Victim or not, Kourt says pay up!

Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004






BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support for
their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely a
crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area man, now
29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is to
provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the
fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County judge,
who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels, and all
of the participants either could not be reached or declined to discuss the
case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when
the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was not
the child's father.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had no
knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said forcing
him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the crime against
him.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for the
mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an
"important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a
western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old daughter he has
never met and, until four years ago, did not know he had fathered.


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

Dusty wrote:
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004

BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child
support for their now teenage son, even though under state law, the
sex act was likely a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a
decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area
man, now 29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of
child support is to provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded
without regard to the fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County
judge, who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels,
and all of the participants either could not be reached or declined
to discuss the case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision,
when the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her
ex-husband was not the child's father.

Doin' 2 guys at about the same time, eh? And one of them was grossly
underage? Not relevant to CS, but interesting nonetheless.

The one **RIGHT** thing the court did here was not saddle the
ex-husband/non-father with unjust CS.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had
no knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said
forcing him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the
crime against him.

How old was the mother at the time? The story doesn't say. He may
have been 14, but I doubt he was a "victim". Chances are he knew damn
well what he was doing. Having said that, if the mother never told
him, and she even led the ex-husband to believe that it was his, the
real father should not be expected to pay a dime for any of that time.
Maybe from the time he was told until ahe turns 18, but not before that.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not
for the mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is
justified as an "important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling
that a western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old
daughter he has never met and, until four years ago, did not know he
had fathered.

Is it a teenage son, as mentioned near the beginning, or a 21 year old
daughter? Oh, wait, different cases. Yes, I remember reading about
the girl, too, several days ago. The writer did not make that very
clear.

--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei

Dusty wrote:
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004

BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child
support for their now teenage son, even though under state law, the
sex act was likely a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a
decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area
man, now 29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of
child support is to provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded
without regard to the fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County
judge, who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels,
and all of the participants either could not be reached or declined
to discuss the case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision,
when the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her
ex-husband was not the child's father.

Doin' 2 guys at about the same time, eh? And one of them was grossly
underage? Not relevant to CS, but interesting nonetheless.

The one **RIGHT** thing the court did here was not saddle the
ex-husband/non-father with unjust CS.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had
no knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said
forcing him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the
crime against him.

How old was the mother at the time? The story doesn't say. He may
have been 14, but I doubt he was a "victim". Chances are he knew damn
well what he was doing. Having said that, if the mother never told
him, and she even led the ex-husband to believe that it was his, the
real father should not be expected to pay a dime for any of that time.
Maybe from the time he was told until ahe turns 18, but not before that.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not
for the mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is
justified as an "important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling
that a western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old
daughter he has never met and, until four years ago, did not know he
had fathered.

Is it a teenage son, as mentioned near the beginning, or a 21 year old
daughter? Oh, wait, different cases. Yes, I remember reading about
the girl, too, several days ago. The writer did not make that very
clear.

--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei

Dusty wrote:
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004


The man ought to be able to file a "Child Rape" lawsuit against the
woman in civil court and get a judgement against her for all his
expenses including all his child support payments.

Bob










BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support for
their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely a
crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area man, now
29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is to
provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the
fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County judge,
who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels, and all
of the participants either could not be reached or declined to discuss the
case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when
the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was not
the child's father.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had no
knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said forcing
him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the crime against
him.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for the
mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an
"important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a
western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old daughter he has
never met and, until four years ago, did not know he had fathered.





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Dusty wrote:
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004


The man ought to be able to file a "Child Rape" lawsuit against the
woman in civil court and get a judgement against her for all his
expenses including all his child support payments.

Bob










BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support for
their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely a
crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area man, now
29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is to
provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the
fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County judge,
who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels, and all
of the participants either could not be reached or declined to discuss the
case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when
the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was not
the child's father.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had no
knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said forcing
him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the crime against
him.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for the
mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an
"important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a
western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old daughter he has
never met and, until four years ago, did not know he had fathered.





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Wouldn't it be more logical to order him to repay the marital "father"
who probably was the one who actually provided the financial support for
the "son"? The only way this would not be the only "fair" scenario
would be if "mommy" had been the breadwinner ahd the cuckolded husband
had been a SAH. Most likely, mommy is NOT being reimbursed for her
expenses in raising the child...she is being rewarded for having a
uterus...that cavernous expanse which is otherwise known as a gold mine.

