|
July 19, 2006, 4:58 pm PDT
Thanks to you
Quote From: julie1418Thank you, once again, for providing us with the legal updates and facts. I found this portion of the rulling quite pertinent...
The right to privacy described by the Supreme Court’s cases prevents the State from
inserting itself into the process of decision-making by sexual partners concerning the matters of
conception and birth. Those decisions, and the disagreement of the two parties over those decisions,
are private matters. The Fourteenth Amendment gives no succor to a disgruntled sexual partner who
fails to reach accord over these important matters, nor even to one who is misled by the actions of
a private party. It is well settled that the State does not have an affirmative duty to correct
underlying inequality in society.
I also appreciated the note about the safe haven laws. I didn't realize, but assumned there must be some provision, that either parent can file for custody within 28 days of a child being placed in a safe haven. So if the mother "drops off" a baby at a fire station, but the father wants custody, he has that right AND the mother will be responsible for financial child support. I think we don't hear about this very often is because the women who use safe havens are usually mentally unstable AND have been abandoned by the child's father.
Thanks again for the info. I have been checking this board for your posts :)
Thank you for your kind words. One note from a legal perspective: For those of you who choose to read Judge Lawson's Decision, please keep in mind that when a court analyzes a motion to dismiss, for the purpose of the analysis, the court assumes all of the facts in the complaint to be true. This does not mean that the court believes those facts to be true or that the court has found those facts to be true. This is only an assumption for purposes of analyzing the motions to dismiss.
I loved how Judge Lawson wrote:
According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant
Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his
relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely
imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.
And later on in the decision:
The plaintiff thereafter had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct,
so the State came to his assistance by bringing a legal action that would result in an established
schedule the plaintiff could follow in contributing to the financial support of his daughter.
Welcome to reality, Matt Dubay. Like it or not, you are a father. What a pity that you are failing to be a dad.
|
It has been so long since I last posted. I am sorry to all of you who have had to post on here....it means that you have experienced the loss of a child, the most painful thing to go through...
