On Apr 10, 11:32?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> > On Apr 10, 8:39?am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
> > > > discovered within a reasonable amount of time--before the child
> > > > becomes dependent on the family unit--courts will grant an
> > > > annullment.
> > > Well, isn't dependency pretty much immediate upon birth?
> > Not if she's trying to scam the guy out of child support or into
> > marriage, it's not. ?Ask any pro athlete about that.
> My bad - I meant in terms of the child is immediately dependent on the
> > > Hah - that's a pandora's box in and of itself. ?Studies have
> > > repeatedly shown that children of divorced parents are more likely to
> > > do worse in school, get pregnant and engage in *** and drinking at
> > > higher rates than kids of married parents. ?By this logic, divorce
> > > should be restricted due to the welfare of the children involved.
> > All true, but at a point, the courts can only mitigate the damage to
> > the kid by allocating money, custody, and visitation. ?The whole no-
> > fault divorce laws were enacted because the party who had more money
> > usually won.
> And it's still not "in favor" of the child.
> > > > For every case where a woman tricked a man into marrying him when she
> > > > got pregnant by another person, there are cases where the man knew
> > > > what he was getting into and married her anyway, as well as cases
> > > > where the woman was sleeping with multiple partners (including the
> > > > father) and simply didn't know. ?So the court looks at who was in
> > > > position to avoid the harm, and it's never the child, so they won't
> > > > punish the child--it leads to some patently unfair outcomes, but life
> > > > sucks sometimes. ?It's a cautionary tale you might want to share with
> > > > your sons if you have any
> > > Absolutely life is unfair.
> > > I appreciate the need for the "welfare of the child" - I also
> > > appreciate the desire to not punish people for legal activities they
> > > didn't do or were defrauded into doing.
> > Just put yourself in the position of the court, where you have people
> > lying at you from all sides, and you have to develop a reasonable
> > midpoint approach.
> > And here's a little anecdote that is true: ?Back in the early '70s, my
> > brother married a woman who had a child from a previous marriage.
> > They were together for about five years, but decided to separate. ?The
> > woman was visiting friends across the state and got hit head on by a
> > drunk driver and was killed. ?Under the law at that time, because they
> > had legally separated, and because the girl wasn't my brother's
> > natural child, he was off the hook financially. ?Not that it mattered--
> > he was pretty poor at the time, anyway, and the grandparents stepped
> > in and took care of the girl, but had the girl had no living relatives
> > she could have become a ward of the state and my brother could have
> > walked away.
> > While it didn't work out that way--my brother stayed close to the girl
> > and provided her with as much support as he could, he was *legally*
> > entitled under the laws at that time to completely bail. ?His case is
> > different in that there was no fraud, but the kid would have suffered
> > regardless, had my brother been a*** and the circumstances were
> > different, hence the change in the laws to protect kids
> Your brother sounds like a good man
> Good discussion, btw
child who isn't your biological kid, as well. Those laws that can
***a guy who got duped also protect the guy who wants to maintain a
relationship with a child who isn't theirs, biologically, by providing
visitation and custody rights as well. If you marry a woman who has a
child already and it turns out she is an unfit mother due to say, drug
***ion or mental illness, you can be awarded custody of the child
even though its not yours biologically.