ForumGarden

High Threshold;1462775 wrote: Well, let's see now. Try this one: A woman showes up on your door-step, babe in arms, and she says; "Do you remember me from that New Year Eve's party in the Poconos last year?" It's the same old story - boy meets girl, sperm meets egg. There are all sorts of legal terms for it (such as "DNA proof") but the common layman's expression is, "father from the start".


I said this in Post #8--"What really irritates me is when the father does not know about the child's existence and years later must support a child he never knew he had!"

AnneBoleyn;1462788 wrote: I said this in Post #8--"What really irritates me is when the father does not know about the child's existence and years later must support a child he never knew he had!"


Ooooooooooooh! That's a tushy of a completely different calibre! I guess I wasn't paying very good attention while I was reading Post #8. :yh_worshp

AnneBoleyn;1462572 wrote: In spirit I agree Bryn, but wouldn't the natural father, who does see the child (does the child know the relationship?) wouldn't he want to contribute to its' welfare if he can afford to? Here, in the U.S., the mothers would win in court, EVEN if the agreement were legally in writing.

eta--collecting would be Another Story, but the mothers would win.


There is a massive difference between wanting to and being forced to - especially if the original agreement specifically excluded financial support.

Bryn Mawr;1462797 wrote: There is a massive difference between wanting to and being forced to - especially if the original agreement specifically excluded financial support.Exacty !!!

As I said, I can recall 6 years ago, the desire for the child outweighed the Idea of any finance and the Father not being that keen at the get go. It was the absolute promise that he would never be held accountable that persueded him.

Bryn Mawr;1462797 wrote: There is a massive difference between wanting to and being forced to - especially if the original agreement specifically excluded financial support.


I agree with you. It's Family Law that doesn't.

High Threshold;1462790 wrote: Ooooooooooooh! That's a tushy of a completely different calibre! I guess I wasn't paying very good attention while I was reading Post #8. :yh_worshp


You're Hilarious. Really. :yh_rotfl

Oscar Namechange;1462802 wrote: Exacty !!!

As I said, I can recall 6 years ago, the desire for the child outweighed the Idea of any finance and the Father not being that keen at the get go. It was the absolute promise that he would never be held accountable that persueded him.


By way of a series of unpleasant experiences I finally learned never to do business with friends. NEVER. If it's an item in question I'd much rather toss it out than to barter - or even give it away. The chances are much too great that it will (some day) bite you in the ass.

Traversing the African continent I chanced to meet an English girl in Dar-es-Salaam and we discovered that we shared an appreciation for James Herriot. I had just finished reading a book by Gerald Durrell and had no need to carry it the rest of the way down. I told her she could have it so I dashed back to my hotel to fetch it and bring it to her. "Thanks, goodbye, and good luck!"

6 months later we both ended up at the hostel in Salisbury and from that moment on (until I emigrated back to Europe) she quite seriously badgered my character because she didn't like the book! :yh_beatup

AnneBoleyn;1462821 wrote: You're Hilarious. Really. :yh_rotfl


Toda! I do my best.

HT

I have also learned NEVER do business with friends - NEVER. :-5

The bite can be painful:wah:

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1462839 wrote: HT

I have also learned NEVER do business with friends - NEVER. :-5

The bite can be painful:wah:

Patsy


True. Not only do you get put out by a deal gone bad but you could also lose what was up until then a "good" friend. Note the quotation points.

AnneBoleyn;1462820 wrote: I agree with you. It's Family Law that doesn't.


American Family Law maybe, this incident happened in the UK.

Is it too late for him to sign a paper releasing him from parental rights? If they are as bad and everyone thinks they are, they will let him see the child because they may need him for babysitting, rides to school or friends house or any number of things.

He may want to think about this. It's not just child support, it is half of everything the child wants to do. (Correct me if I'm wrong cuz I be from the States!). If it's a girl or a boy, dance recital-half, trips overseas-half, wedding-half, new school wardrobe-half, car for her sixteenth birthday-half, everything she wants to do-half. It's never JUST child support.

911

That's why I stated Financial debt.. not just child support

you forgot 1/2 dental braces :wah:

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1462899 wrote: 911

That's why I stated Financial debt.. not just child support

you forgot 1/2 dental braces :wah:



Patsy


Sorry must have missed that and you're right.

Yeah, never forget braces!

A Puppy is not just for Christmas. Neither is a Baby.

(I remember having braces as a kid. My shorts would fall down without them. I also remember having one of those lovely elastic 'snake' belts).