Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Man's Not So Best Friend (Part 2)

You can call this a knockout blow for "Roy."

As the article states, "that's a pseudonym for a guy in New Jersey that was told in 1999 by his ex-wife "Bonnie" (also a pseudonym) that their youngest son was actually the child of "Patrick" (also a pseudonym) the boy's godfather with whom she'd been having an affair."

Sounds like a simple "he thought-she didn't tell the truth story"

However, the article also states... "the next year, "Roy" decided to sue "Patrick" for reimbursement of child support he had paid to take care of the child, "Darren." A lower court sided with "Roy" and ordered the biological father to pay the child support, a decision he appealed. The Appellate Court again sided with "Roy," and it was appealed to the Supreme Court."

As you probably guessed (if you didn't click on the link above), Roy lost on a technicality according to the article, "In its unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that "Roy" was not entitled to a child support reimbursement because under the state's Parentage Act claims must be filed before a child turns 23 years old."

Hence the manlaw: First, fellas read part 1 of this series. Second, find out if your state has a Parentage Act on the books, if yes, read every line of the law if you are involved in a paternity dispute. I believe the Parentage Act is different in every state that has one on the books.

Personally, I think Roy went about this the wrong way. He sued the wrong party. I would have sued "Bonnie" because it appeared to me that she 1) knew what the law stated and 2) she knew he wasn't the father all this time and 3) she f$cked up three people's lives (Roy, Patrick and Darren) in the process of revealing this information.

You think Roy will make the same mistake again? Well, I hope nobody is that f$cking stupid.