This one is a doozy

[Noomi]

It's a tough one but I've come to the conclusion that granting the mother custody based solely on the fact that she gave birth to the child is stupid.

Like it or not, while it resides in her womb, she has custody of it.

Way to misread a statement..... FYI, "gave" implies in the past. She already has given birth which means the child is no longer in her womb.

Well then they should work out custody arrangements, but the bloke can't expect to get custody just because he had a one night stand, which seems to be all this 'relationship' amounted to.

 

[BDBoop]

Like it or not, while it resides in her womb, she has custody of it.

Way to misread a statement..... FYI, "gave" implies in the past. She already has given birth which means the child is no longer in her womb.

Well then they should work out custody arrangements, but the bloke can't expect to get custody just because he had a one night stand, which seems to be all this 'relationship' amounted to.

Yup. Like I said. You can't re-do two lives over a six-week relationship.

And she was a special kind of stupid if she thought this was going somewhere.

 

[Againsheila]

Like it or not, while it resides in her womb, she has custody of it.

Way to misread a statement..... FYI, "gave" implies in the past. She already has given birth which means the child is no longer in her womb.

Well then they should work out custody arrangements, but the bloke can't expect to get custody just because he had a one night stand, which seems to be all this 'relationship' amounted to.

Then she shouldn't get child support just because she had a one night stand. <insert standard lack of intelligence insult here>

 

[Gracie]

One night stand or not...he left something behind that is permanent. If he is more competent to raise that child and actually wants to do that, then he should be heard in court and say why he wants to.
Beings that carry children in their bellies do not necessarily make good mothers.

Maybe at first he didn't want to be a dad. Now maybe he does. Anyone here wanna throw the first rock and say they never changed their mind about something? Should I duck?

 

[Noomi]

Way to misread a statement..... FYI, "gave" implies in the past. She already has given birth which means the child is no longer in her womb.

Well then they should work out custody arrangements, but the bloke can't expect to get custody just because he had a one night stand, which seems to be all this 'relationship' amounted to.

Then she shouldn't get child support just because she had a one night stand. <insert standard lack of intelligence insult here>

I agree.

 

[BDBoop]

Way to misread a statement..... FYI, "gave" implies in the past. She already has given birth which means the child is no longer in her womb.

Well then they should work out custody arrangements, but the bloke can't expect to get custody just because he had a one night stand, which seems to be all this 'relationship' amounted to.

Then she shouldn't get child support just because she had a one night stand. <insert standard lack of intelligence insult here>

It's not about her and her completely lame behaviors. Child support is for the benefit of the child.

 

[BDBoop]

One night stand or not...he left something behind that is permanent. If he is more competent to raise that child and actually wants to do that, then he should be heard in court and say why he wants to.
Beings that carry children in their bellies do not necessarily make good mothers.

Maybe at first he didn't want to be a dad. Now maybe he does. Anyone here wanna throw the first rock and say they never changed their mind about something? Should I duck?

This is all legal/logic to me. This has nothing to do with us, so I can't see anybody getting personal about it.

 

[Againsheila]

Well then they should work out custody arrangements, but the bloke can't expect to get custody just because he had a one night stand, which seems to be all this 'relationship' amounted to.

Then she shouldn't get child support just because she had a one night stand. <insert standard lack of intelligence insult here>

It's not about her and her completely lame behaviors. Child support is for the benefit of the child.

Yes it is. But you don't get to collect child support and then move miles away from the father so he doesn't have access to his kid. Not unless you can prove he is unfit, or he agrees to the move.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

From what I read in the original article, SHE moved to attend Columbia University because it was a good fit for her situation - being able to take classes while pregnant and the schedule working out around her. She notified the father what she intended to do. He wanted nothing to do with her or the baby. She moves, starts classes, he gets married to someone he was screwing around with while seeing her, his wife has a miscarriage, and then he decides he wants to be a father to the baby he originally pushed to the side. He sues, gets custody, and another court has ruled against the original custody decision.

Just because the dad has money and is an Olympic athlete does not make him a fit parent. If anything, his actions when he found out she was pregnant were very telling.

 

[Luissa]

he fathered the child, he has as much right to his child as she does. Or are you suggesting that forcing the father to pay while denying him his rights is ok?

And you think the woman should be punished for moving while pregnant? What about her rights?

What about them? She got pregnant, she decided to keep the kid, he's gonna pay child support, she needs to be sure he gets to see his child.

My father's wife moved after the divorce to Washington from Idaho. My dad didn't punish her. My dad also got to see his children and he paid to support them. It's called putting the children first and not yourself.
And maybe because my dad didn't try to screw his ex wife over for moving on with her life, everyone had a good relationship. This same ex wife comes to my son's birthday parties, her husband golfs on my dad's team in our family golf tournament, and my son calls her Grandma.

I never once heard my dad ***** about having to help support his children.

 

[BDBoop]

From what I read in the original article, SHE moved to attend Columbia University because it was a good fit for her situation - being able to take classes while pregnant and the schedule working out around her. She notified the father what she intended to do. He wanted nothing to do with her or the baby. She moves, starts classes, he gets married to someone he was screwing around with while seeing her, his wife has a miscarriage, and then he decides he wants to be a father to the baby he originally pushed to the side. He sues, gets custody, and another court has ruled against the original custody decision.

Just because the dad has money and is an Olympic athlete does not make him a fit parent. If anything, his actions when he found out she was pregnant were very telling.

That is my perception as well.

 

[Yurt]

From what I read in the original article, SHE moved to attend Columbia University because it was a good fit for her situation - being able to take classes while pregnant and the schedule working out around her. She notified the father what she intended to do. He wanted nothing to do with her or the baby. She moves, starts classes, he gets married to someone he was screwing around with while seeing her, his wife has a miscarriage, and then he decides he wants to be a father to the baby he originally pushed to the side. He sues, gets custody, and another court has ruled against the original custody decision.

Just because the dad has money and is an Olympic athlete does not make him a fit parent. If anything, his actions when he found out she was pregnant were very telling.

exactly. this is not a situation where she ran away from the guy so he couldn't see his child. he cheated on her, clearly indicated he did not want a long term relationship or marriage. who the heck is he to say she can't move to attend university before the child is born?

what about anchor babies? how is it that CA even has jurisdiction given the law concerning anchor babies? i believe state law is that you get a b/c in the state you are born in, as such, NY has jurisdiction. this is a complicated issue that congress or scotus needs to clear up because this is likely something, unfortunately, common in our day and age.

 

[BDBoop]

From what I read in the original article, SHE moved to attend Columbia University because it was a good fit for her situation - being able to take classes while pregnant and the schedule working out around her. She notified the father what she intended to do. He wanted nothing to do with her or the baby. She moves, starts classes, he gets married to someone he was screwing around with while seeing her, his wife has a miscarriage, and then he decides he wants to be a father to the baby he originally pushed to the side. He sues, gets custody, and another court has ruled against the original custody decision.

Just because the dad has money and is an Olympic athlete does not make him a fit parent. If anything, his actions when he found out she was pregnant were very telling.

exactly. this is not a situation where she ran away from the guy so he couldn't see his child. he cheated on her, clearly indicated he did not want a long term relationship or marriage. who the heck is he to say she can't move to attend university before the child is born?

what about anchor babies? how is it that CA even has jurisdiction given the law concerning anchor babies? i believe state law is that you get a b/c in the state you are born in, as such, NY has jurisdiction. this is a complicated issue that congress or scotus needs to clear up because this is likely something, unfortunately, common in our day and age.

Excellent post, I'd be interested in knowing why CA thinks it can just say no.