1. It is your own presumption that I lump you in as a misogynist. Is Mike a misogynist?
2. It is always about the children.

Articles are written to tug at your heart strings not about justice. As the article points out, in order to achieve the “moral and virtuous” sense of justice, all must give up privacy and freedom by submitting to mandatory DNA testing at birth. (Page 9 of 9, see also Justice, episode 9.) Personally, I am not willing to give up my privacy and freedom because a handful of others are reckless and immoral with his or her own personal affairs.

Stephanie obviously is not virtuous, but if Stephanie were moral, she would reimburse or refuse or some how release Mike from the child support obligation. How would that affect L? Would Stephanie refuse to let L see Mike? How would that affect L or Mike for that matter? I bet it would cost more than $7,500 a year.

I don’t have a problem with your “think of the children” argument, but I do have a problem with you blaming the victim. You’re assuming that Mike already knew that his wife was cheating on him, and that he knew that it wasn’t his daughter.

Go back and reread the article AG. Don’t assume things about others.

And yes, tax payers pay for judges to listen to story after story and it is always a he said she said, “he beats me up, she’s a bitch, he cheated, she cheated, why does he get three pillows and I only get one,” over and over again. Every Mike, Simon and misogynist thinks his case is so special. When the courts make a bright line rule, everyone knows what to expect.

That is, everyone gets the same shit sandwich instead of build your own shit sandwiches (mayo, cheese, hold the kids, the first and third are mine, but not the second and fourth, I need seven years of palimony and medical insurance.) Whe courts hand out shit sandwiches, word spread and people avoid lineing up. This has been going on for years, even when DNA testing came out.

Here is the message from Mike’s case: marry a slut, be deemed father to whatever bastard she pops out and eat shit sandwiches for 18 years. How to avoid shit sandwich, marry a good girl and treat her and your kids well and don’t get a divorce.

Simon: Hit and run victim did not choose which car hit him/her. Mike had a chance to vet Stephanie. Maybe none of this was a picnic for Stephie either, maybe Mike was a PUA, maybe she jumped at the first guy she thought would by her a 1/5 carat ring, maybe Mike was bad in bed, maybe Mike watched Jerry Springer all day while she pounded the pavement to keep him stocked with beer and cigarrettes, maybe he was psychologically abusive, maybe he gave her the clap, maybe he was steril and told her to go to the sperm bank for a frozen pop so they could have a baby (which we know in this scenario is not the case, but for some others, it may be), there may be more to the story than has been told, but frankly, why should we listen to ever trailer trash story. It could be plain and simple that Stephanie duped him for his money. Mike made a judgment, unfortunately for him it was a bad one. It might have been just as bad or worse for Stephanie, too.

mt:

Prenup or not, courts don’t award kids to the cheater, primary custody of children vest in the primary caregiver, which would be in your Tiger/Elin scenario Elin. So Tiger can stick his dumbstick wherever he wants and give Elin whatever gift that is or is not cured by penicillin, the kids are still his.

What if Tiger fathered a dozen kids with as many mistresses who all file paternity suit and went after him for child support? Guess what, he’d have to pay child support; unless of course the mistress is married, perhaps? Does Elin get to bitch that she is the wife and the one or dozen cases of child support is eating into her martial estate? The court wouldn’t care what Elin would have to say. Elin married a cad, the best person to know that aside from Tiger, would have been Elin. Tiger pays child support, Elin would have to suck it.

AG out.

Talk about rubbing salt into the wound. Correct me if I’m wrong about this but what you’re saying is along the lines of “Walk it off and learn from your mistakes” to a hit-and-run victim.

“Nobody made Mike marry Stephanie.” Would your response still be the same then if Mike was a battered wife? “Nobody made you marry that wife beater.”

Have you no shame American Girl?

It is not absolutely guaranteed that the courts will rule that Mikes will have to pay child support. However, most judges rule that Mikes will have to pay child support because they are basing it on a standard that’s probably dated and doesn’t take into account situations where the wife is being a cheating, lying, gold digging whore and the biological dad is known. So we need to ask if that standard or precedence that is being used is fair, just, moral, and practical in these cases. Just because some judge says so or some legal standard is cited does not make it right.

“If enough Mikes get burned, men will figure out they better not be a Mike.” What does that even mean? Are you serious? What about if enough Stephanies get held responsible for cheating in a binding marriage, having a baby out of wedlock, and being a lying gold digging hoochie mama, women will figure out they better not be a Stephanie?

Applying your Mikey and Steffi response to the Tiger case, if Tiger’s wife did not have a prenup, would you have responded the same. Let’s say Tiger’s wife had no prenup and so she divorces Tiger and is awarded by the courts custody of the kids, a tidy sum of money, and alimony that affords her and the kids a much more modest lifestyle than the lifestyle they would have enjoyed had there been a prenup. Would you say she got what she deserved? Would you say, if she married Tiger, she has to realize she’s in it for the long haul? Would you say that if enough Elins get burned, women will figure out they better not be like Elin? Of course the two situations are not apples to apples, but I am curious how you would respond even with the flaws and differences in my comparison.

Lastly, I’m surprised that you would inject so much personal bias and emotion into your posts regarding Mikey and Steffie and also in your posts regarding Tiger considering that you practice law. What kind of lawyer are you again? Are you and Eric Jacobus good friends or something? Are you some kind of libertarian feminist?

Why should taxpayers employ judge after judge after judge and his/her staff and pay for all the files and paper to deal with and fix the problems that the Mikes and Stephanies of the world create. The only loser if we step between Mike and Stephanie and her Tom, Dick and Harry are the tax payers pocket books at the purported children. If enough Mikes get burned, men will figure out they better not be a Mike.

So your solution is “know your prospective spouse and understand that when you marry in it for the long haul?” Despicable!

The wife was secretly having an affair with her coworker and gave birth to that man’s child, and you dare defend the likes of her?

When the state becomes involved, who is the harm against and who created it? If you want the state to integral your personal life and in the decisions you make, perhaps the state should determine whether or not one should marry? If you put the onus upon the state to fix other domestice problems, the state will have more of a stake and more of a say of how to run your personal life.

The onus remains on the parties involved. The message sent to Mike and others like him, know your prospective spouse and understand when you marry you in it for the long haul.

Likewise in contract’s the states are more inclined to uphold contracts that destroy them.

As for sex, sex in contracts is one of those things that courts will not enforce. Any contract for sex is illegal. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts if you filed a case for breach of contract against a prostitute for not performing or not performing per the agreement, your case will be dismissed and you wil probably get a knock on your door from the local law enforcement with Exhibit 1 being your complaint for breach of contract. Likewise, if you pay some to perform some sex act online and he or she doesn’t do what you want them to, you probably won’t get your money back.

With regard to marriage, what if one spouse doesn’t want to have sex with another? Will a court make one spouse have sex 1 or 7 times a week with the other spouse? You’ll find more states are getting out of the business of prosecuting adultery as a crime much like how the crime of seduction is no longer prosecuted. You need to mind your own Ps and Qs.

Nobody made Mike marry Stephanie.