Another infuriating paternity story

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,319
8,505
693
Silverdale, WA
#1

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#2
See if you're able to make it through this story without wanting to punch something. I didn't. Of course dummy jarhead didn't do much to help his case.


http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/the-curious-case-of-staff-sergeant-parsons/

Note - Wackbag character limit prevented me from posting the story here. Don't want to edit anything so read via the link.
You could post the partial story and then add the rest in an edit (which has no character limit, as far as I can tell).
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
Nov 1, 2004
12,066
6,073
631
#5
I'd love to think if I was in that situation I would not divorce the chick, spend all my savings and max out every line of credit that was in both our names I had on fancy restaurants, booze and hookers. And when that was all used up, cancel all my insurance and then blow my brains out right in front of her.

But it seems fucked up that a Judge can't seem to grant an exemption to certain technicalities when it is clear the other party was maliciously deceptive.
 
Jun 14, 2004
645
10
313
#6
Well I for one dont feel sympathy for him. Not because he allowed himself to be duped, that could happen to anyone, but because he took no timely action. From teh article:

He did not file a complaint against Crystal Parsons until early-December of 2012—more than two and half years after he discovered he was not the father of the child.
The court’s explanation:
Even if the fraud ground of Family Code section 2122(a) applied, Father’s set aside motion is untimely since such a motion must be brought “within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the fraud.” Father’s discovery of the fraud occurred in April of 2010, i.e., a date more than 2 ½ years ago.
In laymen’s terms: he was too late. This is the loophole that Crystal Domenech Parsons won the ruling by—resulting in the court ordering SSgt Brandon Parsons to pay another twelve years of child support for a child that he now has no access to.
That's not a loophole, the code was clearly intended to promote timely filing of cases, what the hell prevented him from at least seeing a lawyer within that year? was he happy to be paying the child support during that time?
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#7
I'd love to think if I was in that situation I would not divorce the chick, spend all my savings and max out every line of credit that was in both our names I had on fancy restaurants, booze and hookers. And when that was all used up, cancel all my insurance and then blow my brains out right in front of her.

But it seems fucked up that a Judge can't seem to grant an exemption to certain technicalities when it is clear the other party was maliciously deceptive.
The law is designed to make sure the child is taken care of, not that a father or not father receives justice. The child's well being is considered paramount.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#8
The law is designed to make sure the child is taken care of, not that a father or not father receives justice. The child's well being is considered paramount.
I think that, in this case, the law is perfectly just, and was justly applied. But you have to filter out the bullshit in the article, and just look at the relevant facts of the case: the guy's actions. Those are the only thing that matters. The mother could be the biggest scumbag in the world, and he could have personally hunted down and killed both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It makes no difference, this is not between him and the mother, it's between him and the child.

If you assume responsibility over children, you do so until they're adults. A court holding you to that is fair and just. Yes, being the victim of fraud invalidates that, but only if you act when you find out the truth. If you don't, if you continue to act as the child's caregiver, then you once again, this time fully aware of the facts, assume responsibility over that child. That is why the law limits the time someone has to act, not just for expedience. If someone knows a child isn't his, but continues to take care of that child, that person is considered to have made it perfectly clear that he is in fact the caregiver for that child.

Sorry, children aren't used cars. You can't change your mind mid way through. That is how it is, and that is how it should be. This is a weird case, but in the end that still applies. As long as the money he pays is spent on the child, there is no injustice here.
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
Feb 18, 2006
13,894
6,291
638
#9
Fuck this rotten cunt
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
41,676
9,148
768
#10
i would rather go to jail than pay that woman a dime.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#11
I think that, in this case, the law is perfectly just, and was justly applied. But you have to filter out the bullshit in the article, and just look at the relevant facts of the case: the guy's actions. Those are the only thing that matters. The mother could be the biggest scumbag in the world, and he could have personally hunted down and killed both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It makes no difference, this is not between him and the mother, it's between him and the child.

If you assume responsibility over children, you do so until they're adults. A court holding you to that is fair and just. Yes, being the victim of fraud invalidates that, but only if you act when you find out the truth. If you don't, if you continue to act as the child's caregiver, then you once again, this time fully aware of the facts, assume responsibility over that child. That is why the law limits the time someone has to act, not just for expedience. If someone knows a child isn't his, but continues to take care of that child, that person is considered to have made it perfectly clear that he is in fact the caregiver for that child.

Sorry, children aren't used cars. You can't change your mind mid way through. That is how it is, and that is how it should be. This is a weird case, but in the end that still applies. As long as the money he pays is spent on the child, there is no injustice here.
I get that, and to a degree I agree.

Dude was a dummy. He was a good guy, but he was such a good guy that he fucked up. And that's dumb.

When he found out he wasn't the father, he should have filed to disestablish paternity. At that point, he could have chosen to keep taking care of the kid, but it would have been a purely voluntary thing, not a legally obligated thing.

But it's tough. This was, to his mind, his child. His kid. I can see it taking a while for him to wrap his head around this kid not being his. But he still fucked up.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#12
Google "WestPac widow". This shit happens all the time, although it doesn't always result in such a shitty situation.

I worked with a guy that was in a similar situation. The guy was pitiful: fat, not that smart, no friends, no one really respected him (even junior Marines), plus his wife was fat as fuck AND a raging cunt. He went on deployment, his roommate did not. He came home from a ONE YEAR deployment to find his wife pregnant. You can guess who the daddy was. Not only did he not divorce the bitch, he decided the raise the other guy's kid. Even worse, the roommate was in the same squadron, so they had to see each other all the time at work. Poor bastard.