Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
This is such a repugnant and complicated case.
The Father Figure is considered to a parent to the children, and logically would have to help support them until they are no longer dependants. Child's rights supercede. That makes total sense to me.
What does not make sense is why the father can not sue the mother and her "sperm donor" (if he can be found) for fraud and negligence. to recoup his losses and gain justice for her wrongdoing.
|
The whole point of the case was to increase child support payments I thought. By allowing him to sue her your just offsetting the increased payments because if he wins the lawsuit she'd have to pay damages and the money ends up back with him. The solution to this problem is to do what Resolute says and allow him to sue once the kids are adults.
I agree with Captain Crunch's position for a couple reasons but that will probably stir some debate here. One is that the kids are 16 and therefore old enough to get a part-time job, which I realise in the eyes of the law is irrelevant but it shouldn't be irrelevant. There's a big difference between a kid under the age of 15 and one over the age of 15- yes they are not adults but they are still able to be employed..
Furthermore this case was about increasing child support payments (if I've followed along correctly in the thread w/o actually reading the decision). The one thing that's always bugged me about child support payments is how do the courts know the money is being used towards the children or for the children.
How do we know mom isn't going and getting her hair done w/ the increased funds?