Mens Abortion Rights

[Happy Camper]

The thread about the broken condom got me thinking, if by some cruel twist of fate I knock someone up is it possible to get a court order for an abortion or am I fucked ? :stab:

[King_Crud]

a kick in the guts should do it. You might end up with a sentence though

[The Cunt]

The thread about the broken condom got me thinking, if by some cruel twist of fate I knock someone up is it possible to get a court order for an abortion or am I fucked ? :stab:
Unless you live in Indianapolis, where apparently you can, you are fucked.

[Cassa]

What sort of fucked up human being are you dude? I'm pro-choice but that is the most retarded thing I've heard in quite some time.

[Juice Biscuit]

I've changed my mind, abortion is outlawed, that way everyone loses together.

[astro]

http://www.designboom.com/history/wirehangers/h12.gif

[Girl.]

Motion to allow Cassa to perform a retrospective abortion on Happy Camper, Your Honour.

[Uther Pendragon]

here is an interesting proposition, does a male have the legal ability to spell it out clearly to a woman he has knocked up that he refuses to pay for any future child support or whatever

Here is an example:
I go out, pull a chick and she says she is on the pill so I don't use a rubber
Turns out she was lying and just trying to get knocked up for whatever reason

(Hey whacked out shit like that does happen)

Can I basically refuse to support the child?

[dozer]

this is where i warn you about how wangwarts are not worth it, no matter how many pills shes popped.

[Uther Pendragon]

yeah yeah I know, hypothetical situation and whatnot.

[Aurelius]

I cannot speak to foreign laws, but in Australia, if the child is yours you pay.
Because if you don't pay, I, and the rest of the population, pay. And I don't see why I should have to pay because you are a deadshit and can't behave like an adult.
To terminate a pregnancy is the decision of the mother. Sure, the father might be a fucktard and "persuade" her by dubious means, but the legal decision is hers.
Perhaps if you don't like it, keep it in your pants. Immature little fuckers.

[Kez]

here is an interesting proposition, does a male have the legal ability to spell it out clearly to a woman he has knocked up that he refuses to pay for any future child support or whatever

Here is an example:
I go out, pull a chick and she says she is on the pill so I don't use a rubber
Turns out she was lying and just trying to get knocked up for whatever reason

(Hey whacked out shit like that does happen)

Can I basically refuse to support the child?
I'm sure in that situation you *should* have a chance.

But the courts will always believe the woman.

[H34D STR0NG]

I cannot speak to foreign laws, but in Australia, if the child is yours you pay.
Because if you don't pay, I, and the rest of the population, pay. And I don't see why I should have to pay because you are a deadshit and can't behave like an adult.
To terminate a pregnancy is the decision of the mother. Sure, the father might be a fucktard and "persuade" her by dubious means, but the legal decision is hers.
Perhaps if you don't like it, keep it in your pants. Immature little fuckers.


what that guy said
:boohoo:

[Holster]

Because if you don't pay, I, and the rest of the population, pay.

If you don't pay the ATO garnishes your wages.

Oh and in my experiences if the child support agency has made a ruling on how much a father should pay, centrelink see that as income the mother is earning and reduces the amount of single parent payment she gets.

[Aurelius]

Holster, mostly right. Depends on the payment arrangements and whp pays how much and a whole lot of factors. But we wont go into depths on Child Support law (I worked there for years, and spent every day talking to deadshits who were trying to find loopholes to get out of paying for their own kids - first class citizens all of them!) but in general, yeah.
In a nutshell, the mother's income will be reduced on the assumption she is receiving child support, and when the father's tax return is submitted, he will get the unpaid CS taken out. As he should.
As a father who does pay CS, I find the attitude of scotes who spend all their effort squirming out of their responsibilites highly offensive. So should anyone above the mental age of consent.

