bronyaur1: Does that mean that such fathers also will have no financial obligation?

Looks like it, actually, since the baby's being put up for adoption.

Still a pretty asinine decision- the father should be able to claim the baby before it's put up for adoption. The court also had no evidence that it was "just a one-night stand" other than the mother's say-so.

This is bullshiat.

If I knocked a girl up from a one night stand, the state would gladly garnish a quarter of my wages in order to "support the child". Heck, courts have been known to force men to pay child support to children that aren't even their own biological kin.

Maybe the UK is different than the US. Maybe it is not. However, this is a raw farking deal for the father who has a right to know that he has a child.

No wonder men go apeshiate in the UK regarding parental rights, doing crazy stuff like dressing up in costume and breaking into government buildings. The courts over there absolutely hate men.

Chariset: Wrap it, gentlemen. No matter what the lady says, a little latex is always appreciated

Yep. Don't believe that pill hype either. Sometimes biatches are just plain crazy.

Dinjiin: No wonder men go apeshiate in the UK regarding parental rights, doing crazy stuff like dressing up in costume and breaking into government buildings.

To be honest, we just do that for shiats and giggles, the Fathers For Justice thing is just an excuse to play Spiderman.

considering it was a one-night , the guy is probably downing another pint or twenty from the money he saved that month & thereafter

this precedent opens a cano'o'worms now

Just because we don't carry them for nine months doesn't mean we don't love our children too.

Chariset: Wrap it, gentlemen. No matter what the lady says, a little latex is always appreciated

Just aim in the backdoor.

due to the fact that the father is now "back with his fiancee" it sounds like the mother is trying to prevent the child from breaking up a relationship.

It's a shiatty situation, but from what I read between the lines, it sounds like a good decision in a situation filled with shiatty choices.

Why couldn't she have called him and told him the baby was going up for adoption? If he wasn't interested in the kid then she could just say OK and go on with her original plan.

...mom?

valhalla1980: Just because we don't carry them for nine months doesn't mean we don't love our children too.

No, we carry them for the other 26 years and 3 months :)

greywolf: due to the fact that the father is now "back with his fiancee" it sounds like the mother is trying to prevent the child from breaking up a relationship.

It's a shiatty situation, but from what I read between the lines, it sounds like a good decision in a situation filled with shiatty choices.

Shouldn't that be the father's decision?

I guess it really is the nanny state. Personal responsibility, you aren't allowed to have.

What happened to the good old days when I could push women down the stairs for being uppity?

The real problem here is that nobody pushed that biatch judge down a flight of stairs.

You can just stop the thread here, gentlemen.

I came here looking for Caturday, and now my wife is so mad she could just spit!

Thanks, British court system, for ruining my weekend and some poor unknowing schlub's rights just to keep some silly tramp from having to take any responsibility for her screw up (and down, and back-to-front, probably)!

soze: Sometimes biatches are just plain crazy.

Sometimes?

*^*

MadUncleEoin: I came here looking for Caturday, found this instead, and now my wife is so mad she could just spit!

She made me fix it.

/crack!
//yes, dear

MadUncleEoin: I came here looking for Caturday, and now my wife is so mad she could just spit!

Found it, eh?

\ror

*^*

Sweet...no child support payments!

12.fl.oz.: Why couldn't she have called him and told him the baby was going up for adoption? If he wasn't interested in the kid then she could just say OK and go on with her original plan.

soze: biatches are just plain crazy

:-p

Latex. (new window)

above is NSFW

Chariset: Wrap it, gentlemen. No matter what the lady says, a little latex is always appreciated

Put some Tabasco sauce in it as well to keep the crazy chicks from digging it out of the trash and impregnating themselves.

/Leykis 101 FTW!

This is just sickening.

As has been said already in these comments, if she decided to keep the baby he would certainly have an obligation to pay child support. And he should have that obligation, it's his child. Therefor he should also have the right to know he has a child and determine if he wants raise it.

The courts are claiming it's the mother's right to decide, but give to reason as to why. She clearly doesn't want the child. Why does she get to decide who gets it just because it popped out of her? It's no more her child than it is the father's child.

I'm sorry moms, when that childs inside your body being a parasite, then yes, you're the ultimate authority. But as soon as the child is out of your body, the mother and father have equal rights.

If I'm not mistaken, even in the US a female doesn't have to say who the father is. Also the guy wasn't around to even know she was knocked up so what makes you think he'll be around to help. Maybe she doesn't want him in her life...maybe he would hurt her...maybe she never got his name...so many reasons!

Another thing, a woman can go have an abortion without telling anyone else, so why not be able to put the child up for adoption. They mentioned wanting to ask her family if they wanted to take care of the child, but they don't do that here in the US.

this ruling needs to happen in the us...

greywolf: due to the fact that the father is now "back with his fiancee" it sounds like the mother is trying to prevent the child from breaking up a relationship.

