Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[notcasesensitive]

Agree with RP re: the baby talk. Ugh. SO and I were sure he was going to be mercilessly teased by his law enforcement friends for that.

I didn't find the show to be as LOL funny as others, and there were a couple of times that the SG's attitude grated on me (esp. during the tanning session).

GF's TITS were great. And impossible to turn away from in the top Carson put her in.

I like Carson. Hate his wardrobe though.

[Puft Daddy]

Jackson, MI -- A strip club dancer accused of squirting a patron in the face with breast milk won't face an assault charge, the city attorney decided.

The 20-year-old Jackson woman denied the patron's claim that she squeezed her breasts and squirted him with the milk while performing a lap dance last month at The School House. Instead, she told police that the man had grabbed her breast.

"We looked at the report and, based on the evidence, we don't believe we could obtain a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt," Julius Giglio, city attorney, told The Jackson Citizen Patriot for a story Wednesday.

--

Read the whole story by clicking the always popular

quasi-required link

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by Uncle Ned

Nephew, in the way of an irresponsible 20 year old, got his girlfriend pregnant. Of course, at 20, a relationship lasts less time than a pregnancy, so they're now broken up. She's somewhere about 7 mos. along (not that abortion was ever an option for her). She apparently has no real desire to maintain any contact with Nephew.

Anyway:

1) I'm assuming he'll be on hook for child support of some sort. Any thoughts on how this is handled? Particularly since his ditch-digging job isn't exactly paying the bills.

2) If she tries to cut off all contact with nephew, does he have any rights? And does he have to claim those rights at birth (or shortly thereafter?).

3) If she refuses to allow nephew-daddy any contact, does that affect the answer to 1 (i.e., his support obligations)

With all the necessary qualifications (TINLA, TAOAM and YNSSAEOVFL)[1], from what I understand, the answers to these questions are pretty much the same in most states, because they all deal with fundamental principles of the way we run our family law systems in the U.S.

But, seriously, your nephew should get an esperienced lawyer. And you can also help him be smart: don't get a bunch of extra jobs which will cause his support obligations to be set at a level he won't be able to afford if he loses one of those jobs. Keep receipts for everything he gives, and always pay by check or other verifiable method.

And, in general, the advice the family law attorney I worked for for a while gave me was: don't EVER have a kid with someone or marry someone you aren't sure you want to have significant financial, personal and emotional involvement with for the rest of your life. Regardless of what people think that the biases are (and she, a woman who represented almost exclusively poor women, thought that the laws and their application in our state were very biased against men), it's not a good system for anyone to be in.

Anyway, answers (I've referred to the nephew, and generally referred to "he" and "she." Of course, the woman is not always the custodial parent, but that's most common, so it's just for ease of description):

1: Usually, there will be some sort of order to pay as soon as she seeks it. It sounds like nothing is in dispute here about paternity or anything like that. If he, even briefly, ignores the order, he may be subject to contempt charges or the other nasty [2] stuff done to non-paying parents. Somwhere in that timeframe, his paycheck, other sources of income or other assets will be garnished/raided by court order to pay his obligation.

The amount of his obligation will vary. In most states, it's a percentage of the income of the parent in question, so he won't necessarily be that screwed just because he has a low-paying job. However, as mentioned above, he has to be really careful about additional jobs or income. If he has some extra jobs and the support obligation is set based on that income, he'll be responsible for that even if he loses the other jobs. He can go back to the court for an adjustment, but those are hard to get. If he gets more jobs, works overtime, or otherwise increases his income, he is supposed to report that to the court. In my state, not doing that can screw you, and his higher support obligation, if the court finds out, will be applied retroactively to when he started working more hours or getting paid more.

2: In all states, he'll have rights to see his child absent some sort of abuse (or, unfortunately, allegations of abuse, but that's why it's good for him to have a decent lawyer). This can be complicated by her attempts to hide the child or prevent visitation. Different states have different standards for asserting paternity, but I think that the custodial parent usually has a decent chance to file for support a while after the fact. It's not like if she doesn't file something in six months or a year the guy is off the hook.

3: Generally, not. She can't just say that he can't see the kid; he should be able to see the kid if he wants to. One of the biases in most states' family law systems is towards support of the kid, so even wrongful failure on the part of the custodial parent to allow visitation is not likely to extinguish the support obligations. The theory is not to punish the child for the bad acts of either parent.

[1] ("This is not legal advice", "these are only anecdotal musings" and "your nephew should seek an expert on Virginia family law").

[2] Not suggesting they don't deserve it or making any sort of value judgment, just saying that it's one of the few instances where you can be incarcerated for not paying money you don't have.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Puft Daddy
Jackson, MI -- A strip club dancer accused of squirting a patron in the face with breast milk won't face an assault charge, the city attorney decided.