[Sanura]

I believe there was a case a while ago (in the states, I believe) where a woman gave a guy a blowjob and didn't swallow, later using that cum to make herself pregnant. She later tracked down the guy and sued for alimony. She won. In a case like that, where a guy is well and truely tricked into getting a woman pregnant (without his knowledge of the full risks involved) by means of deception (eg, 'oh, I'm on the pill' 'yeah, that condom doesn't have a hole pricked in the end', etc) I see no real reason why that dad should have to pay for support if she keeps it. To me, I guess, if someone is decieved into doing a sexual act (eg, having sex to get someone pregnant, guy 'accidentally' slips the condom off and she doesn't realise (yeah, I do reckon that almost forced pregnancy or forced infection exposure can happen in reverse too) etc) without the real knowledge of what they are doing there should be no onus on the decieved for support - hell, perhaps the one who tricked the other should get criminal charges placed on them (as I see it almost akin to rape).

However, I do not think that a forced abortion is the way to go in any case. Once a woman is pregnant, it is up to her to undergo elective surgery. However if she does decide to keep the kid after forcing you into fatherhood, and you decide not to be a part of that kids life - no money. If you do decide to be a part of the kid's life - pay up. I guess. I don't really know.

Eh, these are just my quick thoughts on the matter. I don't know what the law states on the matter, but I know what I think it should be.

[Gruff Nutz]

Personally, I think abortion should be mandatory in EVERY case.

[Aurelius]

To me, I guess, if someone is decieved into doing a sexual act (eg, having sex to get someone pregnant, guy 'accidentally' slips the condom off and she doesn't realise (yeah, I do reckon that almost forced pregnancy or forced infection exposure can happen in reverse too) etc) without the real knowledge of what they are doing there should be no onus on the decieved for support

So Sanura, SOMEONE has to pay for this child. The circumstances of its conception do not mean we can assume it simply vanishes.
So should I, as a taxpayer, pay for this child, or should it's parents?

The law in Aus is clear. You breed, you feed.

[Sanura]

I understand that. And I also feel for the poor cunts who have been duped into parenthood by means of 'oh, yeah, I take my pill every day' as opposed to 'oh shit, the rubber broke'. There is a difference to me between forseeable risk that was consciously taken and outright deception and lying in order to get pregnant. Proving one over the other though would always be a problem.

I also understand where you are coming from - yup, someone has to pay for the kid. In a perfect society that would be solely the mother's duty. In the real world that is not always the case. I wish I had a simple answer to the problem, but somehow personally I do feel very much for the poor bastards who got duped into it. And as they get no say into whether the child gets born, there should be something in place to protect them... somehow. Eh, I dunno.

[Holster]

Holster, mostly right. Depends on the payment arrangements and whp pays how much and a whole lot of factors. But we wont go into depths on Child Support law (I worked there for years, and spent every day talking to deadshits who were trying to find loopholes to get out of paying for their own kids - first class citizens all of them!) but in general, yeah.
In a nutshell, the mother's income will be reduced on the assumption she is receiving child support, and when the father's tax return is submitted, he will get the unpaid CS taken out. As he should.
As a father who does pay CS, I find the attitude of scotes who spend all their effort squirming out of their responsibilites highly offensive. So should anyone above the mental age of consent.

I have received fuck all in CS, he sends a couple hundred on the small ones birthday and christmas and stuff. I told Centrelink he was giving me the money because it was easier than trying to hunt him down, plus I had the added bonus that he left me and the child alone :D

[Uther Pendragon]

Fair enough. I am not advocating doing a runner here so don't hang shit on me about this, I was just genuinely interested in what the laws were.

There would have to be some seriously fucked up circumstances for me to not want to do the right thing and provide support.

And no I don't count being drunk as one of the circumstances.

[MisterBishi]

Some people are to stupid to be allowed sex.

[Up_All_Night]

So Sanura, SOMEONE has to pay for this child. The circumstances of its conception do not mean we can assume it simply vanishes.
So should I, as a taxpayer, pay for this child, or should it's parents?

The law in Aus is clear. You breed, you feed.


i personally reckon in cases such as the mother spitting out the man goo and shoving it up her snatch, the child should be born and immediately adopted to some couple who cant have children. The mother's organs should then be harvested and sold to the highest bigger with that money put into a fund for the child.

