Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is definitely an odd situation. I would think they'd need his participation, even if it was him signing some paperwork saying he wasn't showing up, but was aware of the situation.
Exactly! Years ago when I worked for the Sheriff's Dept. I had to fill in for court bailiffs when they were short handed and even though it was a long time ago but I don't think laws have changed. And I never saw a judge proceed without there being proof of service in the file, it just doesn't happen. And all states have to have a court rule covering that because to proceed against a defendant who has no knowledge that the hearing is taking place is a violation of due process which is guaranteed by the constitution.
This reminds me of watching those forensic files episodes where they're talking about cases from 1987.. a case from 2003 is making it's rounds on city data with 30 pages of replies...
Yes, but with less emphasis on the traditional family unit I think maybe it might be going back the other way again.
Maybe but within marriages there has always been a fair amount of cheating so technically a husband could spread his DNA among multiple women other than his wife.
The woman always holds the bigger burden unless she gives her kids up to the father or some other person and walks away.
Unfortunately, that's how the world works. Men who gripe about paying CS (men who are the fathers, of course) are jerks.
I say this as the mother of 2 sons and a daughter. If my sons ever father any kids, I expect them to step up and provide.
I agree.
I do feel differently when its a situation like a one nighter or you barely know the guy and dont see him for 16 years and he has never been a father to your child.
Maybe but within marriages there has always been a fair amount of cheating so technically a husband could spread his DNA among multiple women other than his wife.
Honestly I'm not sure what you're objecting to from my previous statements here. Arguing for the sake of arguing? So far you've said nothing that directly contradicts me. Keep in mind I'm saying I think the trend may be reversing itself again, not that we're back where we were in the days of pre history or the savage days of harems and concubines.
Honestly I'm not sure what you're objecting to from my previous statements here. Arguing for the sake of arguing? So far you've said nothing that directly contradicts me. Keep in mind I'm saying I think the trend may be reversing itself again, not that we're back where we were in the days of pre history or the savage days of harems and concubines.
Hold on now I'm not objecting, just pondering.I'm not trying to contradict you.
You have a valid point but then is there anymore one guy impregnating several women now given marriage is not the default for sex as when it was and there was still much cheating. IDK.
Not everything is an argument.
The woman always holds the bigger burden unless she gives her kids up to the father or some other person and walks away.
Unfortunately, that's how the world works. Men who gripe about paying CS (men who are the fathers, of course) are jerks.
I say this as the mother of 2 sons and a daughter. If my sons ever father any kids, I expect them to step up and provide.
I agree that a woman holds the bigger burden. That said, so why does she still chose to have a child without the father's support? Against his wishes? Why did she chose a bad man to reproduce with?
Women always drone on about how if a man didn't want to father a child he should have kept it in his pants. Those same women will scream SEXISM and ****-SHAMING if anyone dares question her inability to keep her legs closed.
I agree that a woman holds the bigger burden. That said, so why does she still chose to have a child without the father's support? Against his wishes? Why did she chose a bad man to reproduce with?
Women always drone on about how if a man didn't want to father a child he should have kept it in his pants. Those same women will scream SEXISM and ****-SHAMING if anyone dares question her inability to keep her legs closed.
You can honestly say you believe women choose to have a child with a non supportive bad man? These are accidental pregnancies. Why not ask why men choose to reproduce with non supportive bad women. I agree if a woman choose to continue the pregnancy and keep the child she should be prepared to care for it alone.
yes there are a lot of people who would give up a six figure job with benefits to teach yoga for 25K just to screw over the ex.
People drop out of the rat race all the time. It would seem men paying child support don't get that option.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
