Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

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.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spartacus
  • Start date Start date
nimbus said:
umm by default he would be the legal guardian


By default, possibly - but it wasn't an agreement that he entered willfully, and even if so it was under a fraudulent premise with makes the entire thing null and void.

Further. Being Legal Guardian does not make you financially responsible or liable.
 
jh1 said:
Further. Being Legal Guardian does not make you financially responsible or liable.

apparently it does, because look what the judge just ruled

jh1 said:
By default, possibly - but it wasn't an agreement that he entered willfully, and even if so it was under a fraudulent premise with makes the entire thing null and void.

wtf, are you just making shit up now? it's definitely not automatically null and void, but would probably be open to the judges discretion. you're saying if the man wanted to keep the kid, he would have to file paperwork to regain guardian status?
 
nimbus said:
apparently it does, because look what the judge just ruled



wtf, are you just making shit up now?


We are debating the judge's ruling. Again, being a 'Legal Guardian' doesn't make you financially responsible.

For example. Some older people may have 'LEGAL GUARDIANS' do to mental definciences - these legal guardians may be family members or they just may be someone that took on that LEGAL responsibility. That doesn't mean they've accepted or aquired the financial responsibility.

Making shit up? Hell no. It was FRAUD on this womans part by leading this man to beleive he was the father, which was the ONLY reason he even agreed to be the 'FATHER' so ... NO I am not making shit up, that was an act of fraud.


No, I never said automatic. You'd have to have a judge deem the 'contract' null and void in the instance of fraud. In this case, the judge is just as unfamiliar with justice and fairness as you seem to be.
 
ok so i used the wrong term for my argument. you are totally right about legal guardianship. the word i was looking for was paternity
 
It's a very good debate, but those that think the man should pay.... you are idiots! LOL
 
nimbus said:
biteme wins

I'll chop your head off if you don't agree with me... Game over!
 
Top Bottom