Uomo's Blowjob Hypothetical

[Uomo 15]

Sam and Sarah are a married couple who want kids. The problem is: Sam is sterile, and neither Sam nor Sarah can afford artificial insemenation at a sperm bank. So one day, Sam and Sarah get this brilliant idea ...

 

Sam and Sarah join the lifestyle. At a local event, they meet another couple, Dick and Jane. Dick and Jane are soft swingers who are willing to flirt and fool around a little ... but both have agreed not to have sex with another couple.

 

Later that evening, Dick and Sarah start to fool around, Dick has a few too many drinks, Sarah unzips Dick's pants ... and gives him an incredible blow job. Dick fires his load into Sarah's mouth ... and then runs out of the room (overwhelmed with guilt). Sarah (in the meanwhile) spits out the semen, inserts it into her vagina, and impregnates herself with Dick's child.

 

Ten months later, Sam and Sarah file for divorce.

 

Sarah is now before the court. She is asking the judge to force Dick and/or Sam to pay child support. You are the judge responsible for administering justice and safeguarding the best interests of the child. How would you rule? Who would you make pay child support? Dick, Sam, Both or Neither?

 

Suppose also that Chris and Dick now want full (or joint) custody of the child? To whom would you grant custody? Dick, Sam, Sarah, a Combination of Two, or All Three?

 

The answer you give is not all that important (it's just a hypothetical I made up -- to be assured, there are good arguments to be made for all involved) ... what's much more interesting to the discussion is your reasoning.

 

So whaddayathink? How would you rule?

[thebenny 15]

Probaby Dick would have to pay the custody bc of the DNA tests but I think it should be Sam paying it as it was his and sarah's idea to have a baby....

[BodyScape02 21]

Uomo,

 

I do love a good legal argument. I am so glad you have come to the board.

 

The problem presented seems very close to the classic “whose patient is she? " scenario.

 

The question here is culpability. First, am I to move forward on the assumptions that Sarah’s actions were initially sanctioned by her soon-to-be-ex and that this was indeed the intent and sole purpose of their foray into swinging?

 

If yes... then both are culpable and Dick was technically robbed of his semen without his permission. Raped in a sense of the word, as his prodigy was taken by force, and he was used in a manner he did not consent to.

 

He never intended to impregnate Sarah and indeed by action chose to deposit his sperm in an area as far from the vagina as possible without involving overspray. ( Ie a face shot) He had reasonable expectation that said sperm would be ingested or spit out into a disposal system. Reasonable care is demonstrated by the fact they are a “soft swing” couple, as it shows particular intent to avoid any chance of pregnancy by its very nature.

 

On the other hand, Sarah and Sam acted with purposeful intent and regardless of the custody of the child... they should be the ones paying child support.

 

If Dick chooses visitation... legally he could obtain it, as a biological parent. Insistence upon said visitation could alter the status quo and in turn , make him responsible for some measure of the child’s care.

 

Should there be a question of all parties wanting custody of the child... I would be inclined if the child was very young to lean toward Dick and Jane as primary legal and custodial parents and grant them child support. Why? If they are still together after finding out this and willing to accept the child and love it, they definitively meet the standard for a very stable two- parent household and being with them would be in the best interest of the child. Why would I deny the birth mother and father primary physical and legal custody? The coercive and nefarious nature of the child’s conception and the inability of Sam and Sarah to stay together even after they "got what they went looking for", Show them to be the most unstable and in general, selfish parents.

 

 

Additionally, I wonder if Dick had grounds for theft of services (yes that was tongue in cheek...or sperm in cheek), breach of contract or fraud charges against Sam and Sarah. Going into the room knowing they were soft swing is an implied contract / oral contract (couldn’t resist the oral reference … sorry), which they breeched.

 

How did I do? Do I have a future as a litigator?

 

The ever happy to have a great question to ponder,

 

~Cat

[Spoomonkey 421]

I would remind Sarah that she was hypothetical and take a long lunch...

 

Spoomonkey

[youngswingersne 15]

Tricky, but i think you're right. The "real" father shouldn't have any responsibilities unless he requests them, and in that case should pay towards to child. Sam and Sarah should also be charged with some sort of offence, just because it was mean

[Vespertine 31]

I would remind Sarah that she was hypothetical and take a long lunch...

 

Spoomonkey

Can I join you?

[Spoomonkey 421]

Can I join you?

 

Sure - I always like to have someone else help me decide what to eat. Italian or Mexican? Personally, I'm jonesin' for Floridian...

 

But, I'll let you pick.

 

 

Spoomonkey

[Vespertine 31]

Floridian is mighty satisfying. Mr. V says it's his favorite dish.

 

Floridian it is.

[good times 991]

Wow, for some reason I suddenly have a craving for Floridian.

[Thrax 384]

Wow, for some reason I suddenly have a craving for Floridian.

Me too, although to my knowledge I've never had Floridian before. Is it spicy? I like spicy.

[Spoomonkey 421]

Floridian is mighty satisfying.

