Man refuses to pay child support for prostitute's child

[Flyndaran]

Coming at it from a slightly different perspective.... my medication eliminates my sex drive. I wouldn't consider it cheating if my love muffin wants to bump uglies with someone else on a purely sexual level.
She won't, but only because it isn't her nature to do one thing with her heart and another with her body.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I went back and read the article after reading Slytohand's post.

It never says he didn't wear a condom. It only says "sex without a condom is illegal in licenced brothels."

So now, I'm curious. Was he or was he not wearing one?

[Nyoibo]

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

[DesignFox]

<snip>
Anyway. The only way I could maybe see him not having to pay is if he had used a condom and it failed. Do the legal brothels have some kind of workman's comp that pays for pregnancies of failed birth control? <snip>

Quoting myself from earlier.

[McDreidel09]

Just reinforcing the "It was Australia," bit. Carry on.

That's what I get for just skimming. Whoops.

[Flyndaran]

Child support is for the child. It's not some kind of legal punishment. The male genetic contributor has to pay regardless of his fault or expectations.

[Slytovhand]

I went back and read the article after reading Slytohand's post.

It never says he didn't wear a condom. It only says "sex without a condom is illegal in licenced brothels."

So now, I'm curious. Was he or was he not wearing one?

yeah, exactly...

Either, the press doesn't know (probably), and/or the specifics of the case haven't been released (probably more likely).

I was just bringing it up, because there's been a long line of 'He didn't use a condom, thus he's a moron".. (sure, that'd be true, if that were the case.. but since we don't know, I'd rather not presume.. and, given the legal status, err on the side of caution)

[Gravekeeper]

Wow, what a clusterfuck of a thread this turned into. ><

However, one point no one seems to have covered:

"The magistrate heard the man had been paying casual child support payments of $100 each week before he lost his $140,000-a-year job.

He allegedly cut the payments when he took another job with a significantly reduced salary and ran into money troubles."

End of story. He has already established legal precedent by paying child support payments. He had no leg to stand on, at all. Period. As he has already set a precedent as accepting responsibility for the child. He only tried to weasel out of it after losing his high paying job.

In short he's fucked, and not in the good way I'm sure he briefly enjoyed before this whole problem began. ;p

[Greenday]

He only tried to weasel out of it after losing his high paying job.

So when it became financially hard on him, he stopped paying and that makes it weaseling out of it?

[DesignFox]

So when it became financially hard on him, he stopped paying and that makes it weaseling out of it?

Can't say I disagree with that statement. The mother doesn't get to stop providing for her child if the shit hits the fan. Why should his job circumstance lift the responsibility from him? It's still his kid.

[Greenday]

Can't say I disagree with that statement. The mother doesn't get to stop providing for her child if the shit hits the fan. Why should his job circumstance lift the responsibility from him? It's still his kid.

Wait, so you agree or disagree with my statement. Because I'm saying if he's got a financial hardship, he should be off the hook until he gets in a better situation.

[DesignFox]

Wait, so you agree or disagree with my statement. Because I'm saying if he's got a financial hardship, he should be off the hook until he gets in a better situation.

Sorry. I should have made that clearer. I was agreeing with GK's original statement and disagreeing with yours.

Just because his financial situation has changed, doesn't change the fact that he is responsible for this child.

[Gravekeeper]

Wait, so you agree or disagree with my statement. Because I'm saying if he's got a financial hardship, he should be off the hook until he gets in a better situation.

All I'm saying is legally speaking he has no recourse because he has, at least in the eyes of the law, already accepted responsibility. Also, his argument wasn't that he couldn't afford it, but that some silly contract violation non-sense should excuse him from it all together. So your point is completely moot, to be honest. He is trying to weasel out of it.

Also, judges tend to take into account income when determining support payments. Least, they do around here. Remember his new job is "significantly reduced" from a 140,000k job. Even if significant means half, he still makes a fair chunk of change from which a mere $100 a week should be nothing to support his child.

Sure there may be mitigating circumstances, but he didn't bring any of those up. He just tried to weasel out of it, after the fact, with some silly argument.

So yes, weasel.

[Flyndaran]

So if you are a prostitute, and I give you money when I'm super rich, no matter the reason, I have to keep giving you money forever?

[JuniorMintz]

Abortion IS an option.

So is masturbation. Just sayin'.