Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
This article wasn't approved by the admins, so it would normally only be available to TotalFark subscribers. However, this link is so good that we're letting you see it. Posting new comments is still only available to TotalFark subscribers.

If you are a paid TotalFark subscriber, you must have cookies enabled in your browser. You can reset your cookie by logging in.

(Fox News)   Some jack-off in Kansas decides to fight against making child support payments   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

158 clicks;  Favorite

10 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-31 01:02:41 PM  
Asinine tag is out looking to lay a beatdown on the courts who even allow this frivolous garbage.
 
2012-12-31 01:05:59 PM  
This is why you stay away from the Craigslist!  If they can't or won't pay a sperm bank then they shouldn't be going for a child.

imtheonlylp: Asinine tag is out looking to lay a beatdown on the courts who even allow this frivolous garbage.


One should hope
 
2012-12-31 01:09:31 PM  
Fantastic use of the hero tag here.
 
2012-12-31 01:31:51 PM  

imtheonlylp: Asinine tag is out looking to lay a beatdown on the courts who even allow this frivolous garbage.


It's not frivolous, it's a red flag that the law is desperately in need of updating.  In the Eyes of the court, biology trumps all, esepcially in custody cases,  and Child support obligations CAN NOT be waived by bio-parents, period.  The law does not even contemplate IVF, or other non-traditional relationships.

My wife's sister died suddenly about 5 years ago leaving behind two kids by two different men.  She's raised both on her own without any help from anyone but her family.  Two days after the funeral, the bio-father of one of the kids shows up (up till then he;d been in a heated court battle with the woman denying he even WAS the father) and demads his kid.  Despite the fact that he was a complete stranger to this 4 year old girl, and depite the fact that she had a brother she was bonded to who kind of needed each other right then to deal witht he trauma of  their mom's loss, this asshole was able to take the kid and cut off all contact with my wife's family and the girl's brother and ther wasn;t a got-damn thing the courts could do about it.  The law was on his side 100%
 
2012-12-31 01:37:23 PM  

Magorn: imtheonlylp: Asinine tag is out looking to lay a beatdown on the courts who even allow this frivolous garbage.

It's not frivolous, it's a red flag that the law is desperately in need of updating.  In the Eyes of the court, biology trumps all, esepcially in custody cases,  and Child support obligations CAN NOT be waived by bio-parents, period.  The law does not even contemplate IVF, or other non-traditional relationships.

My wife's sister died suddenly about 5 years ago leaving behind two kids by two different men.  She's raised both on her own without any help from anyone but her family.  Two days after the funeral, the bio-father of one of the kids shows up (up till then he;d been in a heated court battle with the woman denying he even WAS the father) and demads his kid.  Despite the fact that he was a complete stranger to this 4 year old girl, and depite the fact that she had a brother she was bonded to who kind of needed each other right then to deal witht he trauma of  their mom's loss, this asshole was able to take the kid and cut off all contact with my wife's family and the girl's brother and ther wasn;t a got-damn thing the courts could do about it.  The law was on his side 100%


Well said
 
2012-12-31 01:38:02 PM  
oh wow. crazy, youre right...
 
2012-12-31 02:20:04 PM  

Magorn: imtheonlylp: Asinine tag is out looking to lay a beatdown on the courts who even allow this frivolous garbage.

It's not frivolous, it's a red flag that the law is desperately in need of updating.  In the Eyes of the court, biology trumps all, esepcially in custody cases,  and Child support obligations CAN NOT be waived by bio-parents, period.  The law does not even contemplate IVF, or other non-traditional relationships.

My wife's sister died suddenly about 5 years ago leaving behind two kids by two different men.  She's raised both on her own without any help from anyone but her family.  Two days after the funeral, the bio-father of one of the kids shows up (up till then he;d been in a heated court battle with the woman denying he even WAS the father) and demads his kid.  Despite the fact that he was a complete stranger to this 4 year old girl, and depite the fact that she had a brother she was bonded to who kind of needed each other right then to deal witht he trauma of  their mom's loss, this asshole was able to take the kid and cut off all contact with my wife's family and the girl's brother and ther wasn;t a got-damn thing the courts could do about it.  The law was on his side 100%


Well said, except for the fact that it's completely false and you know that it's not true. I mean, even a quick search for the family law code in your state will show that there is a got-damn thing the courts could do, and the law is 100% on the side of the child. Now, maybe it turns out that this guy is the best custodian for the child and you're just bitter about it, but regardless, don't try to pretend that the courts' hands are tied.
 