[Aurelius]

I understand that. And I also feel for the poor cunts who have been duped into parenthood by means of 'oh, yeah, I take my pill every day' as opposed to 'oh shit, the rubber broke'. There is a difference to me between forseeable risk that was consciously taken and outright deception and lying in order to get pregnant. Proving one over the other though would always be a problem.

I also understand where you are coming from - yup, someone has to pay for the kid. In a perfect society that would be solely the mother's duty. In the real world that is not always the case. I wish I had a simple answer to the problem, but somehow personally I do feel very much for the poor bastards who got duped into it. And as they get no say into whether the child gets born, there should be something in place to protect them... somehow. Eh, I dunno.

Sanura,
Personally, I don't believe the "duped" line. Utter rubbish.
And in a perfect society, it wouldn't be the mother's role to provide for the child, it would be both parents'. And that is what the current legislation we have says. Like all legislation, it is not perfect in its implementation, but that is because most CS cases are made up of immature children arguing and using the money, kids, dogs, cars, lego collections and whatever else they can as pawns in the "I want to make the other person feel miserable" campaign.
But this thread originated as whether a father has a right to demand termination against the wishes of the mother, yes? Surely you aren't going to argue for that?

[Sanura]

If you read what I wrote - no, I do not argue that a pregnancy should be terminated if the guy wants one. Under current law the guy should pay if he gets a gal pregnant. Fair enough. If the condom breaks and it is all a great big accident... it was a calculated risk and hey buddy - you lose. If he does get 'duped' because he is too stupid to realise that there are people out there who are willing to trick him - ok, fair enough, pay child support (things like - yeah baby, I'm on the pill). I still feel for the guys - so sue me. I don't know how many cases could possibly get put in the 'genuinely duped and look - I can prove it (beyond he said she said crap)' pile. However in the case that I described about the woman taking the sperm she said she swallowed and shoving it up her cunt later and suing for alimony - I really don't see how the dad could be responsible for the resulting pregnancy. She won because she claimed that it was a 'gift' and therefore hers to do with as she pleased. To me, if it was given with the understanding that it was not to be used for the purpose of impregnation, that is clearly 'duping' a guy into getting a woman pregnant. Thus I don't think that he should have to support the child simply because it has a bit of its dna. Perhaps the forced addoption idea isn't that bad a one - surely at least one mental disease can be found in a woman that desparate for a kid that she is then declaired unfit to be its mother. I am just thinking whilst typing, so if this sounds silly, feel free to disagree with me, but these are just my views.

[peto]

Personally I think that people who go bare back are fucked in the head if they think the pill is a guranteed way to prevent a pregnancy.

My sister was on the Pill and when in the act the condom broke. She got pregnant. I now have a beautiful nephew. And thats just one case. Imagine how many others there are when even when every thing is done to be protected and still wind up pregnant.

I'm deeply concerned about some of my friends who have so many scares and still dont learn. They hump anything that moves and tell me bare back is ok cause she's 'clean.'

Also one of my best mates even had the gaul to explain to me that it's all good with his current fuck buddy because she doesnt want kids and her mother works at an abortion clinic so she'd get the service for free if it turned out she was pregnant. When I retorted that what if she changes her mind, he got pissed off at me. If she does get pregnant and decides to keep the kid IMHO I think he'd deserve anything she took him for.

I dont get the cavelier attitude some people take to sex. I'm all for my buddies getting laid, but surely people need to understand the risks, be it unplanned pregnancy or even STD's in any circumstance.

Whlist this is more of a rant I still believe it takes two to tango. If you do the deed you should expect everything you get and there should be no loop hole to get out of that fact. Don't believe that the pill will get you out of trouble, don't count that she'll just get a termination, always use a condom even if it's one of the thicker ones if you dont want kids, but realise that even then there is a huge risk if things go wrong. Better yet, the safest way not to wind up pregnant is dont have sex in the first place.

[locust]

If you do the deed you should expect everything you get and there should be no loop hole to get out of that fact.

How about, "if you say 'I'm on the pill, and plan B is an abortion, and I don't want kids, and you will never have to pay child support', there should be no loophole to get out of that fact"?

