dalyricalbandit
Moderator
where the hell the real father at?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shuffington;9114878 said:divorce aint cheap.
but thats just a bull shyt law to begin with
KingFreeman;9113566 said:lethal5;9112779 said: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 bitch 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???
![]()
lethal5;9112779 said: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 bitch 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???
BiblicalAtheist ;9113378 said:lethal5;9112779 said: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 bitch 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.
deadeye;9115813 said:BiblicalAtheist ;9113378 said:lethal5;9112779 said: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 bitch 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?
7figz;9115748 said:Yea Yea they could've / should've got divorced. Does that change that it ain't his kid ? Stop being ridiculous. The law is fucked up - end... of.... story.
7figz;9115748 said:Yea Yea they could've / should've got divorced. Does that change that it ain't his kid ? Stop being ridiculous. The law is fucked up - end... of.... story.
kingblaze84;9115529 said:lethal5;9112779 said: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 bitch 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 shit, 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 fucking things up.
KingFreeman;9110095 said:Couldn't be me. No news report. Just 2 bodies and an orphan.
numbaz...80's baby;9115898 said:deadeye;9115813 said:BiblicalAtheist ;9113378 said:lethal5;9112779 said: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 bitch 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.
blackrain;9115900 said:7figz;9115748 said:Yea Yea they could've / should've got divorced. Does that change that it ain't his kid ? Stop being ridiculous. The law is fucked up - end... of.... story.
You can't just gloss over being separated for 16 years and not getting divorced. Yes, the the law is fucked up but that 16 years is not just some small detail in this
deadeye;9118128 said:blackrain;9115900 said:7figz;9115748 said:Yea Yea they could've / should've got divorced. Does that change that it ain't his kid ? Stop being ridiculous. The law is fucked up - end... of.... story.
You can't just gloss over being separated for 16 years and not getting divorced. Yes, the the law is fucked 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.