This, boys and girls, is why we always, always, always...

[kickaha]

GET IT IN FUCKING WRITING!!!

Although it sounds like in this case it wouldn't have mattered anyway, with this judge.

Jesus, some people are so fricking dense.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/23/sperm.donor.ap/index.html

Comments

Re: Yeah, that judge...

[treebyleaf.livejournal.com]

That's because the article sucks.

She didn't even file for support until the kids were five. I think she'd budgeted for being a single mother of one, not two.

Despite that misleading "no evidence of an agreement" quote from the mother's lawyer, the judges most assuredly did find evidence of an agreement and in fact in the official write up the mother's action are referred to as "despicable."

The thing is, by holding *these* children "most dear" we are cheating the unmentioned two toddlers the man has had with his WIFE in the five flippin' years that passed before bitch filed.

Sorry. This is hitting way too close to home. Those twins are costing the man more than what I make in a month when I can find work... What had Mr. and Mrs. McKiernan planned on providing their own children that is $12,000K a year gone now-- college savings? music lessons? flights out to see their grandparents?

Re: Yeah, that judge...

[flinx.livejournal.com]

Bugger. So the judge takes a bad and spurious complaint and makes it that much worse. It's almost as if he's personally speaking out against the entire concept of sperm donation, the culture of voluntary single parenthood, and what all those entail. Sheeit. Not the place of a judge to make those kind of pronouncements. (which is why sometimes I think me, Scalia, a 2x4 and a dark alley would be a beautiful thing...)

Re: Yeah, that judge...

[ginkgo.livejournal.com]

I *so* completely agree with you - except for the dark alley bit. :) The implications of this ruling really scare me. Here's hoping that he will appeal and that Supreme Court will find a reason to overturn the Superior Court's ruling. :P