In Something That Make Your Soul Burn Slow News: Man Ordered To Pay child Support For Her Baby...
Options
Comments
-
Word sonYea Yea they could've / should've got divorced. Does that change that it ain't his kid ? Stop being ridiculous. The law is ? up - end... of.... story.
How the hell fems and they fembots manage to make this the husbands fault is beyond me. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »A few years ago I went back to school. One of my classmates I was cool with, mother was a judge. He told me in some places your Common-Law wife can get child support out of you for a kid thats not even yours....Meaning: If u live with a ? and HER kid long enough, if u decide to leave the relationship, she can turn around and have the court make u pay support for her kid....How is this allowed to happen???
Daaaaamn that's some scary ? , there's so many fine ass baby mamas out there (most women over 26). I'll keep this in mind if I ever shack up with a chick who has a kid, but these policies are going to make a lot of men avoid marriage and serious relationships if these lawmakers and judges keep ? things up.
These policies are gonna lead to alot of situations where as Chris Rock said "He shouldnt of killed her........but I understand" -
They probably didn't divorce because it would've been "expensive" or complicating. You might as well do it because it gets worse when you stay.
-
KingFreeman wrote: »Couldn't be me. No news report. Just 2 bodies and an orphan.
? nailed it lol -
I didn't get divorced because I didn't have the money is what people always say. divorce is expensive when u fighting each other. if y'all not fighting over homes and ? its really not that expensive. you can do it yourself for a few hundred. this ? been split like 16 years. in 16 years he couldn't go to the chick and say yo I got this 500 and imma go down to the courthouse file these papers and u don't have to do ? . I mean literally she didn't have to do ? . it would have been uncontested and the judge would have signed off. its his fault he is in this position.
-
took my parents a long as time to divorce.
probably like 16 or so years. I think they just didn't hate each other enough. -
numbaz...80's baby wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »A few years ago I went back to school. One of my classmates I was cool with, mother was a judge. He told me in some places your Common-Law wife can get child support out of you for a kid thats not even yours....Meaning: If u live with a ? and HER kid long enough, if u decide to leave the relationship, she can turn around and have the court make u pay support for her kid....How is this allowed to happen???
If it the same reasoning as here:
If you stay with the mother and child long enough to be classified as 'common-law' you have assumed responsibility of fatherhood over her children(now your 'step children'). However if her ex is paying child support already, you do not have to pay as the natural father is assumed to be an active role, physically or monetarily, in the child's life.
Not even worth the risk.
What if he dies or gets locked up?
Guess who's gonna have to pay then?
So what's the explanation for this fuckery? Does the judicial system feel that woman can't handle their responsibilities as an adult? I don't see any other reason why a child is forced on someone.
Don't try to find logic in this, because there isn't any.
Basically, the game is rigged.......and not in men's favor.
The only way to win is if you don't play. -
Yea Yea they could've / should've got divorced. Does that change that it ain't his kid ? Stop being ridiculous. The law is ? up - end... of.... story.
You can't just gloss over being separated for 16 years and not getting divorced. Yes, the the law is ? up but that 16 years is not just some small detail in this
Regardless of whether or not he followed through with a divorce, it doesn't make sense to require that man to pay for a child that clearly isn't his. -
Yea Yea they could've / should've got divorced. Does that change that it ain't his kid ? Stop being ridiculous. The law is ? up - end... of.... story.
You can't just gloss over being separated for 16 years and not getting divorced. Yes, the the law is ? up but that 16 years is not just some small detail in this
Regardless of whether or not he followed through with a divorce, it doesn't make sense to require that man to pay for a child that clearly isn't his.
Never said it did make sense...but don't leave yourself open to some ? for 16 years and then complain when ? happens. ? if he had died legally because she's still his wife she would've been given all his ? ....you can't play games with your future like that and for 16 years this dude did. He got a raw deal because of a ? up law but I can't have but so much sympathy for somebody who ain't proactive against protecting themselves from ?
