I heard taht to be true too? Is it?

In some states if the child was born during the marriage its presumed by law to be the husbands. If its later found out that the child is not biologically the husbands he may still be ordered to pay child support after a divorce based upon that law.

[QUOTE=Leta;1204774]

Oh , is it true that there are cases where its prooven that the supposed father is not the father (via DNA) and he STILL needs to pay child support? I heard taht to be true too? Is it?

In some states if the child was born during the marriage its presumed by law to be the husbands. If its later found out that the child is not biologically the husbands he may still be ordered to pay child support after a divorce based upon that law. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Wow. But it can`t happen to single guys and single pregnant ladies? Still i find it interesting. Poor hubby is not only cuckolded but also has to pay for not his child. Bummer.

Kipling is right. The Court's focus is on the child's best interest, and expenses, not the conduct of the woman involved. Originally Posted by Vercengetorix

Understood. But - given the woman`s conduct which is highly unethical and in my opinion is considered psychological rape - would you want a child to be rised by a lunatic? I wouldn`t

Wow. But it can`t happen to single guys and single pregnant ladies? Still i find it interesting. Poor hubby is not only cuckolded but also has to pay for not his child. Bummer. Originally Posted by ninasastri

First of all, the husband may not be aware. He may think the child is his, even though it is not. In which case, he has "consented" to paternity b/c he didn't know enough to challenge it. And, therefore the issue was "adjudicated."

Second, in the US, for many years paternity was determined by the mother at the time of birth. Only she could name who the father was b/c she "knew" who she slept with to conceive. That presupposed a "normal" sexual relationship.

More promiscuous women often times had no clue, and left the father's name blank. IMHO, that did a big disservice to the child, but the mother often times didn't want to go through what, in many cases, was a BIG hassle in order to name the father (the true father being already married or otherwise "attached").

. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Hi Charles, Can`t quote you here, but thanks a lot for your elaborated response on the child support money even if DNA does not match, Technically it makes sense to me. Thanks a lot. You have quite the insight on many legal matters that is really something i value a lot. Thanks !

More promiscuous women often times had no clue, and left the father's name blank. IMHO, that did a big disservice to the child, but the mother often times didn't want to go through what, in many cases, was a BIG hassle in order to name the father (the true father being already married or otherwise "attached"). Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Yes i understand that too. Oh i would not be so protective of a married guy having sex with me and knowing i am not on birth control and still not using condoms. Or else....;-) (lol). Its unfortunately most of the times the women get to pay the larger bills :-)

Yes i understand that too. Oh i would not be so protective of a married guy having sex with me and knowing i am not on birth control and still not using condoms. Or else....;-) (lol). Its unfortunately most of the times the women get to pay the larger bills :-) Originally Posted by ninasastri

Pre-widespread use of the pill (if I remember, about 1966 or so), widespread use of other birth control measures was sometimes difficult. I grew up in a not-so-small town in a conservative midwestern state. I still remember the story of one of my friends who went into the local sodashop/pharmacy, went to the cashier and in a whisper asked where he could find the "condoms."

The cashier yelled clear across the store, "Hey Joe, where do we keep the rubbers?"

Needless to say, the friend didn't stick around to make a purchase. Back in those days, they were kept behind the pharmacy counter, so you had to specifically ask for them like they were a controlled substance.

So, if you avoided the embarrassment of purchasing a condom, you wound up having sex bareback and having kids.

I was discussing this with a client/friend of mine yesterday, that in the USA even if your semen gets stolen after a BJ and the woman impregnates herself voluntarily without the males knowledge, you have to pay custody for a child, because the interests of the child are more important then the interests of the betrayed father

Is this true? Originally Posted by ninasastri

As other have said, the answer is yes, and it is worse than that. In the past, before DNA testing, all a woman had to do was name the man, and he had to pay child support. This nonsense where by the government decided it had a right to take money from a person who was essentially a sperm donor has only been going on since the 80s though. To me, this law, as much as any other, has been part of the downfall in societal morality. This stupid law makes paternalism optional in child rearing, and every study shows how important fathers are to a child's development.

