You are here

The UNMITIGATED GALL of this woman

bellladonna's picture

Submitted by bellladonna on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 8:22pm

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-woman-loses-bid-for-child-su...

This BM had some nerve. I seriously can't believe this chick. Smdh.

Comments

LadyJ's picture

Submitted by LadyJ on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 9:14pm

I just can't get past the fact that the cheating BM in the article is referred to by initials EZ. How appropriate

ntm's picture

Submitted by ntm on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 9:54pm

Here's one for you--in NYS a child born when the couple is married is immediately and forever the legal father of the child. No DNA testing is necessary because it is irrelevant. The sucker married to the woman when that baby is born is on the hook for 21 years of CS.

Ninji's picture

Submitted by Ninji on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 6:43am

I work with a guy that didn't find out his daughter existed until she was 10yrs old. He has to pay back child support. Personally, I think it should be the opposite. I think the BM in this situation should have to pay my co-worker because she stole 10 years of his child's life from him that he will NEVER get back.

Acratopotes's picture

Submitted by Acratopotes on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 6:48am

hold on.....

is his name on the birth certificate? if not how is he agreeing to pay this.... he can simply deny it...
then the BM has to go to court and get a court order for DNA testing, he can simply tell the BM - get lost and change his number... in the mean time he should find out if he can sue her for keeping it from him...

I think there's more to it then what he told you or he's really stupid lol...

Ninji's picture

Submitted by Ninji on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 7:46am

Apparently they did go to court and DNA testing was done. That's how the CS amount was determined. He is trying to save up money to go back and get it re-adjusted.

Exjuliemccoy's picture

Submitted by Exjuliemccoy on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 4:38am

The judge referred to the woman's assertion as a "misapprehension of fact". Is that judicial slang for liar liar, pants on fire?

She should have been locked up, if only for a few days. Should have made an example of her.

Totalybogus's picture

Submitted by Totalybogus on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 12:44pm

I think it is based on the relationship the child has with the man he believes to be his father. If paternity is not disputed until the child is older and each believes paternity, the court would not interrupt the relationship. The guy would have all of the rights he would have had if he was the bio father and he would have the financial responsibility just as he would if he were the bio father.

uofarkchick's picture

Submitted by uofarkchick on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 9:02am

Thank goodness common sense is finally starting to leak in to the judicial system when it comes to this type of situation. I hope that someday these men are able to sue their former spouses/girlfriends for fraud.

notarelative's picture

Submitted by notarelative on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 11:08am

I think what saved the guy from paying support was that she declared in court he was not the bio father and wanted no child support from him. I think that if she had originally wanted child support it would have been awarded they were married at the time of the birth and he acted as a father. The new BC judge made her stand by her court declaration.

What next? Will she appeal? Will she sue the bio father for current and back support?

notsobad's picture

Submitted by notsobad on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 12:30pm

I agree with you notarelative, that and the fact that he had no contact with the child from that point forward.

My guess is that things didn't go so well with the new internet guy and BC is expensive to live in. She's in need of some money and someone told her that her ex should be paying CS even if he's not the father.