While I have respect for the lawyers and barristers I have had dealings with, I can't say I have the same opinion of the Judiciary! Does anybody follow the thinking behind this ruling?
tinyurl.com/3nt5taj
|
I can follow the thinking yes. He is the biological father, therefore liable for their upkeep, the legality of how he came to be their father is a separate issue.
The system has far more enthusiasm for persuing fathers for money than it does for bringing a mother with children to any kind of justice.
I guess in some ways, to force a man to have children with you is a sort of rape as its certainly not consensual in any way. Its a funny one for sure. Id certainly feel violated if it had happened to me. Had she got her way by a form of date rape, she may have been in trouble but because it is in effect genetic theft, she prob wont get in any trouble.
The mother is clearly a headcase though, poor kids being stuck in the middle of that situation, atleast they get to see their dad, thats something, but then he clearly has the money to fight the legal battles unlike many men, so he is lucky in that respect.
|
|
I rather suspect there is something we are not being told.
|
She should be prosecuted for theft and deception to the full extent of the law.
|
>> I rather suspect there is something we are not being told.
Well we haven't explicitly been told that she (the first wife) is a cow, but that can be inferred.
|
I struggle to comprehend our judiciary sometimes. This is such a spectacularly wrong decision that I am, honestly, open-mouthed. In fact, if this happened to me I would go so far as to describe it as a form of rape, without the opportunity for psychological support or justice.
I'm curious as to the implications for the future; I see no logical reason why this ruling wouldn't apply to, for example, sperm donors who know full well that they're going to father children. Hope he plans to appeal the ruling.
Edit: I see FoR and myself are thinking along the same lines.
Last edited by: Alfa Floor on Mon 30 May 11 at 15:07
|
Perfectly logical decision by the judiciary: punish the inncoent and protect the guilty.
See injunctions..
(and yes, I am serious: the rights of the criminal mean far more in our legal system than the victims - see
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392273/Burglar-freed-human-rights-look-children-history-violence.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
|
madf said:
>> Perfectly logical decision by the judiciary: punish the inncoent and protect the guilty.
Exactly. Teachers cannot defend themselves or admonish abusive children. Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times today relates the case of the Zimbabwean torturer who has been given asylum in this country, on the grounds that were he to return he would be killed. According to Liddle this man used to hack off a victims arms and legs to ensure a slow death, and sanctioned by Mugabe. According to his article anyway, and he seems to care about accuracy unlike some journalists. The law favours the guilty all too often. Try and do something about harassment by children, and you can't touch them. Do so, and you are punished. The law cares about human rights of the guilty, but not the innocent. Not always, maybe not even most of the time, but too often.
|
Its pretty unique, there are not thousands of many baby tadpoles stored up by wives ready and willing to forge papers to have the child, and then claim upkeep.
I dont think its a problem that going to keep us asleep at night
|
>>I dont think its a problem that going to keep us asleep at night<<
Or maybe even awake at night...
On the human rights subject, I wonder if the fathers human rights hav ebeen violated as per the law. Seems they could have been given how far they stretch the meaning, he woul seem to come way within the boundries. How about suing the sperm bank for negligence, get his money back no doubt.
|
>> Its pretty unique, there are not thousands of many baby tadpoles stored up by wives
>> ready and willing to forge papers to have the child, and then claim upkeep.
>>
>> I dont think its a problem that going to keep us asleep at night
There are a lot of unique situations, none the same. ;) I think the point being made wasn't that this is potentially a serious problem for all of us, or even for a significant minority, but that it is an example of legal stupidity. The woman committed what I assume to be one or more crimes, such as fraud, not that I am a legal beagle. And yet she got away with it, and it cost him a fortune.
|
|
The main point is, the sperm were stored with his permission, with the intention to have them used by his wife at some point. When he got a divorce, he should have had them destroyed.
|
|
Would the father have some redress against the clinic that released the sperm against a forged signature?
|
>> Would the father have some redress against the clinic that released the sperm against a
>> forged signature?
"She added that a court ruled it was a simulation rather than a forged signature."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8544783/Woman-had-two-children-after-secretly-taking-ex-husbands-frozen-sperm.html
|
|
Exactly so Leif. I was commenting on the legal rather than the personal aspects of the matter.
|
... I was commenting on the legal rather than the personal aspects of the matter...
The judge is obliged to apply the law fairly, and we don't know what laws he had to apply in this case.
It may be the judge made the finding with some reluctance.
It may also be he's a duffer, but the criminal circuit judges I come across are no fools.
Quite the reverse.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 31 May 11 at 07:18
|
How Strange can the Law Be? - Stuu