 

That has always been my experience with local dishes down there...

 

And by "down there" I mean in Florida

 

Spoomonkey

[good times 991]

Me too, although to my knowledge I've never had Floridian before. Is it spicy? I like spicy.

Same here, oh, and I like spicy too.

[Uomo 15]

Uomo,

 

I do love a good legal argument. I am so glad you have come to the board.

 

The problem presented seems very close to the classic “whose patient is she? " scenario.

 

The question here is culpability. First, am I to move forward on the assumptions that Sarah’s actions were initially sanctioned by her soon-to-be-ex and that this was indeed the intent and sole purpose of their foray into swinging?

 

If yes... then both are culpable and Dick was technically robbed of his semen without his permission. Raped in a sense of the word, as his prodigy was taken by force, and he was used in a manner he did not consent to.

 

He never intended to impregnate Sarah and indeed by action chose to deposit his sperm in an area as far from the vagina as possible without involving overspray. ( Ie a face shot) He had reasonable expectation that said sperm would be ingested or spit out into a disposal system. Reasonable care is demonstrated by the fact they are a “soft swing” couple, as it shows particular intent to avoid any chance of pregnancy by its very nature.

 

On the other hand, Sarah and Sam acted with purposeful intent and regardless of the custody of the child... they should be the ones paying child support.

 

If Dick chooses visitation... legally he could obtain it, as a biological parent. Insistence upon said visitation could alter the status quo and in turn , make him responsible for some measure of the child’s care.

 

Should there be a question of all parties wanting custody of the child... I would be inclined if the child was very young to lean toward Dick and Jane as primary legal and custodial parents and grant them child support. Why? If they are still together after finding out this and willing to accept the child and love it, they definitively meet the standard for a very stable two- parent household and being with them would be in the best interest of the child. Why would I deny the birth mother and father primary physical and legal custody? The coercive and nefarious nature of the child’s conception and the inability of Sam and Sarah to stay together even after they "got what they went looking for", Show them to be the most unstable and in general, selfish parents.

 

 

Additionally, I wonder if Dick had grounds for theft of services (yes that was tongue in cheek...or sperm in cheek), breach of contract or fraud charges against Sam and Sarah. Going into the room knowing they were soft swing is an implied contract / oral contract (couldn’t resist the oral reference … sorry), which they breeched.

 

How did I do? Do I have a future as a litigator?

 

The ever happy to have a great question to ponder,

 

~Cat

 

You might be right. You might be wrong.

 

Either way, I'm going to play the devil's advocate ...

 

You argue that Dick was "technically robbed" of his semen ... really? The truth is Dick "abandoned" his semen the moment he shot it into her mouth. Think about it ... Dick did not ask Sarah to return his semen ... and certainly Dick had no reasonable expectation that his semen would be returned to him (unless Sarah has a known snowball fetish). So how can Dick now claim that his semen was "stolen?" Your "stolen semen" argument just doesn't make any sense.

 

And if Dick was so concerned about what would happen to his semen after he willfully abandoned it ... what was he doing shooting his semen into some stranger's mouth? Dick was playing with a loaded gun. Dick knew (or reasonably should have known) Sarah could have easily misappropriated his semen ... and fired it off anyway. How many women have told guys they were on the pill ... or that their tubes were tied ... or that the chick was infertile ... only to find out (nine months later) that they are now unexpected fathers? The law doesn't make an exception for them ... and they (just like Dick) had no expectation of becoming a parent. So why should Dick get special treatment? When Dick whipped out his dick, Dick "assumed the risk" of parenthood ... and lost. A reasonable person exercising reasonable care ... would have wore a condom while getting a blowjob ... and then disposed of the condom himself. Dick was reckless.

 

There's another problem with your argument: how does Dick intend to prove to the court that he only consented to a blow job (and didn't actually fire a load up inside of her)? If the court rules in favor of Dick, aren't we opening a pandora's box of sorts? If Dick wins, EVERY guy who gets a girl pregnant will claim he only consented to (and received) a blow job. Even if Dick had it all on videotape, aren't we just inviting widespread fraud and abuse in our legal system? How many single mothers (and children) would ultimately suffer because the male partner was an effective liar? How many tax dollars will be spent trying to sort out who shot what where? It seems to me that the potential for widespread fraud, waste and abuse far outweigh the court's marginal interest in policing recklessly abandoned semen.

 

And as for you argument that Dick's child support should be tied to his desire for visitation and custody ... what a load of crap. Why should the kid's standard of living turn upon whether Dick "gives a shit" about him? What you are suggesting accomplishes little more than to provide an affirmative financial incentive for Dick to completely turn his back on (and ignore) his biological son. What kind of compassion is that? Is that fair to the baby? I think not. If Dick's on the hook ... Dick's on the hook (absentee landlord or otherwise). It's Dick's kid ... Dick's on the hook.

