- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 1/25/19 at 3:21 pm to BowDownToLSU
Add this one to the "threads that didnt happen in real life"
Posted on 1/25/19 at 3:34 pm to BowDownToLSU
Unconditional love that you have for your children is an unbreakable bond.
If my wife ever came to me and said I was not the father of our kids I think I'd be devastated. I think I'd rather not know to tell you the truth than to be subjected to that kind of pain.
If my wife ever came to me and said I was not the father of our kids I think I'd be devastated. I think I'd rather not know to tell you the truth than to be subjected to that kind of pain.
Posted on 1/25/19 at 3:39 pm to supatigah
quote:
Damn counselor, you busted his arse, case dismissed
Actually he didn't, there's negative case history on Bruce v. Bruce. The point of my post is that the court will generally be more concerned with the wellbeing of the child first in foremost. Bruce v. Bruce is not the gold standard when determining this. The court will always resolve the matter in the interest of justice.
This post was edited on 1/25/19 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 1/25/19 at 3:44 pm to supatigah
I'm just an old tired frick trying to relive glory days.
I miss the old days.
I saw an article about 27 ways seniors can save money. I though I'd take a peek to see if I could learn something to save my folks some money.
Turns out that I will soon qualify for many of them. frick.
I miss the old days.
I saw an article about 27 ways seniors can save money. I though I'd take a peek to see if I could learn something to save my folks some money.
Turns out that I will soon qualify for many of them. frick.
Posted on 1/25/19 at 4:17 pm to Salviati
OP - your boy is gonna be like .... 
Posted on 1/25/19 at 4:19 pm to BowDownToLSU
Posted on 1/25/19 at 4:22 pm to BowDownToLSU
Cannot pay from jail, kill the bitch!!!!
Posted on 1/25/19 at 4:39 pm to supatigah
Not so quickly, supa.
There used to be a 2 year prescriptive time in the statute. If the op's employee executed it then, he might be stuck for 13 more years.
The 2 year part of the statute was removed around 2016 (I think). We need a family law attorney, a very recent law grad with the Barbri outlines, or a recent case that has gone up the system.
There used to be a 2 year prescriptive time in the statute. If the op's employee executed it then, he might be stuck for 13 more years.
The 2 year part of the statute was removed around 2016 (I think). We need a family law attorney, a very recent law grad with the Barbri outlines, or a recent case that has gone up the system.
Posted on 1/25/19 at 4:56 pm to cyarrr
quote:Yeah, I did. Thoroughly, wholly, and completely. You have no arse left. None.quote:Actually he didn't
Damn counselor, you busted his arse, case dismissed
quote:Holy fricking shite. Damn you're a bitch. There is ONE case from the same court that questions DICTA in Bruce. See Webb v. Brown, 2015-1594 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/15/16), 193 So. 3d 239. In Webb, the First Circuit noted that the Bruce decision referred to the 2-year period as "presriptive" when it should have said "peremptive."
there's negative case history on Bruce v. Bruce
Bruce was not reversed. Bruce was not overruled. The holding was not questioned. Some dicta, specifically the use of the wrong word, was noted by the same damn court.
But since we're looking at dicta, let's take a look at some of your dicta in this thread.
Dumbass Dictum #1:
quote:Moronic Post #4 (emphasis added).
Thank God you added that disclaimer because to even suggest this would be misleading advice. La. C.C. art. 198, an action to establish paternity of a child presumed to be the child of another man shall be instituted within one year from the date of birth of the child.
Putting aside your initial post in which you misleadingly advised, "no attorney can help at this point," you cited "La. C.C. art. 198, an action to establish paternity of a child." Why in the flying frick would you cite an article concerning "an action to establish paternity" when the thread discusses an action to disavow or revoke paternity? You're just full of misleading (read: malpractice) advice.
Dumbass Dictum #2:
quote:Moronic Post #5 (emphasis added).
the courts always consider what is in the best interest of the child and their rulings generally reflect this
Guess what dumbass? Bruce did not discuss the best interest of the child. Webb did not discuss the best interest of the child. You're shooting 0-2 for something that you say ALWAYS happens.
Dumbass Dictumm #3:
quote:Moronic Post #6 (emphasis added).
Bless your heart, you truely have a high opinion of yourself.
Let's ignore the two independent clauses separated by a comma, and go straight to your spelling of "truely." Truly is the only acceptable way to spell the adverbial form of the adjective true. Truely is not an alternative spelling; it’s a fricking mistake.
Dumbass Dictum #4:
quote:Moronic Post #7
Actually he didn't, there's negative case history on Bruce v. Bruce. The point of my post is that the court will generally be more concerned with the wellbeing of the child first in foremost. Bruce v. Bruce is not the gold standard when determining this. The court will always resolve the matter in the interest of justice.
Let's ignore the two independent clauses separated by a comma [wait, you did it again?!?!], and go straight to your use of the phrase "first in foremost." One doesn't seen that phrase used very much. That's probably because it doesn't exist in any normal person's language. The phrase you are searching for, and failing to find, is " first and foremost."