The 20-year-old Jackson woman denied the patron's claim that she squeezed her breasts and squirted him with the milk while performing a lap dance last month at The School House. Instead, she told police that the man had grabbed her breast.

This is so mammalian.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by mmm3587
1: Usually, there will be some sort of order to pay as soon as she seeks it. It sounds like nothing is in dispute here about paternity or anything like that. If he, even briefly, ignores the order, he may be subject to contempt charges or the other nasty stuff done to non-paying parents. Somwhere in that timeframe, his paycheck, other sources of income or other assets will be garnished/raided by court order to pay his obligation.


3: Generally, not. She can't just say that he can't see the kid; he should be able to see the kid if he wants to. One of the biases in most states' family law systems is towards support of the kid, so even wrongful failure on the part of the custodial parent to allow visitation is not likely to extinguish the support obligations. The theory is not to punish the child for the bad acts of either parent.

To add to these:

1. Even if the mom does not request support, if she is receiving any kind of public assistance the state agency/agencies can request it on her behalf and collect it through wage garnishment. If he has health insurance available to him through his job and she does not, he can be involuntarily required to add the kid to his health insurance. This includes involuntarily enrolling him in his health plan even if he had opted out. Again, state agencies can do this independently -- the mom may not even be involved.

3. I believe it's quite rare for a parent's support obligations to be cut back or excused just because they don't get to see the kid.

Condoms are your friends. Along with birth control pills, diaphragms, and cervical caps.

Edited because didn't delete everything I meant to delete. Saying I'm editing for this because otherwise the "edited" notation makes it look like I sneakily changed what I said after the fact.

[Uncle Ned]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Condoms are your friends. Along with birth control pills, diaphragms, and cervical caps.

Yes; unfortunately she is a good catholic, so doesn't use birth control. Or so it would seem.

Anyway, thanks notbob, mmmm3587, and ltl. All very helpful to get me going with some general advice.

I think he will be reassured to know that he can get visitation rights. And I'll make sure he waits to score that big promotion to assistant chief ditch digger.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Uncle Ned
Yes; unfortunately she is a good catholic, so doesn't use birth control. Or so it would seem.

When my cousin was in a similar situation earlier this year, there was much grumbling in the family as to willingness of good catholics to break the "no premarital sex" rules, but not the "no birth control" rules. I firmly believe if you're going to break one, you should break both.

[mmm3587]

I'm really amazed that people let religion dictate that they won't use birth control, but not that they won't have sex. I mean, what do you think is going to happen?

Geez....

I think it's fun when two people come up with the same comment at the same time, so I'll leave it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Uncle Ned
Yes; unfortunately she is a good catholic, so doesn't use birth control. Or so it would seem.

It would also seem that he did not use a condom effectively. If someone is a bad enough Catholic to have premarital sex they'd better be a bad enough Catholic to use birth control. I have heard that "can't use bc, the priest wouldn't like it!" thing and that's just insane. But condoms are your nephew's friends.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by mmm3587
I think it's fun when two people come up with the same comment at the same time, so I'll leave it.

Three.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Condoms are your friends. Along with birth control pills, diaphragms, and cervical caps.

This preachy message was brought to you by Fringey's Silk Flower Emporium, serving your need for color in your exceedingly responsible life since August 2003.

[ltl/fb]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...eut/index.html

Inspired by the NBC reality series "Who Wants to Marry my Dad," Wood posted an ad in a local paper and planted a sign on her lawn seeking the perfect gentleman, who should enjoy movies, horse-back riding, long walks and watersports.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
This preachy message was brought to you by Fringey's Silk Flower Emporium, serving your need for color in your exceedingly responsible life since August 2003.

Just for that, I'm not paying you any support for our kid. Happily no responsible scientist will believe that I'm the other biological mother.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...eut/index.html

Inspired by the NBC reality series "Who Wants to Marry my Dad," Wood posted an ad in a local paper and planted a sign on her lawn seeking the perfect gentleman, who should enjoy movies, horse-back riding, long walks and watersports.

That's just wrong. Besides she's only 22, what makes mom think that even if she did find Mr. Right, that stupid daughter will stay with this guy for any length of time? Her taste in men are Ashton Kucher and older tattoo guy? She obviously doesn't know what the hell she wants yet, and she obviously is one of the stupid "no birth control for me" people.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
When my cousin was in a similar situation earlier this year, there was much grumbling in the family as to willingness of good catholics to break the "no premarital sex" rules, but not the "no birth control" rules. I firmly believe if you're going to break one, you should break both.

Agreed. In my mind not doing so only compounds the sin, regardless of what the pope says about the preciousness of life.