 

That raises another issue ... you suggest that Dick and Jane should get custody ... but Dick and Jane weren't planning on having a kid. Dick "abandoned" his semen ... remember? If Dick had his way ... the kid would have slithered down Sarah's throat. You call that a responsible parent? I call Dick ... a would-be cannibal. Sam and Sarah (on the other hand) put their ass on the line, and proved they were willing to spare no length to bring a beautiful child into this world they could raise and love. It's not their fault they Sam is infertile. Sam and Sarah wanted this child (not Dick) ... Sarah is the child's mother ... Sarah should get custody. Sure ... what Sam and Sarah did was not an ideal way in an ideal world ... but why should the child suffer? If you seperate the child from the mother ... that's exactly what will happen -- the child will suffer.

 

Dick needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for his irresponsibility.

 

Screw dick.

 

Your turn ...

[curiousagain 326]

I bet Floridian would be really really good with a cold Corona under a tree on the beach, at night with the surf rolling, and the wind blowing........

[In2curiosity 15]

As an attorney you already know the answer. Bio Dad must pay child support because the child's right to support is more pertinent than how said child was created. If husband knows child is not biologically his and supported the child anyway acting in all ways like the father then he is also legally responsible for Child support if Bio father can not be found or in unknown. But if he didn't know the child wasn't biologically his there is more leeway, but only slightly. Husband's only recourse for visitation or custody is as an interested party and his chances of either are slim to none if bio parents do not grant visitation.

 

There is a fascinating case study where two men "shared" a condom.....yes true story.....guy in the front seat used the condom, then the guy in the backseat turned it inside out and used same condom on different girl. Girl got pregnant by first mans sperm and first man is responsible to child even though he never had sex or intended to have sex with the mother of the child.

 

Crazy world we live in but men are legally responsible for the outcome of sperm no matter how it is obtained, even in cases of fraud. Yet they have almost no rights until sperm is a child, and even then the child can be adopted without consent in many states because it is the males legal responsibility to follow "the sperm trail" (and now that I have typed this useless bit of info, I am off to sleep..gnight all)

 

Mrs. Me

[HappyPeople 17]

I guess it depends what state they live in... In some states I believe that any child produced during the marriage is considered a product of the marriage even if the husband is not the father.

[Uomo 15]

As an attorney you already know the answer. Bio Dad must pay child support because the child's right to support is more pertinent than how said child was created. If husband knows child is not biologically his and supported the child anyway acting in all ways like the father then he is also legally responsible for Child support if Bio father can not be found or in unknown. But if he didn't know the child wasn't biologically his there is more leeway, but only slightly. Husband's only recourse for visitation or custody is as an interested party and his chances of either are slim to none if bio parents do not grant visitation.

 

There is a fascinating case study where two men "shared" a condom.....yes true story.....guy in the front seat used the condom, then the guy in the backseat turned it inside out and used same condom on different girl. Girl got pregnant by first mans sperm and first man is responsible to child even though he never had sex or intended to have sex with the mother of the child.

 

Crazy world we live in but men are legally responsible for the outcome of sperm no matter how it is obtained, even in cases of fraud. Yet they have almost no rights until sperm is a child, and even then the child can be adopted without consent in many states because it is the males legal responsibility to follow "the sperm trail" (and now that I have typed this useless bit of info, I am off to sleep..gnight all)

 

Mrs. Me

 

 

Very good answer. You are absolutely correct ... the case law seems fairly consistent in holding that the child's right to support is paramount. Not that I necessarily agree with these decisions (in all circumstances) ... but what you observe is clearly the general trend. These cases are not typically controlling ... which is to say that others courts could decide these matters entirely differently. That's what makes these kind of cases fun. The outcome in a given matter could very prove a roll of the dice ... based entirely on the judge assigned to your case. Were I an attorney handling this type of case, I think I would much prefer to argue the position of the third-party male (i.e on Dick's behalf). Something bothers me about the idea that someone could become a father on account of a gold-digger's sneaky blow job ... I would love to fight that fight. I think it could be won (but the odds ... are admittedly not good).

 

The shared condom scenario makes one wonder ... how the fuck could someone be that stupid? It just doesn't sound possible ... yet ... Were I the first guy to use the condom, I would file a cross-claim against the second guy sounding in comparative negligence ... which is to say, if the state makes #1 pay chld support ... I would try to compel the #2 to reimburse #1 (in full or in part). That would probably be the best case scenario for mitigating the damage.

 

That got me thinking ... what if Sam and Sarah jerked off a dead guy at the morg? Would the kid be entitled to an inheritance? If you were simply to consider the best interests of the kid ... ? Food for thought

[Vespertine 31]

I bet Floridian would be really really good with a cold Corona under a tree on the beach, at night with the surf rolling, and the wind blowing........

That is the very best way to eat Floridian.

[Uomo 15]

I guess it depends what state they live in... In some states I believe that any child produced during the marriage is considered a product of the marriage even if the husband is not the father.

 

Never heard that one before ... yikes !! Imagine ... ?

[HappyPeople 17]

Never heard that one before ... yikes !! Imagine ... ?