In the scenario you describe, as far as I'm concerned the real risk isn't that she'll get pregnant, the risk is that she'll change her mind. That's an alteration to the status quo that she will make alone. I believe she has the right to do that, but at the same time she should bear the full consequences of her decision without burdening others.

An attitude always seems to arise in these threads that a child, and child support, is a price that should be paid by those having sex, even if full plans have been made and consented to in order to avoid that happening, and then one person reneges on the agreement. Despite the partner having abandoned their responsibility (because, you know, they had an agreement) to the person they had sex with, somehow it's right for the victim of this to have to pay up because that's "taking responsibility for their actions." That seems more punitive to me than anything else.

[peto]

Once again, theres still the real risk of pregnancy in any case, unless of course that sex doesn't take pace in the first place. It seems that the law is very clear and I still support it, two to tango.

I still dont like with the fact that the woman can lie and take steps to try and get pregnant anyway, but still thats a risk and should always be taken into account. You should make sure you know the person I guess and know that you can trust them to honor their origional agreement.

It's almost like putting your name on the phone line in a shared house and trusting that everyone else in the house wont fuck off and leave you with the debt and the consequences of a bad credit record if you can't afford to pay it by yourself. Thats prolly not the best analogy but still valid in this case. It sucks but this shit still happens every day.

[say_wat]

What about in the case of Miraculous Conception? Who paid Jesus' child support?

[Tintin]

The law in Aus is clear. You breed, you feed.I am wholly in favour of rhyming legislation. :boohoo:

[locust]

Once again, theres still the real risk of pregnancy in any case, unless of course that sex doesn't take pace in the first place.

Yes, but medical science is now at a point where a pregnancy can be halted and not result in a child.

Therefore, "risk of pregnancy" is not necessarily equal to "risk of childbirth."

"Necessarily" isn't just a filler word there, I really mean it. Falling pregnant does not make having a child necessary, or unavoidable. You have options. Even after your contraception fails, there are choices to make*.

It's almost like putting your name on the phone line in a shared house and trusting that everyone else in the house wont fuck off and leave you with the debt and the consequences of a bad credit record if you can't afford to pay it by yourself.

And do you think it's right for the others to fuck off, and that the sucker with the bill deserved it? Assuming for the sake of argument that he could prove there was an agreement to split phone costs, and he took it to small claims court, do you think the magistrate should knock him back?

I'm not arguing that it's not sensible for a guy to be cautious. Contraceptives aren't perfect, people aren't perfect, and the law isn't perfect, so there's always the chance that someone will get screwed over. But I take issue with your statements that you "support it" and that "he'd deserve anything she took him for."

* Some people have moral viewpoints that will require them to continue the pregnancy. Fine. Just don't tell the guy you'd have an abortion in the event of a pregnancy.

[Arcane1]

I believe there was a case a while ago (in the states, I believe) where a woman gave a guy a blowjob and didn't swallow, later using that cum to make herself pregnant. She later tracked down the guy and sued for alimony. She won. In a case like that, where a guy is well and truely tricked into getting a woman pregnant (without his knowledge of the full risks involved) by means of deception (eg, 'oh, I'm on the pill' 'yeah, that condom doesn't have a hole pricked in the end', etc) I see no real reason why that dad should have to pay for support if she keeps it. To me, I guess, if someone is decieved into doing a sexual act (eg, having sex to get someone pregnant, guy 'accidentally' slips the condom off and she doesn't realise (yeah, I do reckon that almost forced pregnancy or forced infection exposure can happen in reverse too) etc) without the real knowledge of what they are doing there should be no onus on the decieved for support - hell, perhaps the one who tricked the other should get criminal charges placed on them (as I see it almost akin to rape).

However, I do not think that a forced abortion is the way to go in any case. Once a woman is pregnant, it is up to her to undergo elective surgery. However if she does decide to keep the kid after forcing you into fatherhood, and you decide not to be a part of that kids life - no money. If you do decide to be a part of the kid's life - pay up. I guess. I don't really know.

Eh, these are just my quick thoughts on the matter. I don't know what the law states on the matter, but I know what I think it should be.

