Hamptons bachelors are getting vasectomies so golddiggers can’t trap them

[southall]

Sperm-jack? Really?? That's a new word??!! LOL First time hearing that.

Is a thing. More likely to happen if the man is wealthy as the child support payments will be bigger.

https://nypost.com/2016/10/12/sources-back-derrick-rose-nba-teaches-condom-disposal/

Isn't that child abuse for the teacher? She would be going to jail and the resulting baby would be sent to child services, no?

Child support payments continue even if the child is in foster care, they only stop if the child gets adopted.

 

[JSOP]

Child support payments continue even if the child is in foster care, they only stop if the child gets adopted.

This I don't believe. That baby happened because of a CRIME, corrupting a minor and abuse of a child. How can the boy who's a child himself be responsible for the baby financially? Show me the article and I will see. If anybody is responsible, it's the female teacher, who's the adult who should be responsible. The boy is already a victim of a crime and you want him to be financially responsible for the rest of the life for being a victim? That is made-up ridiculous.

 

[southall]

This I don't believe. That baby happened because of a CRIME, corrupting a minor and abuse of a child. How can the boy who's a child himself be responsible for the baby financially? Show me the article and I will see. If anybody is responsible, it's the female teacher, who's the adult who should be responsible. The boy is already a victim of a crime and you want him to be financially responsible for the rest of the life for being a victim? That is made-up ridiculous.

The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support.

California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

How can the boy who's a child himself be responsible for the baby financially?

The child victim only becomes liable after they turn 18. And that means they get hit with back dated child support for X number of years, depending on how long ago they were raped.

This guy got hit for $15,000:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

 

[JSOP]

The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support.

California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer


The child victim only becomes liable after they turn 18. And that means they get hit with back dated child support for X number of years, depending on how long ago they were raped.

This guy got hit for $15,000:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

In the original Kansas case, it looks like there is a loophole in the civil court in that it's not recognizing the concept of "Fruit of the Poison Tree". Even though this concept applies more to the inadmissibility of evidence, the spirit of it should also apply in these ridiculous child support payment cases. If the baby, the "fruit" is the result of criminal act, "the poison tree", the victim should not be responsible for it, financially or otherwise because the act that gave rise to the resulting "fruit" is flawed. The victim might choose to establish emotional ties with the baby but that is beyond the point.

Same thing as the owner of a wallet is not financially or otherwise responsible to the thief who stole his/her wallet and got subsequently a severe paper cut from a photo in the stolen wallet. If the thief subsequently sues the owner of the wallet, the court would not ask the owner to prove whether he/she gave the wallet to the thief willingly because that is already established in the very act of thievery. Same thing should be applied here. Those bitches "stole" those boys' bodies in essence and produced a baby as a result. Even though those liberal tarts is going to argue "baby is not an injury", the causality relationship is the same.

Surprised no one has dared to take up these issues. Oh yes, forgot Will Gardner is dead.

 

[Tom B]