Как Заарканить Мужчину: часть Вторая

[Alex5448]

И роста и веса..

Тем кто выше 180 не платят ничего.

[Sarochka]

Примерно так. Ещё зависит от возраста жены и её здоровья.

[Vostochnaya]

Дискриминация..

[Vlаd]

Тем кто выше 180 не платят ничего.

А если только одни ноги 180?

[Alex5448]

А если только одни ноги 180?

Тогда она будет сама платить алименты мужу, ибо в WNBA хорошо платят.

[Vostochnaya]

Алчная пелотка! (с)

[Vlаd]

У тебя ссылки не найдётся?

Ссылки нет. Алименты на ребенка это еще цветочки, в судах какого абсурда только нет.
Насамом деле суду нужно наплевать с кем взрослые спят и кто кому рога наставляет, суд должен исходить из итересов ребенка, который не виноват, что у него такие родители. Это главная установка суда.
А если коротко, то не женитесь в Канада.

[Alex5448]

Ссылки нет. Алименты на ребенка это еще цветочки, в судах какого абсурда только нет.
Насамом деле суду нужно наплевать с кем взрослые спят и кто кому рога наставляет, суд должен исходить из итересов ребенка, который не виноват, что у него такие родители. Это главная установка суда.
А если коротко, то не женитесь в Канада.

В канаде не знаю, проверю потом.
В америке у мужа есть возможность дисестальбнишнуть патеринити в течении некоторого времени, в завизимости от штата.

[Vostochnaya]

В Америке алимони и чайлд супорт две отдельные оперы..
У знакомой дочка с мужем без детей жила он ей после развода алимони платит..

[Vlаd]

В канаде не знаю, проверю потом.
В америке у мужа есть возможность дисестальбнишнуть патеринити в течении некоторого времени, в завизимости от штата.

Paternity fraud

Canada[edit]
Mr. Cornelio began paying child support for his ex-wife's twins after the couple separated in 1998. The former couple settled upon a joint custody agreement in 2002 that continued Mr. Cornelio's monetary support for the twins.[17] Shortly afterwards Ms. Cornelio requested a reduction in visitation time along with an increase in support payments that prompted Mr. Cornelio to question the paternity of the twins. A subsequent DNA test revealed that he was not their biological father. A request was made by Mr. Cornelio to be excused from paying further support claiming to be the victim of misrepresentation or fraud when Ms. Cornelio failed to disclose the affair while they were married when he signed the 2002 joint custody agreement.[18]
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2008 ruled against the request to be excused or reimbursed for support payments. Judge van Rensburg in deciding to deny the request noted Mr. Cornelio had wondered at the time of his separation if an affair by his ex-wife had actually been responsible for the twins. "It was not until access was interrupted and Ms. Cornelio commenced proceedings seeking increased child support that the respondent began pursuing this issue," the judge remarked. "The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."[19]

United States[edit]
California, County of Los Angeles v. Navarro[edit]
During 1996 the County of Los Angeles entered a default judgment against putative father Mr. Navarro and ordered him to pay monthly support for Ms. Doe's two children.[22] The complaint to establish paternity filed by the Bureau of Family Support Operations was based on information provided by Ms. Doe naming "Manuel Nava" as the children's father. The agency determined that Mr. Navarro was the father in question and delivered notice to his sister's residence listing Mr. Navarro as "co-resident", notice Mr. Navarro denied ever receiving.[23]
In 2001 Mr. Navarro armed with a DNA test showing he was not the children's father sued the County of Los Angeles asking to be relieved from the support order.[24] The County of Los Angeles opposed the motion, arguing the motion was filed after the six month limit to contest a default judgment and the mother’s mere assertion that he was the father was insufficient to establish extrinsic fraud. The trial court sided with the County and denied the motion. This ruling was then appealed before the California 2nd Appellate Court of Appeal.[25]
In 2004 the court of appeal reversed the trial court decision ruling in favor of Mr. Navarro and became the first published California case to hold that the statute of limitations did not apply in setting aside an old default judgment against a paternity fraud victim.[26] Immediately after the ruling was issued, the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department announced that it would request that the case be depublished so it could not be used as a precedent by other men in Mr. Navarro's situation.[27] That request was later denied by the California Supreme Court.