Do you have any docs on that? It sounds rather far out. Regardless, he should have been able to contest the act as it wasn't actual intercourse.
Granted, if the DNA says it is the Man's child, then he is obligated to pay through the child's 18th year. The problem is that the woman does NOT have to allow the Man to have any more than minimal parental rights if any at all. The most that a Man is legally entitled to is a couple weekends a month visitation, and that can be controlled greatly by the Mother at her whim. Many men that find they are locked out of the kid's life then decide not to pay support, and then find out that isn't so legal.
After my son came to live with me, I continued to pay his mother support for a couple years because she wouldn't do the court paperwork for him to be here with me, so the support order was still in effect. The collection of the support is enforced by the County, so if I didn't pay it they would come after me. Based on income it was $1250.00 a month also... which really sucked. (for me, not her)
Bottom line: If she gets pregnant with your sperm, you are owned for the next 18 years, married, one nighter, or not.

[johny_roberts]

The way it works is this: Womens body her decision......... the end...............

Wrap it and pray it dont break ...........dont buy Durex they are the suck...........
Use spermicidal lubrication on top of the condom .............trojan is the rock..........
Wary of one night stands and always wrap it..................hookers are good also............

[peto]

And do you think it's right for the others to fuck off, and that the sucker with the bill deserved it? Assuming for the sake of argument that he could prove there was an agreement to split phone costs, and he took it to small claims court, do you think the magistrate should knock him back?


I didnt say it was right to fuck off, but unfortunately as you said, People aren't perfect". I'd like to add to that and say that some people are just down right cunts and it happens all the time.

The point made is that some people are very deceptive and still manage to get others in shit. I know a lot of people who have had my example of the phone bill happen to them. The law states that your name is on the Bill, you'd better pay up or get your credit record tainted.

The exact same thing goes for women who decieve the guy in to getting them pregnant.

Something that also comes to mind there are some women, that decide that they were too drunk or that their partner were a dud root and claim rape. Unfortunately like pregnancy, very hard for the man to prove otherwise, and in most cases gets through mud to prove their innocence and still go to jail.

I dont condone rape at all. It's an act I can't imagine the impact of and would rather see the bastards who go out and rape women (and men for that matter) put in a meat shredder. But there are innocent men out there in some cases.

Sex is an absolute mine field when you get with some downright assholes, and it often leads, in those circumstances, to some major form of legal battle.

[eeefreak]

"I've been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding, the cretins are cloning and feeding." - Harvey Danger.

Amen.

[Aurelius]

What about in the case of Miraculous Conception? Who paid Jesus' child support?

I should clarify that while everyone debates the rights and wrongs of scrotes who try and say "Oh, but it wasn't my fault, I shouldn't have to pay" I am simply stating what the current law says, and supporting said law.

Now, under the Australian Child Support laws, in the case of Joshua of Nazareth, his father - Joseph - would be hit up for child support. This is because there are certain presumptions of paternity. One of them is that the parents are living as defactos 10 months before the birth of the child.
And yes, before all the little scrotes who think they are clever because they think of a loophole speak up, the presumptions of paternity are not all-encompassing, and if a parent wishes, they can obtain a court order to have the paternity tested. And in the case of our baby Nazarene, Joseph would then have gotten off. (assuming the immaculate conception did happen, and let's face it, who of us believes that tripe?)

[lostreality]

http://members.aol.com/pumpkinave/costumes/judgejudy.jpg
men dont have rights full stop.


..

[King_Crud]

I believe there was a case a while ago (in the states, I believe) where a woman gave a guy a blowjob and didn't swallow, later using that cum to make herself pregnant. She later tracked down the guy and sued for alimony. She won.

It was Boris Becker. Some chick gave him a blow job in a cupboard at a resteraunt. I don't think it was in the states and i don't think she was American either, i have a feeling she was russian.

Edit, here it is, down the bottom is the info about his personal life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Becker

[Aurelius]

Considering at the time, old Boom Boom was going thru a divorce proceeding, of course he's going to say "But I swear I didn't bone the waitress".

[Sanura]

Ahhhh, that might be the one. Not sure if it is (would have to check with the boyfriend as he is the one who let me know about the incident).