2012-12-31 02:37:42 PM  

Theaetetus: Magorn: imtheonlylp: Asinine tag is out looking to lay a beatdown on the courts who even allow this frivolous garbage.

It's not frivolous, it's a red flag that the law is desperately in need of updating.  In the Eyes of the court, biology trumps all, esepcially in custody cases,  and Child support obligations CAN NOT be waived by bio-parents, period.  The law does not even contemplate IVF, or other non-traditional relationships.

My wife's sister died suddenly about 5 years ago leaving behind two kids by two different men.  She's raised both on her own without any help from anyone but her family.  Two days after the funeral, the bio-father of one of the kids shows up (up till then he;d been in a heated court battle with the woman denying he even WAS the father) and demads his kid.  Despite the fact that he was a complete stranger to this 4 year old girl, and depite the fact that she had a brother she was bonded to who kind of needed each other right then to deal witht he trauma of  their mom's loss, this asshole was able to take the kid and cut off all contact with my wife's family and the girl's brother and ther wasn;t a got-damn thing the courts could do about it.  The law was on his side 100%

Well said, except for the fact that it's completely false and you know that it's not true. I mean, even a quick search for the family law code in your state will show that there is a got-damn thing the courts could do, and the law is 100% on the side of the child. Now, maybe it turns out that this guy is the best custodian for the child and you're just bitter about it, but regardless, don't try to pretend that the courts' hands are tied.


You sound like somebody with personal experience in losing custody of a child.
 
2012-12-31 02:43:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Magorn: imtheonlylp: Asinine tag is out looking to lay a beatdown on the courts who even allow this frivolous garbage.

It's not frivolous, it's a red flag that the law is desperately in need of updating.  In the Eyes of the court, biology trumps all, esepcially in custody cases,  and Child support obligations CAN NOT be waived by bio-parents, period.  The law does not even contemplate IVF, or other non-traditional relationships.

My wife's sister died suddenly about 5 years ago leaving behind two kids by two different men.  She's raised both on her own without any help from anyone but her family.  Two days after the funeral, the bio-father of one of the kids shows up (up till then he;d been in a heated court battle with the woman denying he even WAS the father) and demads his kid.  Despite the fact that he was a complete stranger to this 4 year old girl, and depite the fact that she had a brother she was bonded to who kind of needed each other right then to deal witht he trauma of  their mom's loss, this asshole was able to take the kid and cut off all contact with my wife's family and the girl's brother and ther wasn;t a got-damn thing the courts could do about it.  The law was on his side 100%

Well said, except for the fact that it's completely false and you know that it's not true. I mean, even a quick search for the family law code in your state will show that there is a got-damn thing the courts could do, and the law is 100% on the side of the child. Now, maybe it turns out that this guy is the best custodian for the child and you're just bitter about it, but regardless, don't try to pretend that the courts' hands are tied.


No, I AM just a little conversant with the Family Law codes of most states, ya know having actually RUN a family court for 5+ years (BTW this happened in KS).   The simple fact is that under the US Supreme Court's decision in <i> Troxville v. Grandville 530 U.S. 57,120 S. Ct. 2054,147 L. Ed. 2d 49,2000 U.S. , the US Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment's Due process clause gives "Natural Parents" a fundamnetal right to raise their children however they see fit without state inteferene in custodial decisions, absent a finding of parental unfitness.  The only time this can be circumvented is when the legal custody of the child in in dispute already, during a divorce or paternity case where two competing natural parents with equally valid paternal claims are disputing custody.   Then, and only then, can the court's take "best interests of the child" into consideration and order things like GP visitation.   Many states have laws to the contrary but they are dead letters in light of Granville.

 In this case all Dad had to do was drop his denial of paternity and he was the sole remaining natural parent to that child and had an unquestioned custodial right to the child.  I was able to use some extremely technical arguments I'd learned in my years running the court to at least force open a visitation case, arguing that since a Paternity case WAS open, custody was very technically in play, at the time we filed the petition.  Because of that, the natural grandmother gets 1 visit for 1 hour per month but that's it.  She gets no contact with her sibling because the bio-dad's actual wife (Who he cheated on) is raising the child and pretending its one of her natural children
 
2012-12-31 02:48:35 PM  
wow.  just... wow.
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report