Re: Court Orders Parents to Poison Their 13-Year-Old Child
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:38 pm
lol. I must have posted that somewhere else on this forum cause that's exactly what I would propose to law makers.sidewinder wrote:The biggest problem I have now is that the guy (who does have a vested interest after all) has no say. If a guy could sugn a paper saying I want out so if you carry to term I have no resposibility, then I'd say it was fair. But as the law is now it gives the woman the power to hold the guy hostage for 18 years or to kill his child (or at least potential child). There is a real inequity there.
Here's some cases I found a couple years ago that may grant alot of power to the father in most situations. There's a slew of information out there, and if you can cite the right supreme court cases, you'll more than likely be granted what you want.
KULKO v. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, 436 U.S. 84 (1978): Child support actions must be instigated in the state where the non-custodial parent [slave] lives. State where children reside with mother has no jurisdiction unless the non-custodial parent [slave] lives in that state.
(yes you can move around and the child support laws in the new state or country apply to you)
CLARK v. JETER, 486 U.S. 456 (1988): State statutes of limitations on paternity and child support unconstitutional.
42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Act of 1871 Grants you alot more power with taking initiative against people who are aiming to cause harm. So if mama wants to invoke maximum child support and you can prove she's only in it for the money, this is your ticket. Or if mama wants to get an abortion to hurt you. ect.