Either way, eh. I hope that it just never happens to me :D (not the quickie in the cupboard, the accidentally getting pregnant thing)

Please don't think that I do not support child support if a child is a result of a coupling. I think that it is important (and I don't know quite enough about it to have too solid an opinion about it). However I do feel sorry for anyone who is seriously tricked into that tight little spot. Even people you love and would trust with your life can come back and give you a nasty shock when they admit that they got pregnant on purpose.

[King_Crud]

i keep telling the ladies, up the bum, no harm done

[That Bloke]

I don't think a man really should have a right to challenge an abortion let alone order one.

[Scumbag]

My sister was on the Pill and when in the act the condom broke. She got pregnant. I now have a beautiful nephew.


Sorry but I dont beleive that at all.

Why would they be using condoms if she was on the pill ? Double the protection and both failed ?


Nup. I dont buy that.

[Sagacious]

In Australia a 'parent' of an unborn child cannot force the mother of that unborn child to abort the foetus.

The legal guardians of an incapable mother carrying a foetus may be able to obtain a court order allowing doctors to perform an abortion where teh procedure will save the life of the mother.

The 'parent' of an unborn child may be able to obtain an injunction preventing an abortion from being performed in respect of a foetus.

That is all.

[ms edeity]

Word of caution for the morning after pill. Doesn't prevent ectopics, and although rare, that's a long term consideration and a short term thought.
Thanks Sagacious for simply illustrating the law because opinions are fine - but that's all folks so perhaps if you really don't want a child - take your own responsibility regardless of what someone says.

[Sagacious]

On the topic of child support and parentage:

Basically it's simple: If you are the daddy you are paying there is one exception to this position and that is someone else adopts your child. That is all. Everything else just serves to cause the Child Support formula to be adjusted or departed from. That is everything else.

[Aurelius]

Sagacious,

I preferred the rhyming version, but I think your point is valid. We can debate the issue till we are blue, but the law is how it is.

[Sagacious]

Sagacious,

I preferred the rhyming version, but I think your point is valid. We can debate the issue till we are blue, but the law is how it is.
It is not my intention to stifle debate on the issue. I just want to put the position clearly and succinctly out there.

Cheers

That is all.

[Enos]

Kind of related to this debate, what about if a guy's been paying child support mistakenly believing it was theirs? Is there any kind of compensation or just sucked in? Can the one responsible be made to pay compensation?

Interested as this seems to becoming more of an issue recently with DNA testing and the surprising number of men who find themselves in this situation...

[Sagacious]

Kind of related to this debate, what about if a guy's been paying child support mistakenly believing it was theirs? Is there any kind of compensation or just sucked in? Can the one responsible be made to pay compensation?

Interested as this seems to becoming more of an issue recently with DNA testing and the surprising number of men who find themselves in this situation...

There is a precedent for the repayment of mistakenly paid child support but the onus is very much on the overpayer to establish non paternity and chase for a refund. As Child Support is a debt payable to the commonwealth of australia the appropriate debtor is the Commonwealth who then pursue the person to whom they paid the Child Support thus collected.

[Enos]

Ah ok, I didn't realise you paid child support to the government not directly to the person. Thanks for clearing that up. Any record of the government actually coughing up though?

[Tintin]

There is a precedent for the repayment of mistakenly paid child support but the onus is very much on the overpayer to establish non paternity and chase for a refund. As Child Support is a debt payable to the commonwealth of australia the appropriate debtor is the Commonwealth who then pursue the person to whom they paid the Child Support thus collected.So in rhyming legislation/law format(TM) that would be

If you check the DNA
And find you overpay,
Tell it to the Commonwealth of A. :boohoo:

[ms edeity]

Yup. A "child of the marriage" is presumed to be that of the husband's responsibility. All this means is that DNA testing isn't being allowed as a further "let's fuck each other with innuendo" tool. So if the reason for a DNA test is credible, the law allows for correct compensation.

[Enos]

Yup. A "child of the marriage" is presumed to be that of the husband's responsibility. All this means is that DNA testing isn't being allowed as a further "let's fuck each other with innuendo" tool. So if the reason for a DNA test is credible, the law allows for correct compensation.

