Surrogate mother keeps baby and files for child support?

"John Meyer" wrote
Chris wrote:
Indeed!
However, this guy (and his wife) has to be a real fool to believe that he
can father a child with another woman and escape "child support".


Well, if he doesn't know he's a fool, the Florida Short Bus Nine
(Supreme Court) will tell him to his face.
BTW, do we have any Florida residents in this room.
==
Not regularly. We had a Florida order, so I'm real familiar with their
family/cs law. FL is one of the most father-unfriendly states,
pushing the envelope of legality as a matter of procedure (metered, not
posted,
and delayed mailing of letters of time-sensitive matters, and income
withholding
orders, not signed by judge and instated without required notification to
NCP). Curiously
(or predictably), there is a lot of father-friendly legislation, more than
most states, but it is rarely, if ever, enforced.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
Gini wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote
Bob Whiteside wrote:
danielobrien wrote
whatamess wrote:
What the government has created...what a nightmare for this
couple...


http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/f....aspx?storyid=...
Well, it's pretty much assured the woman will keep the baby and the
father will pay.
Birthing for dollars. The great American dream. Get paid as a
surrogate
to
have a kid. Get paid as a surrogate to keep a kid. Either way you
get
paid. Don't you just love how our family laws always protect a
woman's
right to renege on her agreements?

Whenever I think about this, I'm at a crossroads: is this a
matriarchists dream or is this just the paternalistic part of judges
saying "that little lady doesn't know any better so we'll protect her
from herself." I think there's a little bit of sexism going both ways
to protect people who lie and cheat simply because they are just so
cute.
==
You saw a picture? I couldn't even find her name.


It's actually more of a general comment (no I don't have a picture).
You could be right: I wonder if even the sperm wanted to be in the same
room during the artificial insemination absent a two drink minimum. But
how many times have you seen a man try to convince a judge with those
big old puppy dog eyes? And how many times did that succeed?
I'm also wondering if the kidnapper does get child support, will it come
only from the father? If the egg is from the wife, would the judge
order both to pay?
And what about custody/visitation? Would that same judge order
visitation, if not on that order than on a parallel order. Not that I
hold out much chance of that given the Florida Short Bus Nine. Very
likely he's going to find the state Supreme Court blaming _him_ for what
happened.

Of course! It's ALWAYS the man's fault for the woman's sole choice.

The egg did not come from his wife, thus she would be exempt from "child
support". Even if it did come from her, the odds of such a judgement against
her would approach zero because she is a woman. In regard to visitation,
does it REALLY matter? Ordered or not, it's never enforced; thus a moot
point.

On May 27, 4:55 pm, John Meyer wrote:
Whenever I think about this, I'm at a crossroads: is this a
matriarchists dream or is this just the paternalistic part of judges
saying "that little lady doesn't know any better so we'll protect her
from herself." I think there's a little bit of sexism going both ways
to protect people who lie and cheat simply because they are just so cute.

You had it right the frst time: it's the female supremacists' dream
scenario. In most, if not all, surrogate birthing arrangements, there
is a *written* contract. The simple fact is that the surrogate mother
has broken the contract and the court *should by law* force her to
adhere to the contract. The face that the court has allowed her an out
makes a mockery of contract law and is a blatant admission of a pro-
female bias in the courts.

Bill

Bill wrote:
On May 27, 4:55 pm, John Meyer wrote:

Whenever I think about this, I'm at a crossroads: is this a
matriarchists dream or is this just the paternalistic part of judges
saying "that little lady doesn't know any better so we'll protect her
from herself." I think there's a little bit of sexism going both ways
to protect people who lie and cheat simply because they are just so cute.


You had it right the frst time: it's the female supremacists' dream
scenario. In most, if not all, surrogate birthing arrangements, there
is a *written* contract. The simple fact is that the surrogate mother
has broken the contract and the court *should by law* force her to
adhere to the contract. The face that the court has allowed her an out
makes a mockery of contract law and is a blatant admission of a pro-
female bias in the courts.

I thought the crux of the matter was that the woman never signed the
contract, thus legally he has no protection.

A pretty rotten thing to do, but then if you were putting yourself into
his situation you'd think you'd make damn sure the contract had been
signed before giving anyone your DNA.

The case will hinge on whether or not he and his wife can get the baby
away from the surrogate. If they can't, he will certainly be saddled
with CS as the courts will claim that the baby didn't do anything wrong
and shouldn't be "punished" by not having access to Daddy's money.
Kinda like Shane Seyer and other statutory rape cases involving young
boys and pregnancies.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
...


Bill wrote:
On May 27, 4:55 pm, John Meyer wrote:

Whenever I think about this, I'm at a crossroads: is this a
matriarchists dream or is this just the paternalistic part of judges
saying "that little lady doesn't know any better so we'll protect her
from herself." I think there's a little bit of sexism going both ways
to protect people who lie and cheat simply because they are just so cute.


You had it right the frst time: it's the female supremacists' dream
scenario. In most, if not all, surrogate birthing arrangements, there
is a *written* contract. The simple fact is that the surrogate mother
has broken the contract and the court *should by law* force her to
adhere to the contract. The face that the court has allowed her an out
makes a mockery of contract law and is a blatant admission of a pro-
female bias in the courts.

I thought the crux of the matter was that the woman never signed the
contract, thus legally he has no protection.

A pretty rotten thing to do, but then if you were putting yourself into
his situation you'd think you'd make damn sure the contract had been
signed before giving anyone your DNA.

The case will hinge on whether or not he and his wife can get the baby
away from the surrogate. If they can't, he will certainly be saddled with
CS as the courts will claim that the baby didn't do anything wrong and
shouldn't be "punished" by not having access to Daddy's money.
==
Heh. Wouldn't it be sweet if he were awarded custody and she had to
pay CS?

Gini wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
...


Bill wrote:

On May 27, 4:55 pm, John Meyer wrote:


Whenever I think about this, I'm at a crossroads: is this a
matriarchists dream or is this just the paternalistic part of judges
saying "that little lady doesn't know any better so we'll protect her

from herself." I think there's a little bit of sexism going both ways

to protect people who lie and cheat simply because they are just so cute.


You had it right the frst time: it's the female supremacists' dream
scenario. In most, if not all, surrogate birthing arrangements, there
is a *written* contract. The simple fact is that the surrogate mother
has broken the contract and the court *should by law* force her to
adhere to the contract. The face that the court has allowed her an out
makes a mockery of contract law and is a blatant admission of a pro-
female bias in the courts.

I thought the crux of the matter was that the woman never signed the
contract, thus legally he has no protection.

A pretty rotten thing to do, but then if you were putting yourself into
his situation you'd think you'd make damn sure the contract had been
signed before giving anyone your DNA.

The case will hinge on whether or not he and his wife can get the baby
away from the surrogate. If they can't, he will certainly be saddled with
CS as the courts will claim that the baby didn't do anything wrong and
shouldn't be "punished" by not having access to Daddy's money.

==
Heh. Wouldn't it be sweet if he were awarded custody and she had to
pay CS?

The only way that would happen would likely be if the courts decided to
enforce the "understood agreement", at which point she would immediately
point out that it was "understood" that she wouldn't have to pay CS. Of
course that wouldn't hold up if she was a man, but she's not...

- Ron ^*^