Dumbass Dictum #5:
quote:Wait, wait, wait . . . The court will GENERALLY be more concerned with the wellbeing of the child?!?! I though you said the court ALWAYS considered the best interest of the child:
The point of my post is that the court will generally be more concerned with the wellbeing of the child first in foremost.
quote:Same crap as above (emphasis added).
the courts always consider what is in the best interest of the child and their rulings generally reflect this
Yes, you did. Do you always crawfish this much?
Dumbass Dictum #6:
quote:Same crap as above.
Bruce v. Bruce is not the gold standard when determining this.
I never said that Bruce is the gold standard. You said find one case. I found Bruce. You didn't ask me to find the gold standard, but that doesn't slow you down in trying to create a straw man that Bruce is my "gold standard."
Holy fricktard, you're full of shite.
Dumbass Dictum #7:
quote:Same crap as above.
The court will always resolve the matter in the interest of justice.
fricking brilliant.
Posted on 1/25/19 at 5:02 pm to TSLG
quote:Good points.
Not so quickly, supa.
There used to be a 2 year prescriptive time in the statute. If the op's employee executed it then, he might be stuck for 13 more years.
The 2 year part of the statute was removed around 2016 (I think). We need a family law attorney, a very recent law grad with the Barbri outlines, or a recent case that has gone up the system.
It's my recollection that courts interpret the legislative removal of a prescriptive or peremptive period retroactively, but I haven't looked at that issue in a long time.
Posted on 1/25/19 at 5:35 pm to Salviati
"Yeah, I did. Thoroughly, wholly, and completely. You have no arse left. None."
You absolutely didn't. You seem as if you are getting pretty worked up about this, did you not take your medication?
In all seriousness, the initial post by the OP was about paying child support after acknowledgment when not the biological father.
Would one not infer from this that the best interest of the child be considered since child support is an issue? Does the court not make this a primary issue when it negatively effects the child? Do you think a judge would vacate the child support order if doing so would adversely impact to the child?
I never said you stated Bruce v. Bruce is the gold standard, although you make it seem as if it is a black or white issue with no gray area. Also, I admitted I may have been in error when stating there was no case law to support your accusation. However, you still refuse to answer my question and again revert to name calling.
I bet you are a joy to work with.
You absolutely didn't. You seem as if you are getting pretty worked up about this, did you not take your medication?
In all seriousness, the initial post by the OP was about paying child support after acknowledgment when not the biological father.
Would one not infer from this that the best interest of the child be considered since child support is an issue? Does the court not make this a primary issue when it negatively effects the child? Do you think a judge would vacate the child support order if doing so would adversely impact to the child?
I never said you stated Bruce v. Bruce is the gold standard, although you make it seem as if it is a black or white issue with no gray area. Also, I admitted I may have been in error when stating there was no case law to support your accusation. However, you still refuse to answer my question and again revert to name calling.
I bet you are a joy to work with.
This post was edited on 1/25/19 at 5:39 pm
Posted on 1/25/19 at 5:49 pm to BowDownToLSU
I have a daughter.
I dont need a DNA test to verify. She looks just like me..., that gorgeous bitch.
I dont need a DNA test to verify. She looks just like me..., that gorgeous bitch.
Posted on 1/25/19 at 6:41 pm to Salviati
quote:
Art. 6. Retroactivity of laws
In the absence of contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only. Procedural and interpretative laws apply both prospectively and retroactively, unless there is a legislative expression to the contrary.
Acts 1987, No. 124, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1988.
The general rule is prospective unless the legislature intends otherwise.
See people? This is why you get an attorney that specializes in the field of your issue.
This shite reminds me of a redhibition thread from years ago that I had a blast fricking with a couple of guys in.
I should go find it and bump it. Lol
Posted on 1/25/19 at 6:41 pm to BowDownToLSU
Who the frick signs that when it’s put in front of them without a paternity test? I’ve never even heard of such a form. Truly sucks for him but should’ve known better than to sign anything without consulting an attorney
Posted on 1/25/19 at 6:45 pm to BowDownToLSU
Posted on 1/25/19 at 8:30 pm to BowDownToLSU
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/20/19 at 6:59 am
Posted on 1/25/19 at 8:50 pm to Lando789
Can we link this to the “would you get married again” thread? There’s a lot of baws raising Jody’s kids in there swearing how great their wife is.
Posted on 1/25/19 at 9:58 pm to BowDownToLSU
quote:
he had signed an admission of paternity
Any contract can be broken, if it contains misrepresentations of the truth. If he can prove that she claimed not to have been with anyone else, then he was given false info, in regards to what he was agreeing to
Posted on 1/25/19 at 10:22 pm to BowDownToLSU
quote:
he had signed an admission of paternity
Why wouldn't he immediately get a paternity test at this point?
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News