So what you're saying is edeity owes me a fuckload of cash.

I knew that little agro puller wasn't mine!

[ms edeity]

The debt is to the Commonwealth but the debtor is the party. So the Commonwealth doesn't pay up front then seek recompense. The party owing child support under any circumstance is still responsible. The distinction was made to remove the equation from parties involved.

[Sagacious]

Ah ok, I didn't realise you paid child support to the government not directly to the person. Thanks for clearing that up. Any record of the government actually coughing up though?

There have been instances yes.

I can't name any for you but I was in the back of the Court one day when and Order for the Commonwealth to pay wass made.

[ms edeity]

So what you're saying is edeity owes me a fuckload of cash.

I knew that little agro puller wasn't mine!
LOL - No DNA to say he's mine either!!! Edeity sucks.

[Aurelius]

Child Support law has guidelines under which paternity is presumed.
If someone is paying under these, and believes the child involved is not theirs, they obtain a court order for blood tests to be conducted.
If they turn out to not be the parent, then their child support liabilities are cancelled.
I do not believe a case yet exists of previously paid child support to be returned to them.

As for whether the money in any child support matter is paid to the Government, the other parent, or a third party depends on the circumstances of the actual case. But essentially, the Government (thru the ATO and the CSA) acts as 'debt collector' for the monies.

[Happy Camper]

What about identical twins. Since they have the same DNA, how do they determine who owns the baby ?

[Arcane1]

Ah ok, I didn't realise you paid child support to the government not directly to the person. Thanks for clearing that up. Any record of the government actually coughing up though?
In Illinois, the money is directly garnished from your wages. When you apply for a job you have to sign off that you either owe or don't owe support. The fucked up part is that Illinois is so far behind on processing the payments, that the disbursements are months behind. For that reason, many women end up on public assistance, and when applying for that they have to list that they are owed support by the father.

Here's the kicker: Once a woman is on public aid, any support payments made are now owed to the state, meaning that since they fucked up in the first place and the woman is now on welfare, they get to keep the support payments anyway.

Makes sense, right?

[criminy]

If someone is paying under these, and believes the child involved is not theirs, they obtain a court order for blood tests to be conducted.
If they turn out to not be the parent, then their child support liabilities are cancelled.

There was some ruckus recently about the rights of the mother to object to or even veto a DNA test on their child, which would of course make the alleged father unable to disprove his paternity (I think the "disproved" rate is only 10% or so though).

Know anything about that?

[Elentari]

...condoms are cheaper than kids...

end of story

[Holster]

Condoms break....

True story

[Happy Camper]

There was some ruckus recently about the rights of the mother to object to or even veto a DNA test on their child, which would of course make the alleged father unable to disprove his paternity (I think the "disproved" rate is only 10% or so though).

Know anything about that?

But aren't we innocent until proven gulity ? Therefore she gets nothing.

[Arcane1]

There was some ruckus recently about the rights of the mother to object to or even veto a DNA test on their child, which would of course make the alleged father unable to disprove his paternity (I think the "disproved" rate is only 10% or so though).

Know anything about that?
Here if there is no proof of paternity, there is no paternity suit. Any less form of "proof" is worthless and the alleged Father has the right to contest. If she refuses, then she also gives up the rights to claim suport.

[locust]

It's not a crime. I don't even think it's normal civil law (torts and stuff).

Edit: just to clarify, I'm talking about Happy Camper's "But aren't we innocent until proven gulity ?"

[Arcane1]

It's not a crime. I don't even think it's normal civil law (torts and stuff).
It's a crime if a judge orders you to submit, or submit the minor to a DNA swabbing and you refuse. That is contempt of court and a good way to get a vacation behind bars. If the woman knowingly brought a paternity suit against a man that was false in an attempt to rope him into support, that is also criminal.

[Aurelius]

All you who want to find loopholes can do so to your heart's content.
Sagacious and I have stated what the law is.
Don't like it? Get yourself elected, campaign to have the majority of the politicians side with you, and change the law.
But since the CS legislation is one of only two bills to ever go thru the Aust parliament unanimously and without amendment, good luck.

