Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
How does he prove he isn't? In this case not only is there a contract (which appears not to include the required stuff but that shouldn't all of a sudden make the donor a father, as I said the consequences far exceed the infraction, and I thought law was supposed to take that into account. You don't go to jail for life for littering.
There's also the way the parties were acting, so even if the contract runs afoul of the doctor requirement, the actions of all the parties demonstrates their intent; that the man be a donor, not an active participant.
Why does the line have to be drawn there? If all it is is a letter printed by one of the people that they all signed, that's still a legally binding contract and should be considered so, shouldn't it? People make legal agreements all the time without involving lawyers.
Or at the very least the court should take that into consideration in determining the intent and thereby the guy's responsibilities. EDIT: And when I say take into consideration I mean that the court could decide that because the 3 didn't use a lawyer or go through the proper channels that there has to be some penalty, but to say that penalty is child support payments for life when the intent of the 3 was clear is silly.
|
The infraction is fathering a child, the consequences are paying for it. Seems fair.
You can't contract to avoid the law.