[Tsumeone]

I have a friend, J. His ex-girlfriend, V, no longer wants anything to do with him. She originaly said the child could have his last name. Now she is saying she wants the child's name to be only her decision, which makes my friend J upset, naturally, as he wants to be involved in the child's life.

She wants him to pay child support. He is completely willing to do this! However, she doesn't want him to be there when the kid is born. I believe this means that he won't be able to sign the birth certificate. She also wants 100% custody just because she doesn't like my friend J and neither does her family.

What rights does my friend J have here? Should he refuse to pay her a [dime until she lists his name and the child's last name as his on the birth certificate? If she still doesn't do that, I believe if she wants child support she'll have to go to court and establish that he is the father. If this happens, can the court force her to change the kid's last name to his? I mean, he is letting the b*tch choose the first and middle name. Now she is trying to bullcrap him into letting her have her cake, letting her eat the cake, and providing all of the cake for her too!

A huge issue compounding this is that when the child was conceived, I believe she was 17 and he was 20. A stupid decision on his part, but she was the one who went off and decided to stop taking the birth control pills on her own without telling him until a week after, in which they did the nasty multiple times.

Basically I want to know: How should this situation best be resolved so:

-J has at least 20% custody of the child. (He is not at all a bad person or a loser, there is no reason this shouldn't happen. She still lives with her parents, where he is moved out into an apartment with a roommate [me])
-J pays her child support that is of a fair amount (none of this $500 a month crap- he ain't rich. He works at Fry's)
-J gets his child's last name to be his own (as is normal.) She still gets to pick the first and middle name so this shouldn't be an issue anyway... Seems fair to me.

[I figured this should be posted here because this all rests on his proved paternity (as for the above to happen I'm assuming a court ordered paternity test will be necessary).]

Any suggestions / ideas / advice is GREATLY appreciated as he has limited to no money to afford an attorney to even consult about this, due to all the money he spent on her when he was with her.

[Baystategirl]

California

§ 261. 5(b)-(d)
Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 and the actor is not more than three years older or three years younger, is guilty of a misdemeanor

Up to one year in county jail

As you can see by the above statute your buddy committed a crime by having sex with this girl. He isn't really in a position to demand anything. But he can pray that the girls family doesn't file a complaint with the local police department. He can also hope that one of the many mandated reporters don't find out about "J".

But even if "J" hadn't committed a crime by having sex with this MINOR girl, he would have zero say in what she names her child. Until "J" is LEGALLY adjudicated the father of this child by a court he has zero rights regarding the child.

BTW: As an adult "J" should have been responsible for his OWN birth control. To leave something so important up to a legal child is stupid...Especially when he is committing a crime.

A huge issue compounding this is that when the child was conceived, I believe she was 17 and he was 20. A stupid decision on his part, but she was the one who went off and decided to stop taking the birth control pills on her own without telling him until a week after, in which they did the nasty multiple times.

When the baby is born and DNA testing is done, after "J" gets out of jail he can file for custody/visitation/child support.
Child support will be what the court determines to be fair...not what you think is fair. Generally it is about 28% of his income.

The name issue will most likely be a hyphenated name ie...Smith-Jones...The child is still his child no matter what the name is. Personally I can't understand why people get so gaga about a child's name...ego I guess.

Basically I want to know: How should this situation best be resolved so:

-J has at least 20% custody of the child. (He is not at all a bad person or a loser, there is no reason this shouldn't happen. She still lives with her parents, where he is moved out into an apartment with a roommate [me])
-J pays her child support that is of a fair amount (none of this $500 a month crap- he ain't rich. He works at Fry's)
-J gets his child's last name to be his own (as is normal.) She still gets to pick the first and middle name so this shouldn't be an issue anyway... Seems fair to me.

[Tsumeone]

Where do you see that law?

More importantly, her parents are religious freakos and they consider it unchristian to report him for something that should equally be her responsibility IMO (if you open your legs at 17, my belief is you also have a problem - and your parents should too for raising you like that). Not absoliving J of any responsibility, just saying the way the law views it isn't how most would view it.

Also, I found the statute of limitations on that is 1 year. By the time she would even think about that the year would be over and it wouldn't be an issue.

So the age issue being aside, what would you think?

The court should hopefully take into consideration that:

She willfully won't get a job.
Her parents let her and will let the kid live there rent free.
Her parents are giving her support.
28% of his income gone = can't afford to live in california. He will probably end up working under the table if this happens because it's rediculous.

