The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsMy brother in law got a girl pregnant who was barely legal, then after they broke up
he had PIs track her to prove he should have sole custody. This girl did not even have her GED, and HE was over 20 years her senior.
He had the courts decide that SHE pay each month, she who was only 18 whenshe got pregnant, while he was nearly 40. On top of which, HE had a college degree and was earning a real salary. But this "prince" of a guy had his baby born on welfare because to add her to his insurance would have been a "pre existing condition"
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i love your name. an interesting experience reading your post. as i am reading thru, i am thinking more and more why i do not like this man, or on his side, lol.... as i think you are going to be ultimately defending him in all this and vilifying the girl.
what a relief to read all your post before i went off, without finishing.
i have been known to do that.
i hate everything about this post. and i hope that though this grown man (and i am not believing, but hoping), will be able to be the type of man (really not believing, merely hoping against hope) that can give his baby a healthy, secure, balance, grounded, childhood....
ok
what a creep
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I wish I could say otherwise....
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Sadly I think his priorities are with his new familiy, not his daughter.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)One - he couldn't "add her to his insurance" unless they were married. You can't just "add people to your insurance" - not even your pregnant girlfriend.
In MOST states, if "welfare" has to deliver the baby, they will come back to the dad and demand reimbursement. Garnishment if they have to.
So did he gain custody? How can "she" be paying child support if she's not working? Does she have visitation? How old is the kid now? She'd have to be proved "unfit" - not just that she's 18 without sufficient education - and that he "has more money". Doesn't work that way. There had to be other circumstances for a NEWBORN to be taken from a mother.
He sounds like a real piece of work. I'm betting she could regain custody because a leopard doesn't change it's spots. He's probably still diddling around.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)What good reason could you possibly have for opposing this other than animus toward your brother-in-law?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)well-off cradle-robbing men seeking child-support from an unemployed barely-legal woman on welfare who doesn't even have a HS diploma is less egregious where you grew up?
This alone is justification for a lot more than animus. I'd never break bread with such a person; they'd never be welcome in my home or around my children; they'd be dead to me -- shunned, the mere fact of their presence unacknowledged and their every spoken word upon deaf ear.