Understood. But - given the woman`s conduct which is highly unethical and in my opinion is considered psychological rape - would you want a child to be rised by a lunatic? I wouldn`t Originally Posted by ninasastri

Exactly. That is the part where the court falls on its face. If the courts really cared about what was best for the child, they wouldn't leave said child in the hands of a calculating, manipulative lying bitch. Men have no say on whether a child is born, little say on how the child is raised, and the court could give a rat's ass about how men feel after being lied to. The courts look at men as sperm donors and ATMs. Given that women have the choice about whether to have an abortion or not, IMO men, who father children out of wedlock, should have the choice on whether or not they want to support a child. This law cheapens marriage.

This past weekend, one of my sugar babies went to a casino and blew a lot of money and came crying to me for more. I said that I wasn't going to give her much given what she did, but she then told me, "Don't worry, baby! That wasn't your money. It was my child support."

Can you imagine being the father in that situation? How hard are you going to work to get ahead when the state steals 25% or more of your paycheck to support a woman who pulls a stunt like this? The economic effect is devastating, and it gives incentive to men not to work. And believe it or not, my SB is actually one of the more honorable women I know. Others are even worse.

I think it also shows you how hypocritical our society is with regards to prostitution. One of the lines used with this law is, "If you want to play, you have to be ready to pay." But OTOH, our same society says it is illegal to pay for sex.

When you watch television, look at what types of shows you see lawyers advertise on: Oprah, Maury, soap operas ETC. You will never see a lawyer advertise during a football game. Lawyers are clearly aiming for a female audience. Basically, our entire civil legal system is designed for ways for women to take money from men.

Men aren't angels. They lie, exaggerate, rape, cheat ETC. The difference is the law and society break men's balls when they do act badly.

For me, the best thing about the hobby is that you leave all that behind. It is just a man and a woman helping each other out, and the government is nowhere to be seen. That is one reason I don't want the hobby to ever be legal. The one thing the government would do for sure is to come in and screw it up.

Umm whatever women would do such a thing is a psychopath!!! WOW. I didn't read through the entire thread but I just wanted to say that. Responsible men excuse themselves to the restroom and remove the condom so she wouldn't have access, exactly why its best to wear a helmet!!...Sheesh

[quote=ninasastri;1204892]

. Poor hubby is not only cuckolded but also has to pay for not his child. Bummer. Originally Posted by Leta

Ok this should not be funny but nina you're cracking me up!

Back on point, It is something that happens.

I agree with Woody...if they changed the laws these women would be making damn sure they did not get preggy. That includes poor women on welfare.

That might sound harsh but the truth is harsh at times.

Here's one for you.

Two lesbians want a child.
They ask a gay friend to donate sperm.
He does. Later a child is born but the women go their separate ways and one of them keeps the child.
She takes the gay man to court for child support.
The judge rules that the gay man is required to pay.

This really happened. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

All these scenarios happen because of the type of law that governs child custody and fertility. They are based on code rather than case law. To the courts if your sperm happens to find it's way into the body of a women and conception takes place. If it can be proven that conception did in fact occur by your "Guys" your are legally responsible.

Umm whatever women would do such a thing is a psychopath!!! Originally Posted by Jamie1234

Correction: a rich psychopath.

Here's one for you.

Two lesbians want a child.
They ask a gay friend to donate sperm.
He does. Later a child is born but the women go their separate ways and one of them keeps the child.
She takes the gay man to court for child support.
The judge rules that the gay man is required to pay.

This really happened. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Completely insane/unaccountable behavior. Seems to be rampant right about now!!
Step up, own your responsibilities and suck it up!
Seriously, how else do people live??

In Memorium for Lucy's Bar for Retired Surfers, Nola.

he was worried that a woman might just pinch a needle in it. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I have this same fear..but with guys...Which is why I will only use MY condoms, if some bloke shows up with his own, too bad.

Besides, I have quite a variety anyways