On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:19:17 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: >> In the state of Michigan, USA, all children born during a legal >> marriage are the legal children of the husband even if it can be >> proved that he is not the father. If your wife gives birth, you >> are the legal father.
> Amazing! What would happen if both men were in a leagal marriage? Who > determines which marriage is the one that's the "legal" one? Hmmm. I hope > what I am trying to say makes sense... >> A friend discovered that his business partner was having an affair >> with his wife and had gotten her pregnant. After the divorce he was >> forced to pay child support for "his" child to his ex-wife who was >> living with actual father of this child. Understandably he was >> bitter about this, but nothing could be done. > Unreal! Talk about unfair. Many other states have the same kind of unfair law as Michigan. I believe that my state, Virginia is one of them. In the state of California, the screen actor Errol Flynn lost a paternity suit brought against him by a woman who claimed that the actor was the father of her child. The actor and his legal counsel were able to prove most conclusively that he could not have been the father. The judge forced the actor to pay child support anyway on the grounds that he was very rich and he could easily afford it. Errol Flynn did not complain very loudly about the unfairness perpetrated upon him because he felt that it would be a very bad public relations move for a man of so much wealth to wail and moan about being unfairly forced to pay such a very small percentage out of his vast wealth to support an innocent child. Errol Flynn did not want his adoring fans to get the idea that he doesn't care about the welfare of innocent children. He might have won the case if he had appealed the ruling, but he decided to simply abide by it, despite its unfairness and injustice. It is a fact that the woman who had accused the actor of fathering her child was at one time romantically involved with him, but it is not a fact that he fathered her child. The actor's fans felt that the actor had done the right thing by not appealing the court's decision, even though the decision was most unfair. The judge saved the taxpayers some money by not making the child a ward of the state's welfare system. Also he probably was aware of the character of the actor, and he knew that the the actor likes children, and he probably knew that the actor would not attempt to appeal his ruling, despite its unfairness. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