 

I'm not completly sure about that, I could be wrong. I can't remember why I believe that to be the case, I must have heard it somewhere.

[Vespertine 31]

Never heard that one before ... yikes !! Imagine ... ?

 

I'm not completly sure about that, I could be wrong. I can't remember why I believe that to be the case, I must have heard it somewhere.

I've heard something like that before too.

 

If a child is not a man's biological child, but he accepts it and raises it- he needs to continue to support it even if the marriage ends- ......something along those lines, anyway.

[curiousagain 326]

Never heard that one before ... yikes !! Imagine ... ?

 

I'm not completly sure about that, I could be wrong. I can't remember why I believe that to be the case, I must have heard it somewhere.

 

 

I don't know about now or other states but about 20 some odd years ago in Alabama before there was much DNA testing, it was true. I actually heard a judge say "It doesn't matter who the Father is, the child was caught in your trap " meaning the man's wife.

 

Hopefully times have changed.

[In2curiosity 15]

 

The shared condom scenario makes one wonder ... how the fuck could someone be that stupid? It just doesn't sound possible ... yet ... Were I the first guy to use the condom, I would file a cross-claim against the second guy sounding in comparative negligence ... which is to say, if the state makes #1 pay chld support ... I would try to compel the #2 to reimburse #1 (in full or in part). That would probably be the best case scenario for mitigating the damage.

 

 

 

I agree that they are all stupid and should not be allowed to reproduce for the good of society. But this case was fought in appellate court. I would send you the case study but I can't remember where it is right now. But negligence didn't fly because first guy in front seat gave condom to guy in the back seat. (they should have stuck to farm animals)

 

As for husband being presumed father in cases of chidren being born to the marriage. Yes, if husband acts as father then he is legally responsible to the child....the only exception is if he contests paternity at birth. This is settled law (now that really is an oxymoron) since most if not all states have already ruled at the highest level.

 

A study was completed in England based on the need for RH testing even if the presumed father of a born child was negative. 25% of children born in marriage were not biologically the husbands unbeknownst to the fathers. This compels medical testing on all newborns when the mother carries RH no matter the status of presumed father. Now that is a scary but realistic thought for fathers. I think the "primitive" societies that followed the female bloodlines instead of the males might have had the right idea.

 

Mrs. Me

[BodyScape02 21]

But negligence didn't fly because first guy in front seat gave condom to guy in the back seat. (they should have stuck to farm animals)

 

Mrs. Me

 

Now that has to be the best quote ever... Oh! My goodness.

 

If nothing else this thread debunks the myth that all swingers are like the guys sharing the condom.

 

 

I would have to agree with Uomo in one respect... I think his case could with the right lawyer change case law. The custody laws really were written in a time of nuclear family wherein the norm did not involve "swinging" and its implied ramifications.

 

Swinging is categorized as “consensual recreational sex” where all the participants agree to “play”. NOT to reproduce… it is not about Procreation, It is about recreation. That in and of itself, could be a point to attack this from. Not the paternity issue, the breach of contract issue. Implied, express or otherwise.

 

We haven't even gone into what the hypothetical " swingers profiles" of each couple were. lol

 

~Cat

[hilltop 16]

 

Crazy world we live in but men are legally responsible for the outcome of sperm no matter how it is obtained, even in cases of fraud.

 

Mrs. Me

 

. . . I'm SO glad I got a vasectomy!

[In2curiosity 15]

I would have to agree with Uomo in one respect... I think his case could with the right lawyer change case law. The custody laws really were written in a time of nuclear family wherein the norm did not involve "swinging" and its implied ramifications.

 

Swinging is categorized as “consensual recreational sex” where all the participants agree to “play”. NOT to reproduce… it is not about Procreation, It is about recreation. That in and of itself, could be a point to attack this from. Not the paternity issue, the breach of contract issue. Implied, express or otherwise.

 

We haven't even gone into what the hypothetical " swingers profiles" of each couple were. lol

 

~Cat

 

Common sense would say you are correct but as someone required to take 12 continued learning credits per year in domestic law (me) and someone who specializes in Fathers rights, (again me) I am telling you that it doesn't matter what the intentions are or were. If a child is created; it doesn't matter one bit how or why. Most men/women engage in sexual relations purely for recreation, and surprise children are often the result. The law will always take the side that the bio parents are responsible for support. The only exception is when both parents relinquish rights to the child for the purpose of adoption. If I was choosing cases strictly on a win lose basis I would be on the other side of Uomo's scenario. He wouldn't win.

 

Mrs. Me

[Vespertine 31]

. . . I'm SO glad I got a vasectomy!

...and I'm so glad I don't have a penis.

[LOL_OMG 130]

I have read through all the legal assumptions, but at the end it makes me fell like I am watching Sg1, Startrek, or some other tv series where reality's overlap. I appreciate the question for what it is, but at the end of it all it just depends on what court has the final word. Depending what side your on either hope they are, or are not, sci_fi fans

 

 

Mr Lol_Omg

[Uomo 15]

The law will always take the side that the bio parents are responsible for support. The only exception is when both parents relinquish rights to the child for the purpose of adoption. If I was choosing cases strictly on a win lose basis I would be on the other side of Uomo's scenario. He wouldn't win.

