Narrator, I know. That judge cracked me up so badly, I can barely continue.

Theo, it's from the child's point of view, with a sideways glance from Nature's point of view, that I'm finding myself mostly in agreement with the funny judge. Why should this child be completely dependent on this woman, for support?

Ethically speaking, the woman's actions are a horrible betrayal of trust. I would never argue against that. I also think she has a lot of gall to seek child support.

That said, this man apparently entrusted her with his responsibility, that is...oh, this conversation is so silly, because I just keep thinking SPERM SPERM SPERM, and I am hoping that typing that out will make it stop.

Okay, trying again. t /12 All I'm trying to decide is why he should be completely exempt from the responsibility for the product of his sperm. Granted, it's not a responsibility he asked for or sought. That said, conception as a result of rape is not a responsibility a woman asks for, and she does not even consent to sexual acts. Nature demands she still has to take a measure of responsibility for the product of her eggs, no matter whether or not she consented to the fertilization, and regardless of the way in which she chooses to take responsibility (termination of pregnancy; gestation & rearing the child; gestation and giving the child in adoption). Our laws would not allow a woman who conceived without her consent to not provide for a baby after it is born, either by choosing to fulfill her parental responsibilities, or giving the child to another family. In other words, she couldn't just leave a baby outside to die, or refuse to feed a baby without being subject to legal repercussions, even if the baby was conceived without her consent.

Since this particular pregnancy was the result of a combination of a consensual act and a use of his sperm he didn't consider, doesn't sway me to the point where he doesn't bear some responsibility, even if it sucks to be him. And it does. And she has a lot of gall. And I'm glad he can sue her for emotional damages, because gah--what a thing to do to someone.

Welcome Back Suela! Are we going to hear exciting stories about New Zealand?

Also -- anyone know how to pronounce Mokhieba? This is the name of a horse. He's a son of Damascus so I am guessing that it is an Arabian name. Is it MoKeeba or Mokee aba -or something else entirely?

Lawgeekers,

Is there any mechanism by which only one of the biological parent can give up his rights, in the absence of another adult seeking to adopt the child and fill the parental role? Like, what happens to the parent seeking to terminate his parental responsibility in cases where the first biological parent tries to give a child in adoption, but the second parent objects?

That said, this man apparently entrusted her with his responsibility, that is...

Well, if I lend two garden hoes to my neighbor, and he uses the garden hoes in a way a reasonable person would not expect him to do, i.e. tapes them to his legs and uses them as stilts, and then he falls down and breaks both his legs, am I responsible for his broken legs?

I think that pregnancy is not a reasonably foreseeable result of oral sex. (Depsite what all those abstinence-only "sex educators" may say!!)

Susan posted a link to that knife rack in Bitches. I've since made it an official quest to obtain one.

And I'm glad he can sue her for emotional damages, because gah--what a thing to do to someone.

Yes, this. I just feel sorry for the child. The mother seems pretty fucked up to go to such lengths to conceive and then run the father through the ringer. That right there would tempt me to seek at least equal custody--to do what I could to insure the child's emtional well-being as best I could. Most of my sympathy in this case goes to the child.

Real romance novel covers, but with fake titles: [link]

I like The Blind and Buttonless Horesman. Also, Lord of the Hissy Fit.

This should please Jesse: The Manolo, he is in the funnies

Real romance novel covers, but with fake titles:

Heh. Someone's posted those before, but they were also in Cleolinda's latest linkspam. Very amusing.

Cindy, the case of Baby Jessica is an example of that. The mother lied on the child's birth certificate about the father, gave the child up for adoption and had her parental rights severed. When she decided she wanted the baby back from the couple in Michigan who had adopted her, she went to the child's real father and they sued for custody in HIS name, owing to the fact that he had never surrendered his parental rights.

They won the case and the child (then three years old after all the legal wrangling) was taken from Michigan and returned to her natural parents in Iowa.

A horrible, nasty case for adoption law all around.

Is there any mechanism by which only one of the biological parent can give up his rights, in the absence of another adult seeking to adopt the child and fill the parental role?

Oddly, I once sat in on a hearing where something like that came up.

Couple was divorcing, young child (1-2 years old?) involved. Husband/father (not represented by counsel, BTW) didn't want to pay child support, offered to give up all parental rights. Judge didn't go for it, child support was ordered.

So, at least in the late '80s in WI in a divorce/child support context, the answer is no.