[Sagacious]

But aren't we innocent until proven gulity ? Therefore she gets nothing.
Alas no there are presumptions as to paternity that arise and have to be rebutted in order to extinguish the liability to Child Support. Among these presumptions are such diverse elements as:

Being on the birth certificate as the father
Cohabiting with the mother of the child at or about the time of conception
being married to the mother of the child at or about the time of conception

there are other circumstances that give rise to the presumption but I can't remember them all.

Hope this helps

[Aurelius]

There was some ruckus recently about the rights of the mother to object to or even veto a DNA test on their child, which would of course make the alleged father unable to disprove his paternity (I think the "disproved" rate is only 10% or so though).

Know anything about that?

Paternity testing is requested of the court. Court almost always grants it. And if the mother obstructs, she's in contempt. Doesn't happen.

I don't have the figures on how many paternity tests give what result, but I do remember one case when I was at CSA. The husband got his mate to provide the sample for the test, so the test would turn out negative. But turns out his mate had been boffing his Mrs. So test turned out positive. Only way the husband could get out of it was admit to trying to deceive the court.

And as for answering Happy Camper's stupid comments (when he started this thread by asking if he can force an abortion because he'd been a stupid dickhead in the first place), I shant even bother.

[Sagacious]

Paternity testing is requested of the court. Court almost always grants it. And if the mother obstructs, she's in contempt. Doesn't happen.

I don't have the figures on how many paternity tests give what result, but I do remember one case when I was at CSA. The husband got his mate to provide the sample for the test, so the test would turn out negative. But turns out his mate had been boffing his Mrs. So test turned out positive. Only way the husband could get out of it was admit to trying to deceive the court.

And as for answering Happy Camper's stupid comments (when he started this thread by asking if he can force an abortion because he'd been a stupid dickhead in the first place), I shant even bother.

The pair of them were so totallly PWN3D by eachother and his missus.

[Arcane1]

And as for answering Happy Camper's stupid comments (when he started this thread by asking if he can force an abortion because he'd been a stupid dickhead in the first place), I shant even bother.
Solution: Castration. Not the nice pharmacutical type either, the kind that uses the knife.

[Sagacious]

Solution: Castration. Not the nice pharmacutical type either, the kind that uses the knife.
cinderblocks

[criminy]

Paternity testing is requested of the court. Court almost always grants it. And if the mother obstructs, she's in contempt. Doesn't happen.

I knew there was something I was outraged about, but I remembered incorrectly.

Having done some more research, I now realise that the ruckus was actually about the opposite situation, that "fathers" with access rights (but who don't believe they are the bio father) could legally get themselves and "their" child DNA tested privately and take the results to the CSA. There was a call to have this right removed, and allow private testing only with the mother's consent. In the case of denied consent from the mother, the Family Court would have to call for the test.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1330372.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s179489.htm

This was all around the time of Tony Abbott's ultimately non-biological long-lost-son.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s255087.htm

Of course, if you take a DNA sample from a kid who ultimately turns out to not be yours, then you might just get charged with assault.

[Phyltr]

Condoms break....

True story


....so do children.

[Holster]

4 serios?

I tried, but it didn't work for me ;_;

[Arcane1]

All you who want to find loopholes can do so to your heart's content.
Sagacious and I have stated what the law is.
Don't like it? Get yourself elected, campaign to have the majority of the politicians side with you, and change the law.
But since the CS legislation is one of only two bills to ever go thru the Aust parliament unanimously and without amendment, good luck.
I have to add one point to this:
Don't like the paternity laws? Keep it in your pants. I've told my son (age 16) that getting laid may well be great fun and all that, but that 30 minutes of happy, happy just may well cost you 18 years of bullshit. You're better off playing Russian Roulette.

And no, that isn't how I grew up, as I scewed everything that would slow down enough and he knows that and the reasons why I advise against it.

[s3raph]

Arcane speaks the truth. Sex is a grownup game for a reason, and part of being a grownup is taking responsibility. That said though, it would be nice if we lived in some sort of alternate happy dimension where it was ethically possible for the man to be able to have an equal say in the matter given that it will affect his life almost as much as the woman's.