It's a shiatty situation, but from what I read between the lines, it sounds like a good decision in a situation filled with shiatty choices.

Maybe it's a good decision if it weren't setting the precedent for the rest of the country from now until eternity (or until another course reverses the precedent).

In this one isolated case, things may be better off this way, but this will screw over a) fathers that want to support their child and b) the UK taxpayers that have to pay for the child in foster care.

greywolf: due to the fact that the father is now "back with his fiancee" it sounds like the mother is trying to prevent the child from breaking up a relationship.

It's a shiatty situation, but from what I read between the lines, it sounds like a good decision in a situation filled with shiatty choices.

this - as much as the mail makes this sound bad because the father is being denied rights there's an obvious reason for it and it shows there's still some sense left in the justice system - British law requires that the child be considered first, if there's adequate reason to believe that it would be better put up for adoption without the father's knowledge (in this case it was shown there would be little benfit to telling him) then i don't see why not

/when fathers have no rights left i'll read it in a real newspaper

I could see the mom getting rights if she wants them, but if the baby is being put up for adoption? The dad should be notified and at least have a choice as to whether or not to take custody in that instance. Also, as someone pointed out, the rules seem to be very convenient for women - the dad is just a one night stand when it comes to custody, but whenever the mom wants financial aid, suddenly the dad is forced to pay. You can't have it both ways.

tice: Also the guy wasn't around to even know she was knocked up so what makes you think he'll be around to help. Maybe she doesn't want him in her life...maybe he would hurt her...maybe she never got his name...so many reasons!

If he doesn't want the kid, he doesn't have to take the kid, but that's not her decision to make. He doesn't have to be in the mother's life, she's giving the kid up for adoption. Again, not her decision to make. If the mother thought the father would hurt her, that's something she could bring up to the courts, who would have to decide if the father was fit to take care of the child. All of these things are decisions that are not within the mother's authority.

Another thing, a woman can go have an abortion without telling anyone else, so why not be able to put the child up for adoption.

Because having an abortion is regarding the rights of your body. There is no legal reason to tell someone you're having an abortion, because they don't have the right to stop you. In the case of adoption, the grandparents and the father won't be stopping her from putting the baby up for adoption, they'll just be adopting it themselves if they want to. Having the grandparents or the father adopt the baby doesn't take away any of the woman's rights, since she has already decided she doesn't want the baby.

Now, if the reason is because he's a wone-night stand...
Isn't she too?

Here is a question...if she notified him and he wanted the baby, wouldn't she have to pay child support to him? Women do have to pay child support in some cases.

brigid_fitch: Listen, the girl could have just lied and said she didn't remember who the father was. What difference does it make? She didn't want the baby, didn't want a long-term relationship w/the father (which pointing out that he had a child would have done), and didn't want anyone in her family knowing about the whole situation.

UK judges made the right choice here. Baby gets put up for adoption, she moves on w/her life, father is blissfully ignorant and marries his fiancee--everyone's happy.

This.

Erm... isn't this the same country that is suffering from lack of sperm donors because the courts ruled that a child has a right to know who his/her father is?

FTA:
She said the young mother was "absolutely clear" that she did not want anyone to know who the father was.

Nobody huh? What about the kid?

Father overhead saying: "I have a plan..."

tarquinrainbowtrout: i don't see why not

Precedent, that's why not.

/when fathers have no rights left i'll read it in a real newspaper

/They're working on it

brigid_fitch:
She didn't want.... didn't want.... and didn't want ...

Yeah, that'll do it.

/Family court, helping mothers evade responsibility since before you were born.

brigid_fitch: Listen, the girl could have just lied and said she didn't remember who the father was. What difference does it make? She didn't want the baby, didn't want a long-term relationship w/the father (which pointing out that he had a child would have done), and didn't want anyone in her family knowing about the whole situation.

UK judges made the right choice here. Baby gets put up for adoption, she moves on w/her life, father is blissfully ignorant and marries his fiancee--everyone's happy.

It's all about her isn't it? Gentlemen, pay attention. This is the logic you can expect from a female run state. There is no logic, just emotion and its all about her.

Bottom line is the state (US or UK) is allows women to walk from their actions but jails men who don't pay child support.

She wants out of child support and that is why she doesn't want him to have the child. Bottom line.

brigid_fitch:
UK judges made the right choice here. Baby gets put up for adoption, she moves on w/her life, father is blissfully ignorant and marries his fiancee--everyone's happy.

Perhaps. But is this a good precedent to be setting? I'm fairly sure in this case the father wouldn't have wanted to take care of the child, but he still deserves to know and be given the option. I would want to know. I personally would want to know if I got a girl pregnant.

brigid_fitch:

your profile pic made me chuckle. good job :-)