[LMB] OT: Men's responsibilities

Kiri Aradia Morgan tiamat at tsoft.com
Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:17:52 -0800 (PST)

On 31 Jan 2002, Mark Atwood wrote:

> Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat at tsoft.com> writes:
> > On 31 Jan 2002, Mark Atwood wrote:
> > > 
> > > How it this different from a Family Court judge picking a random 7yo
> > > out of the state foster care system, picking a random man out of the
> > > phone book, and then informing the man that he was now on hook for
> > > child support for this kid, and the full weight of the state and
> > > federal government was behind extracting the money from him?
> > 
> > This man has, presumably, been a good and willing father to this child for
> > what, 6-7 years?  What caused him to doubt that she was his?  We need to
> > know more of the facts.
> ... 
> > Still, it seems DAMN cold to me that you could stop loving and wanting to
> > take care of a person that you have had a close relationship with for more
> > than five years because of something that her mother did, no matter how it
> > might make you feel about her mother.
> ICBW, but ISTR that when I had heard of this case before, the man's
> sole involvment was (he thought) "sperm doner" and "wallet".  The
> mother turned up a few months pregnant a fewer months after they broke
> up, and filed for child support from him.

Oh.  That is different.  Very different.  You know how I feel about women
who just file instead of going to the guy and talking to him.  If a guy 
is not involved in the decision to give birth, I don't think he should
be liable anyway.  <G>

> What kicked this court case off, was that he had gotten a better job,
> so she was filing for more money, and then co-incidentally he learned
> the kid's blood type, and said "wait a minute"...
> But of course, as I said, ICBW. But if I'm not, and all this guy has
> been to this woman was "wallet", and not even "sperm doner",

When a child has been depending on someone for 5 years, it's the
nature of the CHILD's relationship with the guy, not the woman's, that's
the problem.  One of the reasons women push for unjust "genetic" laws is
that some men punish children that they presumably have had relationships
with for a while for the woman's misbehavior.  Just a point of order.

If he's had visitation, and all kinds of other involvement with the kid,
it would be cold to cut her off, but if he's just an unseen source of an
unseen check that turns into unseen money that turns into stuff for the
kid, the kid won't notice or care where the unseen money is coming from as
long as she still gets her stuff, and it's her mother's job to come up
with an alternative source.

> then it's not "damn cold" at all to cut her off.

Cut who off?  The woman, or the child?  He doesn't owe the woman anything.

If he's nothing to the child, and he only agreed to support this child
because he was ordered to do so by the court, and the grounds on which he
was ordered to do so by the court are invalid, then yes, he should no
longer have to pay.

If he's acted as a father to her... that's far more complex.

The facts are all-important.  (Hm, maybe I should go to law school after
all.  LOL.  No, I have little patience for boredom, and it would only
make me nastier when p*ssed.)


Kiri Aradia Morgan                                  93!  Thou Art God
tiamat at tsoft.com

"If time passes, everything turns into beauty
If the rains stop, tears clean the scars of memory away
Everything starts wearing fresh colors
Every sound begins playing a heartfelt melody
Jealousy embellishes a page of the epic
Desire is embraced in a dream..."              -- X-JAPAN