OK, before this gets all weird…First, Melin, I knew you would come through with sound advice about the legal issues here. I believe you are correct, the courts don’t care about the circumstances. She got pregnant, and they were both responsible.
I just feel bad for the father, who was young also (19 I think) hasn’t heard a word about support or anything else for all this time and is going to come home on Friday (or whenever) and see a paternaty suit in his mail. I guess you would have to know my sister- she is extremely manipulative. And to answer a question from above, she didn’t feel the need or want to do this (these are her words)until she realized that he was living happily, with a wife and two other kids and doing financially well. She was zero interested in him or his money when he was making minimum wage.
I appreciate those who have tried to hope that she’s not as bad as she is, but unfortunately she really is. It’s just sad that she cares not who she hurts for her own selfish wants. (she told me right out that it’s not the money- she wants revenge)
I hate to be so all over on this, but I guess what it boils down to is that to me, it just doesn’t seem right to hit someone out of the blue with something this serious. She hasn’t even discussed it with her husband. It’s not the fact that she will get money that seems wrong, it’s the vengence factor that really bothers me.
There- that’s my rant.
Zette
Oh, she is married? Then maybe one of my earlier suggestions might work:
I don’t know how good of a guy your brother-in-law is, but do you think he’d want to adopt your niece, instead of just being a step-dad? If so, your niece’s father could surrender his paternal claims to b-i-l (maybe also pay for court costs, to appease the financial responsibility crowd). That would short-circuit your sister’s vengance suit.
Only offer this compromise once the suit is public knowledge (and depending on your brother-in-law’s attitude). If she doesn’t accept it, it would show she doesn’t want what’s best for her daughter: a father. Also, if the need or want of the support money isn’t there, I’d think the vengance factor would play even heavier against her in court.
(Please note that I’m not a legal expert. I might be wrong on some of the feasibilities of this plan.)
There has GOT to be a way to create a male equivanent of the pill. I know it’s being worked on, but christ, we’ve had the pill since the 60’s. Women are too fucked in the head when it comes to the whole baby thing to leave the responsibility up to them. While the man can (And I do) carry condoms, they tend to go the wayside once the relationship gets comfortable (both test negative and she’s on the pill). As is, I’ve already had this happen to me twice… the first time was me being dumb (tell a 16 yr old boy “oh… we don’t need protection, I can’t have kids” and he’ll believe you…) the second was her “forgetting” to take her pills. The first (luckily?) wound up in a miscarriage, the second I narrowly avoided when I discovered she had never refilled her prescription on the pills. The first one still pains me to this day… I mean, I never even knew till it happened, but they (twins, no less) were still my kids. sigh.
Anyways… if there was a pill, I’d take it… in an instant. As is, I wear a condom even if it’s just oral. Those sperm are sneaky, and I aint taking any chances.
http://www.madpoet.com
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Wow, Mad…that was totally uncalled for. I think I’ll just ask that this thread be closed. I guess it was asking too much to get some feedback on a bad situation without having someone drag it down into a “man vs women” thread.
Forget I mentioned it.
Zette
Zette, what state do you live in? I would think that any lawyer your sister contacted (unless he/she too is a manipulator) would tell her flat out that she doesn’t stand a chance after 11 years because of:
The statute of limitations.
The fact that she voluntarily stayed incommunicado with the baby’s father all that time.
Why did she wait 11 years? Is she looking to collect a huge lump sum in back child-support payments?
I’m in CA. In the 1940s Charlie Chaplin faced a paternity action by a young woman who claimed he had sired her illegitimate baby. The blood tests ruled Chaplin out, but because of a quirk in the Code of Civil Procedure (corrected some 20 years later) the court allowed the case to go to trial–and Chaplin lost. Berry v. Chaplin, State appellate court, 1946.
If you’re in CA you might refer the guy to this case law; if not, hey, he can probably use it anyway–in a negative way–as persuasive authority.
Creative thinking, Monty, but it won’t work for two reasons. First, the support obligation is a continuing responsibility. Statutes of limitation don’t apply. Second, the right to support belongs to the child, who is a minor. Statutes of limitation are tolled (don’t run) against people under a legal incapacity. Minority = legal incapacity.