That’s not what it was meant for.
“It broke.”
“Yeah. Well, that’s not what is was meant for.”
Wrong tool for the job. But a DIY lesson many of us would have learnt.
“That will learn ya.” Was an expression I often heard from an old man who was watching the kids around him growing up.
What about Feminists trying their hand at a bit of DIY short-sighted thinking?
Did they take something that wasn’t purpose build for their ends. Was there something they thought, would do the job, but they never considered the possibility it might break?
In relative terms, as far as the civilized world goes, only nature and war could make such a mess in such a short period of time.
Those Feminists. Are they nothing but natural warmongers?
How big does the mess need to be, before someone says, the house is a mess?
Now I’m not 100% sure what your saying but I think this case has so many of those unintended consequences?
A few interesting points.
“Judge Ross ordered a paternity test for the child when the woman applied for state aid.”
So she needs the ‘DPB’ and they go “who’s the daddy”. In effect a compulsory paternity test took place.
Why?
“Mirasolo was given joint custody and ordered to pay $316 in monthly child support, according to court documents.”
So how was that done?
“Mirasolo was identified as the father, and the judge ordered his name be added to the birth certificate”
Pretty obvious but the crown in effect wants what’s owing to it (child support) which was the purpose of the hearing for her to get state support. The crown and probably everybody else are quite happy for this individual to pay some money for the child. The crown wins but does the court win?
You bet it does.
“Kiessling filed objections on Friday after Judge Gregory Ross ruled that Mirasolo had parental rights to the boy, who is now 8-years-old. The woman, who now lives in Florida, was told to move back to Michigan, made woman’s address known to the father. He was also awarded parenting time, Kiessling said.”
So that’s the generic result of the paternity test.
Supprise everyone.
“The next court hearing is scheduled for October 25.”
Now it’s likely to be a short hearing as he seems to not want contact anyway. His parole would probably stop contact as well.
Still a few extra bucks in the lawyers pockets.
So Downunder it is an interesting case for its chain of events with an intention to maximise child support coming across the extreme circumstance. They get what they wanted to get but the consequences of the rights they created are definately not what they wanted. Neither was the court flexible enough to recognise it had a case that did need a proper hearing knowing the successful paternity tests consequences. Maybe as he plea bargained down he went below a threshold for this.
“Her client was seeking protection from Mirasolo under the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, which provides grants to states that offer women who conceive a child through rape the option to terminate the rapist’s parental rights if there is “clear and convincing evidence” of the crime.”
So he was found guilty but not on the charge of rape? Then the mother can’t argue she was raped as he was convicted on another charge.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/97743461/us-rapist-could-win-joint-custody-of-victims-child
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 10th October 2017 @ 11:14 pm
As a speech is to an audience and education to the scholar, writing is to the reader – encouraging the willing and hungry mind but confusing the fool.
That’s so last century.
Blogs are a wonderful part of the Internet but as in the real world while opportunity jostles with competition, at least the little man has a sporting chance.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 11th October 2017 @ 7:12 am