 

Not necessarily ... if Sarah broke into a sperm bank and impregnated herself with Dick's sperm ... no one would argue that the biological father (Dick) would be on the hook for child support. Yet ... one wonders ... how much different is the scenario at hand? I would argue that Dick is no more responsible for the child's birth than the sperm donor whose sperm was wrongfully misappropriated. So he and the kid share genetic similarities ... so what? Seriously ... SO WHAT ??? Sure, it would be nice (in a perfect world) if the kid had two loving parents to support him ... but the "best interests of the child" is not the only consideration justice must weigh. A balancing of the equities is required. This child would not be the first child supported by a single parent. Forcing a completely innocent man (like Dick) to support a kid in the absence of intercourse would risk a horrific moral injustice. If Dick masterbated into a sock ... and Sarah stole the sock ... is Dick still liable? I cannot imagine such a thing ... nor do I envision a could compelling support in such a situation. So ... where are we to draw the line? Dick is not someone who used a faulty condom ... or assumed the risk (bareback) and lost ... Dick is more like the innocent sperm bank donor ... a vicitm (in every sense of the word).

 

I think a court might agree with me on this one ... if so, Dick's getting off (again). Admittedly, the odds of Dick's success might not be all that great (given general case law trends) ... but it's entirely possible. It all depends on the philosophical bent of the various justicies assigned to the case. Justices disagree ... and often. Maybe I win the coin flip ... maybe not. But one hell of a fun case to litigate.

[BodyScape02 21]

Surrender OK... this is now beating a dead dick... If ... if ... if...

 

It all comes down to lessons learned ... MEN...always use a condom and come on her face, if you don't. ROLFLMAO.

 

We are talking battling brilliant legal minds here... this question would never find an end.

 

~Cat

 

I do have a hypothetical for you two though... is a single mom being a swinger enough catalyst for the courts to remove her minor children from her care?

 

She uses the internet and the families home computer to contact her playmates ( but on a separate account from her children’s) and she never plays when they are in her custodial care.

 

How is that for a simpler sticky wicket?

[Uomo 15]

I have a hypothetical for you ... is a single mom being a swinger enough catalyst for the courts to remove her minor children from her care?

 

No chance in hell. It's completely irrelevant. Seriously ... what does her swinging have to do with rearing children? Any lawyer who would offer that kind of argument in court would quickly lose my respect. Were I the judge, I would not consider it. My decision would be based exclusively upon the best interests of the children. In fact ... were I a statistician, my money says the swinging mom likely offers a more stable home environment than the non-swinging father. Just something I have come to observe about swingers and the strength of their relationships. Verdict for the mom.

[In2curiosity 15]

Surrender OK... this is now beating a dead dick... If ... if ... if...

 

It all comes down to lessons learned ... MEN...always use a condom and come on her face, if you don't. ROLFLMAO.

 

We are talking battling brilliant legal minds here... this question would never find an end.

 

~Cat

 

I do have a hypothetical for you two though... is a single mom being a swinger enough catalyst for the courts to remove her minor children from her care?

 

She uses the internet and the families home computer to contact her playmates ( but on a separate account from her children’s) and she never plays when they are in her custodial care.

 

How is that for a simpler sticky wicket?

 

All things being equal as long as she doesn't play while the children are in her care it shouldn't have any bearing. But I wouldn't want to be a swinger involved in a custody case, because this is not settled law and there are way to many people weighing in on the opinion of the best interest of the child. The "average" custody battle allows/requires social services, a Guardian ad litem and often a child therapist to report findings to the court for consideration. All you need is for one of those parties to have a bias against Mom's sexual activities and the children can go to the other party. They shouldn't allow feelings to enter into the equation but they do. There is a double standard when it comes to women and sex and it does play out in the court system.

 

Mrs. Me

[In2curiosity 15]

Uomo said:

Not necessarily ... if Sarah broke into a sperm bank and impregnated herself with Dick's sperm ... no one would argue that the biological father (Dick) would be on the hook for child support. Yet ... one wonders ... how much different is the scenario at hand? I would argue that Dick is no more responsible for the child's birth than the sperm donor whose sperm was wrongfully misappropriated. So he and the kid share genetic similarities ... so what? Seriously ... SO WHAT ??? Sure, it would be nice (in a perfect world) if the kid had two loving parents to support him ... but the "best interests of the child" is not the only consideration justice must weigh. A balancing of the equities is required. This child would not be the first child supported by a single parent. Forcing a completely innocent man (like Dick) to support a kid in the absence of intercourse would risk a horrific moral injustice. If Dick masterbated into a sock ... and Sarah stole the sock ... is Dick still liable? I cannot imagine such a thing ... nor do I envision a could compelling support in such a situation. So ... where are we to draw the line? Dick is not someone who used a faulty condom ... or assumed the risk (bareback) and lost ... Dick is more like the innocent sperm bank donor ... a vicitm (in every sense of the word).

