Man refuses to pay child support for prostitute's child

[BroomJockey]

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?

That's not what he was saying, and you know it. Don't try and pretend otherwise.

[Nyoibo]

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.

However, there are government payments that she can claim if the shit hits the fan to off set that, I believe I already pointed them out in a previous post, there aren't any available for him.

[Boozy]

I'm saying if he's got a financial hardship, he should be off the hook until he gets in a better situation.

That's not how things work. If he's making less money, a judge may scale back his child support payments accordingly, but he isn't going to be off the hook entirely.

A child does not cease needing food or shelter just because his sperm donor takes a pay cut. The custodial parent doesn't have the luxury of stopping buying food for her child when she finds herself short. My parents didn't get "off the hook" in providing for me when hard times hit when I was a child. I was their responsibility. I ate before they did.

[DrFaroohk]

Where I live, it takes the combined income of both parents and makes a percentage out of it...like if Mom makes 40,000 a year and dad makes 60,000, then their combined income is 100K, and Mom is responsible for 40% of the support.

My wife was a GENIUS, a week before the child support hearing she quit her job so that I would be responsible for, that's right, 100% of the support! Woohoo!

If I had done that, my ass would be in jail. Or if it had been another situation, say, if I sold a piece of real estate I had to keep her from getting it. Highly illegal. But no, it was ok for her. Just like I got to pay for half of the shit she got to keep. I can understand paying for half and getting to keep half. Not pay for half and keep none.

Can you understand why some men get bitter and resentful and try to "weasel" out of things??? We have to protect every penny we can!!! We know we're gonna get screwed somewhere. Oh wait, it's our own fault.

I have to ask though, what about when women bitch and moan about stuff with their marriages and kids? Do you just tell them "WELL YOU HAD SEX DEAL WITH IT!" or is it suddenly "OH YOU POOR BABY IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT YOU GOT PREGNANT! BASTARD MEN ARE BASTARDS! BASTARDS! ARG!!" All I ever hear is sympathy out the wazoo.

[DrFaroohk]

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.

I agree. If there's no food in the kitchen its ok to go out to eat. Sex is a part of marriage, and if one spouse suddenly loses interest, either through medication, emotional trauma, injury, or just plain doesn't care, tough shit for them. Its like when me and my wife go out to a club or something - I do not dance. Under no circumstances do I dance. I just don't. I won't. I don't like it. So guess what? She gets to dance with whoever she wants. If I don't like it, I can start dancing. same goes for sex. If she were to suddenly refuse sex cuz she just didn't feel like it, I get to go elsewhere.

[Boozy]

What if you and your wife were to get a divorce, and you got custody of the kids? And all of a sudden, she decides she doesn't need to pay support because she's going through a rough time financially?

Would you have the option of not buying your child food until she gets a raise?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Why would you need to go to a child support hearing if the mother of your child is, in fact, your wife?

[Gravekeeper]

Why would you need to go to a child support hearing if the mother of your child is, in fact, your wife?

What if you and your wife were to get a divorce, and you got custody of the kids?

<cough> >.>

[DesignFox]

However, there are government payments that she can claim if the shit hits the fan to off set that, I believe I already pointed them out in a previous post, there aren't any available for him.

What does that have to do with anything? If he had custody of the child, those government benefits would be available to him as sole care-taker, and SHE would need to pay child-support.

<snip>

I have to ask though, what about when women bitch and moan about stuff with their marriages and kids? <snip>

Yes, I would tell them that they chose to have children, they should deal with it. The woman doesn't get off the hook, either. It's equally her responsibility. I just find that it is often harder for the woman to "run off" since they have to, you know, BEAR the child and all.

I agree. If there's no food in the kitchen its ok to go out to eat. Sex is a part of marriage, and if one spouse suddenly loses interest, either through medication, emotional trauma, injury, or just plain doesn't care, tough shit for them. <snip> same goes for sex. If she were to suddenly refuse sex cuz she just didn't feel like it, I get to go elsewhere.

That's a pretty callous attitude. I'd be pretty hurt if my life partner treated me in such a manner. I'm not married, but I certainly wouldn't make a committment to someone who would treat me with such disregard for my feelings.

Then again, I tend to be too loyal for my own good. I wouldn't dream of purposely hurting my partner. I tend to set high standards in return.

I understand that other couples may be more open. And as long as that is a prior agreement, I have no problem with others doing what they want. (before everyone has to bring that point up for the thousandth time) *I* do not want to be treated that way. *I* do not share and *I* do not want to be shared.

Unless this guy's wife specifically agreed to let him run wild, I say he's a total douchewaffle. And even if she agreed that it was OK for him to seek sex elsewhere, I am DAMN sure she wasn't expecting a child to come of it. And the onus was on HIM not just the whore he chose to lay with.

He should man up and take responsibility for his actions.

[Slytovhand]

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

Actually, no.. this was exactly the sort of thread I was anticipating! (well, hoping for ) Quite a lot of the time, we have certain agreements along pretty straight-forward moral values... I thought this would be divisive

*I* do not share

Well, no chocolate for you then!!!



Although, getting a tad more serious, I think GK has it aright... he's already volunteered the payments, it's going to be pretty hard for him to now suggest he shouldn't have to.

Btw - $70K in Australia isn't as much as you may think... sure, it's fine for yourself, and with a partner, but start bringing in kids, and you quickly see how quickly that gets gobbled up... sort of literally!


So, let's bring it back to his real argument... he had sex.. it was a business proposition, which would have as part of its terms 'no kids'... and that didn't happen. So, she basically breached the agreement. And that little baby is going to be an interesting legal precedent!

(and, FTR, unless she's also got a bad drug habit, or isn't up to scratch, she could quite easily be earning a lot more than him! Doesn't take a lot if you're charging a couple hundred a trick..)

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, I'll leave you all with one more thought, and this one is to the ladies:

Ladies, human females are the only species of females that doesn't carefully choose who they let into their pants. We will procreate with poor specimens.

This is a poor idea.

That's all.

[Rapscallion]

Ladies, human females are the only species of females that doesn't carefully choose who they let into their pants. We will procreate with poor specimens.

I'm going to assume that I'm such a good specimen that I can't possibly be considered. That's better than the alternative.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

Ladies, human females are the only species of females that doesn't carefully choose who they let into their pants.

Not... exactly true... but close, I suppose. After all, chimps engage in rape, so do lions. In fact, lions will engage in infanticide prior, so that the female's not... actually, I'm not sure why. It's kinda fucked up. Still, I doubt every chimp and lion engaging in forcible intercourse is a wonderful example of the species.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, forced intercourse is not the female choosing. It's the male choosing.

The lions do it because if the cub dies, the female goes into estrus again. He's not doing it to get off, he's doing it so he can impregante the female with his DNA and have his offspring not have to compete for resources. It's economics more than anything.

However, the female does not choose that. The male does.

[BroomJockey]

However, the female does not choose that. The male does.

And then there's the species that fuck for shits 'n giggles. I doubt they pick the best mate possible every time they wanna roll in the grass.

Don't idealize animals. They're not better than people, because people aren't better than them.