Mel Gamble

"The Dave©" wrote:

Dusty wrote:
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004

BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child
support for their now teenage son, even though under state law, the
sex act was likely a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a
decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area
man, now 29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of
child support is to provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded
without regard to the fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County
judge, who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels,
and all of the participants either could not be reached or declined
to discuss the case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision,
when the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her
ex-husband was not the child's father.

Doin' 2 guys at about the same time, eh? And one of them was grossly
underage? Not relevant to CS, but interesting nonetheless.

The one **RIGHT** thing the court did here was not saddle the
ex-husband/non-father with unjust CS.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had
no knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said
forcing him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the
crime against him.

How old was the mother at the time? The story doesn't say. He may
have been 14, but I doubt he was a "victim". Chances are he knew damn
well what he was doing. Having said that, if the mother never told
him, and she even led the ex-husband to believe that it was his, the
real father should not be expected to pay a dime for any of that time.
Maybe from the time he was told until ahe turns 18, but not before that.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not
for the mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is
justified as an "important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling
that a western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old
daughter he has never met and, until four years ago, did not know he
had fathered.

Is it a teenage son, as mentioned near the beginning, or a 21 year old
daughter? Oh, wait, different cases. Yes, I remember reading about
the girl, too, several days ago. The writer did not make that very
clear.

--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei

Wouldn't it be more logical to order him to repay the marital "father"
who probably was the one who actually provided the financial support for
the "son"? The only way this would not be the only "fair" scenario
would be if "mommy" had been the breadwinner ahd the cuckolded husband
had been a SAH. Most likely, mommy is NOT being reimbursed for her
expenses in raising the child...she is being rewarded for having a
uterus...that cavernous expanse which is otherwise known as a gold mine.

Mel Gamble

"The Dave©" wrote:

Dusty wrote:
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004

BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child
support for their now teenage son, even though under state law, the
sex act was likely a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a
decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area
man, now 29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of
child support is to provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded
without regard to the fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County
judge, who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels,
and all of the participants either could not be reached or declined
to discuss the case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision,
when the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her
ex-husband was not the child's father.

Doin' 2 guys at about the same time, eh? And one of them was grossly
underage? Not relevant to CS, but interesting nonetheless.

The one **RIGHT** thing the court did here was not saddle the
ex-husband/non-father with unjust CS.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had
no knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said
forcing him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the
crime against him.

How old was the mother at the time? The story doesn't say. He may
have been 14, but I doubt he was a "victim". Chances are he knew damn
well what he was doing. Having said that, if the mother never told
him, and she even led the ex-husband to believe that it was his, the
real father should not be expected to pay a dime for any of that time.
Maybe from the time he was told until ahe turns 18, but not before that.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not
for the mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is
justified as an "important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling
that a western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old
daughter he has never met and, until four years ago, did not know he
had fathered.

Is it a teenage son, as mentioned near the beginning, or a 21 year old
daughter? Oh, wait, different cases. Yes, I remember reading about
the girl, too, several days ago. The writer did not make that very
clear.

--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei

If people are able to sue the Catholic Church for things that happened over
twenty years ago, why has a lawsuit not been filed in this case?

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004






BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support
for
their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely
a
crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area man, now
29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is
to
provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the
fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County
judge,
who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels, and
all
of the participants either could not be reached or declined to discuss the
case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when
the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was
not
the child's father.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had no
knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said forcing
him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the crime against
him.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for
the
mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an
"important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a
western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old daughter he has
never met and, until four years ago, did not know he had fathered.


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

If people are able to sue the Catholic Church for things that happened over
twenty years ago, why has a lawsuit not been filed in this case?

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Child support just, court says

Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004






BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER




A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support
for
their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely
a
crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.

The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area man, now
29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is
to
provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the
fault of either of the parents."

The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County
judge,
who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.

The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels, and
all
of the participants either could not be reached or declined to discuss the
case Friday.

The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when
the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was
not
the child's father.

The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had no
knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said forcing
him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the crime against
him.

The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for
the
mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an
"important public policy."

Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a
western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old daughter he has
never met and, until four years ago, did not know he had fathered.


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Wouldn't it be more logical to order him to repay the marital "father"
who probably was the one who actually provided the financial support for
the "son"? The only way this would not be the only "fair" scenario
would be if "mommy" had been the breadwinner ahd the cuckolded husband
had been a SAH. Most likely, mommy is NOT being reimbursed for her
expenses in raising the child...she is being rewarded for having a
uterus...that cavernous expanse which is otherwise known as a gold mine.


Mel, an OLD joke was that you have to look closely at women for that little
tattoo on their rear.... "NCR"