 

I think a court might agree with me on this one ... if so, Dick's getting off (again). Admittedly, the odds of Dick's success might not be all that great (given general case law trends) ... but it's entirely possible. It all depends on the philosophical bent of the various justicies assigned to the case. Justices disagree ... and often. Maybe I win the coin flip ... maybe not. But one hell of a fun case to litigate.

 

 

The sperm bank scenario is much like relinquishing a child for adoption. So is Embryo donation. When the donation is done all parties contractually agree that the donor is not responsible for the end product.

 

But in the case of the sock it gets more tricky. The mother is committing fraud and theft, but the child's rights still come before the parents rights in this matter. There is in reality an interesting article called "It is 10 O'Clock; do you know where your sperm are?"

 

These are actual cases much like you describe in your scenarios where the bio father is forced to support the child even though he had no intention of being a father, and in some cases never even had sexual relations with the Mother. One is where the Father was 'raped' while passed out, the other is an oral sex scenario with a condom, and then there is the infamous Kansas case of the fools in the backseat.

 

There are a thousand and one scenarios where it seems unfair for a man or woman to become pregnant and be responsible for the result of the pregnancy and they are all ethically interesting.

 

What about when a man uses a condom he knows is bad, or if he promises to just put it in for a minute and he cums, or if he has precum land on her while basically dry humping. The woman doesn't want to be pregnant and has relied in good faith on the male to make sure she isn't. But alas she is.....should the man be responsible for violating her womb? Has he committed assault.

 

The law to me reads that if you do not want to be a parent it is up to each individual to make sure that they are not, and scary as it may seem that means knowing at all times where your sperm is or is not.

 

I am with VESP....I am glad I do not have a penis, and I am even more glad that I can not get pregnant anymore. (although nothing is 100%) sigh

 

Mrs. Me

[In2curiosity 15]

No chance in hell. It's completely irrelevant. Seriously ... what does her swinging have to do with rearing children? Any lawyer who would offer that kind of argument in court would quickly lose my respect. Were I the judge, I would not consider it. My decision would be based exclusively upon the best interests of the children. In fact ... were I a statistician, my money says the swinging mom likely offers a more stable home environment than the non-swinging father. Just something I have come to observe about swingers and the strength of their relationships. Verdict for the mom.

 

 

Uomo I love this topic.....and I respect what you are saying, but I am going to take the other side on this too. Every lawyer has the responsibility to give his/her client the best representation the law allows. It isn't up to the lawyer to insert his/her moral judgements about whether swinging is right or wrong, it is their job to point it out to the court knowing that it gives their client an advantage. It is up to the other lawyer to argue that it doesn't bear on the Mothers ability to parent.

 

Mrs. Me

[Uomo 15]

Uomo I love this topic.....and I respect what you are saying, but I am going to take the other side on this too. Every lawyer has the responsibility to give his/her client the best representation the law allows. It isn't up to the lawyer to insert his/her moral judgements about whether swinging is right or wrong, it is their job to point it out to the court knowing that it gives their client an advantage. It is up to the other lawyer to argue that it doesn't bear on the Mothers ability to parent.

 

Mrs. Me

 

A lawyer is not obligated to advance an argument he reasonably beleives to be unethical or irrelevant. Lawyers who engage in that type of behavior are not only frequently discredited in the eyes of the court, in the appropriate circumstances, they could be sanctioned. In fact, advancing such an argument might even give your opponent ammunition for an appeal or new trial. In other words ... the tactic could (and probably would) backfire ... to no offsetting benefit. That's why a lawyer advancing such an argument would lose my respect -- he's an idiot. A good lawyer does not engage in unethical mud slinging ... a good lawyer doesn't need to. Rather, a good lawyer plays fair, wins fair, and (for that reason) ... is untouchable on appeal. I do not beleive swinging is relevant to custody and I would not offer it into evidence. I would focus on the issues that are (in fact) relevant to parenting (e.g. emotional stability, financial responsibility, etc.) ... and offer the best argument I could.

 

I like your case references ... quite entertaining.

[GerdOEvert 51]

In the Early 1970's this was reported in one of the State Law Reporters. I am sorry, I do not remember which one -- Massachusetts or Maryland.

 

Two girls live together.

 

One girl has sex with her boyfriend, lover. He deposits semen in her.

 

She is not satisfied, and after he leaves, she stimulates herself with the end of a broom handle and brings herself to climax. The broom handle gets sperm on it during this activity.

 

The room mate sees this, and thinks, "Well, if she was satisfied. I could be satisfied too."

 

She uses the same broom handle, to stimulate herself.

 

Becomes pregnant, and sues for paternity with the male who had sex with her room mate.

 

I do not know how the case was decided, or remember.

 

My guess is, there is no claim for paternity.

 

Strange what people do.

 

Otto

[lovedoctor 15]

Who here thinks they should cleave the child into three parts and all have an equal share?

