'Not Fade Away'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Quite frankly, if I were the judge, I'd take the child away from the mother, who appears to have some serious problems.
Unless the mother is clinically diagnosed with "serious problems" that threaten her baby's health or safety, a judge will have a difficult time taking that child away. The legal default is that a child is better off with a parent or parents. The state must prove that she is an unfit mother. What she did to get pregnant is questionable, to say the least, but it wasn't criminal.
Caveat lector: A mother and father cannot terminate their parental rights just because they don't want a child. Their must be a place for the child to go besides the state foster care system, e.g. a family wishing to adopt. As Narrator said, it's to discourage parents from relying on the support of the state just because they changed their mind.Good point. I was thinking of babies who are in demand. Maria, when we see articles on children who are legally free for adoption, what's the what there? I'm thinking of a feature that runs in the The Boston Sunday Globe, called "Sunday's Child" which reports on children who are in need of foster or adoptive homes. In cases where a child is legally free for adoption, is he already in the foster system, and if so, is that because of other factors?
Well, because the next logical step is, a woman pawing through the garbage of some random man she's never met, in search of a used kleenex for her impregnation purposes. I guess I'm not assuming decency so much as reasonableness.
I am unconvinced. Engaging in consensual oral sex is still a far cry from a stranger pawing through your trash unbeknownst to you. In your hypothetical case, the semen provider would have no reason to know or think that anyone would be able to gain control over the semen while it is still viable.
In the case of these two doctors, Dr. Phillips alleges he put his semen in Dr. Irons' possession via a mutual, consensual act, with knowledge that he erm...deposited it with her. Granted, if he is telling the truth, he didn't think she'd do *that* with it. I am not disputing his right to sue her for damages. If he is telling the truth, he has been violated. But engaging in consensual oral sex is still a far cry from a stranger pawing through your trash, such that you didn't even know anyone else was at all involved in the sex act or its aftermath, in the first place. Consensual sex acts involving two people involve a measure of trust. His trust was violated, and although he is arguably due legal damages, why would it follow that he is automatically free from the resonsibility that ensues when sperm fertilizes an egg.
And I don't think I can accept your analogy to rape victims -- you seem to be making a lot of assumptions to serve your analogy,
Which assumptions?
whereas the options available to rape victims make the whole situation a lot more messy than that.
I think I noted the options available to rape victims, so I'm not sure I am following you here. She has to take a responsiblity. It might not be the same ones, but it is a fact of nature that she either has to terminate or gestate. If she chooses gestation, she has to either parent, or give the child in adoption, or otherwise find someone else to raise the child. She doesn't just get to not feed and clothe it.
Lawyeristas, (I called you lawgeekers before--I'm sorry, that's a Bronzerism), generally speaking, what happens when conception is the result of a man raping a woman? If the woman chooses to give the child in adoption, can the biological father/rapist contest? Typically, does the court ignore him?
It looks like the law is less interested in the rights of the bio dad, than the welfare of the child. Since the child already exists, the state then goes and finds the nearest deep pockets. It's definitely unfair, but the clear priority is that somebody's got to be responsible for the child, and the state has decided that the kid will be better off with two providing parents. Better also than having the state pay for the kid.
I would presume the precedent for this is based in law derived from one night stands and affairs and unmarried moms - and that's what is being carried over to these rare stolen-jizz scenarios.
The court case was limited to determine the question: "If his version of events was true, could a lawsuit proceed?"
Basically, there are two ways to get a court to decide a lawsuit without a trial. A Motion to Dismiss is basically a "so what?" defense -- arguing that, even if everything the other side says were true, they can't get the remedy they want. If a party files a Motion to Dismiss, the court has to accept the other side's version of events as true for purposes of deciding the Motion -- but the moving party doesn't admit anything for any other purpose.
The other is a Motion for Summary Judgment. Basically, the party that files that motion argues that there's no dispute on any of the facts that actually matter to the outcome. For that kind of Motion, parties actually argue that certain facts are or aren't true (or at least disputed).
(Edit to fix typo.)
In this case, though, the mother contends that she had sex of the impregnating variety with the father, not the three blow jobs he contends. Either way, I feel sorry for the kid.
About that Dukes of Hazzard thing: [link]
I'm thinking of a feature that runs in the The Boston Sunday Globe, called "Sunday's Child" which reports on children who are in need of foster or adoptive homes. In cases where a child is legally free for adoption, is he already in the foster system, and if so, is that because of other factors?
I think in those cases parental rights have generally been terminated by the state for one reason or another - possibly only the mother's in cases where the father is "unknown." Maybe there are other things going on, though?
It looks like the law is less interested in the rights of the bio dad, than the welfare of the child. Since the child already exists, the state then goes and finds the nearest deep pockets. It's definitely unfair, but the clear priority is that somebody's got to be responsible for the child, and the state has decided that the kid will be better off with two providing parents. Better also than having the state pay for the kid.
This is the guts of what I meant. If he is telling the truth, Irons did awful things to Phillips, but why should the child give up the child's right to support, because of it?
eta...
Thanks, brenda.
Lawyeristas, (I called you lawgeekers before--I'm sorry, that's a Bronzerism), generally speaking, what happens when conception is the result of a man raping a woman? If the woman chooses to give the child in adoption, can the biological father/rapist contest? Typically, does the court ignore him?
I like the "lawgeeker" title. But "lawyerista" is purty, too.
The issue is what terminates a parent's rights -- it varies by state. For example, a parent can give a child up for adoption. If the state approves, then the parent's parental rights -- and responsibilities -- are ended. The state can also take those rights away. This is generally by a court determining that it is in the best interests of the child to end those rights. It is a high standard. For example, even a father who murders the child's mother does not automatically forfeit his parental rights to see the child, make schooling decisions, etc. By that standard, a father who raped the mother will not automatically lose his rights. But, the crime makes it more likely that the father will lose his rights than if he was convicted of money laundering or robbery. To be the child of rape still carries a stigma for many. Also, there is a perception that a rapist father may attack or harm the child at some point.
So, to answer your question, the father could contest. But, if the child is adoptable, I think many courts will terminate the father's rights in order to serve the child's interests.