He is going to be legally considered the dad at some point because she is going to want his money.

[Baystategirl]

You have a very offensive way of putting things...The girl is 17 and pregnant...Please tell me what kind of job you would expect her to have? She should still be in school and getting a decent education so that she will be able to support the baby and herself in time.

If your buddy thinks he will get out of paying support by working under the table he won't. The court will input an income for him. If he doesn't pay court ORDERED support he will be in contempt of court, facing fines, loss of license and jail if he doesn't comply.

Here is the site I got the stat from:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/j...003-R-0376.htm

[Tsumeone]

You have a very offensive way of putting things...The girl is 17 and pregnant...Please tell me what kind of job you would expect her to have? She should still be in school and getting a decent education so that she will be able to support the baby and herself in time.

If your buddy thinks he will get out of paying support by working under the table he won't. The court will input an income for him. If he doesn't pay court ORDERED support he will be in contempt of court, facing fines, loss of license and jail if he doesn't comply.

Here is the site I got the stat from:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/j...003-R-0376.htm

I might have an offensive way of putting things because I know her personally, so all my opinions are kind-of biased since I know what kind of person she is.

She goes to a charter high school twice a week, and always has. She complained about working a 3 hour a day job at a fast food chain when J worked 10 hour days for months as a technician. To attend a full community college course here requires attending a maximum of three days a week, leaving plenty of time for work- especially if the parents are giving her a free ride in terms of taking care of the kid for her, giving her money, free car, etc etc! I know the courts here are very black and white in interpreting the law and don't interpret fairness, but this is a situation where a spoiled brat who knew better made a mistake and is now trying to get out of it, and a situation where a dumb person did something very dumb that they should pay for but not at the expense of his ability to afford the basic cost of living here and certainly not at the expense of his freedom.

I definitely think that J is going to / needs to learn a lesson from this, my problem is that I think V will learn one too- that she can rip men off of their money while being able to get a tax deduction for her child (dependant) while her parents do the work for her and she can continue on her life as normal with NO consequence. This is certainly not how it should be. 17 is old enough to know better and many states agree.

These young pregnant girls think it's all about them- in reality they are making the guy suffer way more than they think more often than not. They think that these guys can easily afford to throw 600 dollars a month their way while going half on a $1200 dollar a month rent for a two bedroom apartment, paying 150+ a month in basic utilities, 100+ a month for liability car insurance, 100+ a month in food, gas, other misc expenses that arise while giving a good 20+% of their paycheck to uncle sam already only making 8 bux an hour.

The system is unfairly biased towards the girl. In this case J would even be glad to take full custody of the kid, since the girl is an irresponsible brat - however that would never happen. She wants her money (that she will likely squander on herself) and she will get it by any means necessary.

I'm really trying to find a solution to the ridiculous amounts of child support awarded by the courts here.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/261-269.html

I looked there at 261.5 letter b I think and all I see is more ridiculous money extractions but no prison time. That's why I asked, because before I posted here that was the only link I found and I wanted to be sure. Now I'm not too sure.

[jojo4]

Okay, first of all, the child support is based on either or both parents' income. Once she is capable of supporting herself, if she is not working or refuses to do so, an income should be imputed for her.

You keep going on about how awful she is and that she should learn a lesson. The fact is that an adult knowingly had sex with a minor, did not take responsibility for he OWN protection (why anyone would take the word of a person about birth control if he truly do not WANT a child is beyond me), and is now trying to figure out how to get around child support income guidelines.

It's not going to happen. He made his bed and enjoyed what happened in that bed. Now he gets to contribute to the support of the child that resulted from the activities he participated in that bed.

[Tsumeone]

Okay, first of all, the child support is based on either or both parents' income. Once she is capable of supporting herself, if she is not working or refuses to do so, an income should be imputed for her.

You keep going on about how awful she is and that she should learn a lesson. The fact is that an adult knowingly had sex with a minor, did not take responsibility for he OWN protection (why anyone would take the word of a person about birth control if he truly do not WANT a child is beyond me), and is now trying to figure out how to get around child support income guidelines.

It's not going to happen. He made his bed and enjoyed what happened in that bed. Now he gets to contribute to the support of the child that resulted from the activities he participated in that bed.

Another fact is the brat is getting off scot free, and is expecting no consequences for her actions. The law should be changed so fathers have more rights.

I'll let him know about the inputting an income for her.