 

Were these hypothetical folks with their hypothetical situation from Florida?

 

Now where did I put my shaker of salt? These Floridians are never as salty as I would like....

[HappyPeople 17]

My ovaries and I are leaving this overly hypothetical conversation. In fact, I'm even taking a mouthfull of hypothetical semen with me...

[txduo2000 18]

I've heard something like that before too.

 

If a child is not a man's biological child, but he accepts it and raises it- he needs to continue to support it even if the marriage ends- ......something along those lines, anyway.

 

 

This is all true .... to an extent. That is to say that if a woman comes up pregnant, the husband's name goes on the birth certificate, and there is an assumption that he is the father. However, I have read case studies of this happening, and when the parties divorce, "dad" requests (and receives) a paternity test, finds out the child is not biologically his, and if a bio-dad can be found, support is sought there. If a bio-dad cannot be found, or if mom refuses to disclose, then husband remains the responsible party.

 

Personally, and most unpopular, my opinion where "trickery" in conception is concerned goes something like this: If a woman wants to get pregnant, and does so "on her own" so to speak, meaning she becomes pregnant through fraudulent and covert means, and "dad" never wanted a child, still doesn't want one after finding out about the pregnancy ... "dad" should be permitted to bow out gracefully, sign away his parental rights and responsibility for support and walk away into the sunset. While I also understand and appreciate the concept that sexual activity in and of itself is an activity that includes some sort of risk of pregnancy, I am speaking specifically of the type of sexual activity that would lead a reasonable person to believe that pregnancy is of a considerably lesser risk, such as this scenario that Uomo presents. In addition to be considered is the scenario where a man intentionally wears a condom, with the primary purpose being to prevent pregnancy. By his very action it can be presumed that pregnancy is not the desired outcome, and he should not be held liable if the woman's intent WAS to become pregnant and she tampered with the condom or inserted the captured semen into her vagina to facilitate her intent. My opinion is based solely on intentional fraud perpetrated by the woman when the man has done all in his power to prevent a pregnancy.

 

As I said, I know mine is not a particularly popular opinion; however, it is fundamentally based upon the woman's "right to choose" ... and I do not believe her choices should in any way adversely affect an unwilling or unknowing participant. Women do have the option to seek an abortion without the father's consent or knowledge (although injunctions have been filed and granted by desirous fathers). Women have the right to give a child up for adoption without the father's consent as long as she doesn't disclose paternity. Women hold absolute and total reproductive control ... if SHE wants to get pregnant, she WILL get pregnant and trapping an unwitting man into such an unfair situation is simply not ethically or morally right, and should not be legally permitted.

 

Personally, in Uomo's scenario, my ideal (though probably not practical) solution would be for the judge to grant custody to Sarah, but also impose punitive damages for her fraudulent method of conception. The matter of child support is a sticky situation. While I understand why the child's support is paramount to all other issues and concerns, personally, I feel that Sarah entered into this situation willingly and intentionally and she should, solely bear the burden of support. Most states, however, insist that two parents are responsible for the support of children so that it does not cause an undue burden on the State's financial resources. And of course it is not the child's fault the manner of conception and the child should not unduly suffer the consequences of his mother's irresponsible and reproachable actions. I would want to determine if Sam was a knowing and willing participant in Sarah's fraud. If that is determined, then support should be paid by Sam, who assumed the risk right alongside Sarah, was presumably listed as the father on the birth certificate, and is now fully participating in creating a broken home for this child. Also, if it is determined that Sam was a willing participant in the fraud, then he should also be ordered to pay the punitive damages as well.

 

Dick and Jane should be let off the hook if that is their wish.

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

It appears that the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Maryland v. Blake, back in November, on grounds of...........

I JUST SAVED 15% ON MY CAR INSURANCE !!!

 

 

Then again I am not a Lawyer, nor a Judge or Magistrate,

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night (Hypothetically speaking, of course)

[sereneiders 263]

Interesting question. And the answers, moreover when I am in a different country where some criteria may vary from the US (as far as I know, in here -Argentina- the main concern would be the child's right and interests).

 

I'd like to bring another side for this question, because the hypothetical answer to this one may have hypotetical implications on other related ones, particulary, adoption laws.

 

Besides the biological facts, human inheritage, culture, all that define our identity comes from our experience. Genetics has less impact in what we become than learning, so, the ones a kid recognize as their parents are, at last, the parents, no matter what laws may say.

 

As a related issue to make an example, here during the military government there were 30,000 "missing" people. Some of these were pregnant women who were killed after giving birth, and those kids were illegaly adopted by other people (some militars, some related with them, some others did it honestly, unaware of the kid source). When the military government finished and these killings and "missings" were investigated and prosecuted, the original families (the kid's grandmothers) claimed for the kid's rights to know their identities. By then, these kids ranged in ages from about 6 to 20 years old, who were grown by these people they knew as they own parents. Those parens that were proof to know where their kids came from (i.e., who knew about the biological missing parents, knew of the ilegal adoption, and participated in the process to some extent), being the adoption the benefit from a prosecuted crime, law gave the kids to the biological family... but the problem was that these kids refused to accept the facts, because the only parents they knew (and who raised them well) were these ones. The issue was known, as for most of these bilogical families refrain to claim for the kid's adoption, knowing of the psicological damage that could make to the kids (and how the fear of that would prevent kids uncertain about their origin to show up). So, the best "solution" is to grant the kids the right to know their origin, the biological families the chances to contact these kids, and preserve the adoptions for those parents who acted with good faith about the kids origin.

 

So, let me modify the original hypotesis, instead of divorcing after 10 months, they do it after 10 years. Would Sam be allowed to claim he have no parental duties because he (perhaps just then) finds out he's not the biological parent?

 

The kid deserve to be punished by Sam because of Sarah's behavior as an adult?

 

Should this questions answers deppend on how old the kid is, if just 1 month, 1 year, 3, 5, 10, 25 years old?

 

The same questions can be done in several other scenarios, let say, a drug addict mother, while in jail, gives birth, a judge give the kid in adoption after being unable to find the father. Let say he was a soldier in duty by then, who finds out he have a kid several years later, find out the kid and claim for his parental rights. Should the kid be punished by being taken from his current family to fix this weird chain of events?

 

Sam and Sarah were consenting adults when they married. They signed up a contract and accepted several obligations, and it's supposed they build up this "pernership" knowing each other well enough as to be rasonably confident on each other behavior. If Sam later on finds out he was somehow mislead in this knowledge about Sarah because she did something unexpected for himself, it's exclusivelly Sam's problem. The kid have the right of having a father, wheter Sam likes it or not.

 

There's something interesting to point out about this issues, and it's related with ADN tests. Along the human history, while everyone had no doubt about who's a kid mother, the same wasn't possible to be assured about the kid's father. That's was a matter of faith, reinforced and engaged by most of the laws and uses which, at last, became the set up for the family structure, and then, the social structure. After let say, a millon years (or more) of culture developing around this fact, we got the ADN test for a few decades, able to assure who's a kid's father, and this new piece of knowledge geopardize a set of assuptions and rules we made just because we were unable to know it before, thus, the use of this new knowledge have to be done with care, because the side effects can have a devasting effect over many other social structures.

 

Another thing to point out is that we, adults, have a lot more resourses than kids to protect our interest and look for our wishes to be satisfied. When kid's interests and wishes oppose the adults ones, the more likely is the kids will be the ones giving up, so, when these adults are the parents, it's supposed to be the rest of the society, by means of the state, the ones who have to look for the kids interests and wishes to balance the power relationship. At least here, that's the law spirit in this sort of issues.

[Vespertine 31]

Who here thinks they should cleave the child into three parts and all have an equal share?

Bastard child- The other white meat?

Were these hypothetical folks with their hypothetical situation from Florida?

They were from Ohio.

Now where did I put my shaker of salt? These Floridians are never as salty as I would like....

facelick

[Spoomonkey 421]

They were from Ohio.

 

I'm afraid not...

 

The women in Ohio swallow

 

Spoomonkey

[Vespertine 31]

They were from Canada then, eh?

[Spoomonkey 421]

They were from Canada then, eh?

 

I'm not sure...

 

Any Canadians want to help with a little experiment?

 

 

Spoomonkey

[Thrax 384]

Ah...the Ohio swallow. I've seen those. Luckily they aren't rare or endangered. I've never seen an African or a European swallow, though. Whoops, I take that back. I've seen one European swallow...

 

As for Floridians being salty or not, there are some that raise my blood pressure regardless.

[curiousagain 326]

In the Early 1970's this was reported in one of the State Law Reporters. I am sorry, I do not remember which one -- Massachusetts or Maryland.

 

Two girls live together.

 

One girl has sex with her boyfriend, lover. He deposits semen in her.

 

She is not satisfied, and after he leaves, she stimulates herself with the end of a broom handle and brings herself to climax. The broom handle gets sperm on it during this activity.

 

The room mate sees this, and thinks, "Well, if she was satisfied. I could be satisfied too."

 

She uses the same broom handle, to stimulate herself.

 

Becomes pregnant, and sues for paternity with the male who had sex with her room mate.

 

I do not know how the case was decided, or remember.

 

My guess is, there is no claim for paternity.

 

Strange what people do.

 

Otto

 

 

Sounds like a couple of witches to me.

[curiousagain 326]

Ah...the Ohio swallow. I've seen those. Luckily they aren't rare or endangered. I've never seen an African or a European swallow, though. Whoops, I take that back. I've seen one European swallow...

 

As for Floridians being salty or not, there are some that raise my blood pressure regardless.

 

 

I've never seen an Asian swallow. Got it on my "to do" list though.

[curiousagain 326]

...and I'm so glad I don't have a penis.

 

 

Want to borrow one?

[Vespertine 31]

Want to borrow one?

Yes please!