Changing minor child's last name

[Ohiogal]

Last time i checked a father was a physical being parenting his child, not a monthly paycheck. So he can send all the money he wants, STILL a dead beat dad.

Wikipedia Definition:

Deadbeat parent is a pejorative term referring to parents of either gender that have freely chosen not to be a financially supportive parent in their children's lives. Primarily used in the US, the gender-specific Deadbeat dad and Deadbeat mom are commonly used by the child support agency to refer to men and women who have fathered or mothered a child but fail to pay child support ordered by a family law court or statutory agency such as the Child Support Agency. The real definition[clarify] is an unrestricted[clarify] parent treated equally who chooses not to be a regular or supportive parent in his or her child or children's life or lives.



so either way, by your definition or mine, he is still a dead beat dad.

Wikipedia is NOT a legal definition. Try quoting wikipedia in court. You would be laughed at. We don't deal with Wikipedia. We deal with LEGAL reality. Not wikipedia reality.

 

[Ohiogal]

moral responsibility does not a apply when you chose to have a child out of wedlock.

Psst... moral responsibility is NOT what the courts use to gauge anything. They use the law. just saying.

 

[Silverplum]

Wikipedia is NOT a legal definition. Try quoting wikipedia in court. You would be laughed at. We don't deal with Wikipedia. We deal with LEGAL reality. Not wikipedia reality.

She's already been laughed at here. It was mildly amusing.

 

[Lina2009]

moral responsibility does not a apply when you chose to have a child out of wedlock.

MORAL responsibilty Isabella, not RELIGIOUS responsibilty. Whether or not they were married, dad should still be there. Just because someone didn't honor the religious dictat that you be married before bearing children does not change the fact that the dad is morally WRONG for ignoring his child.

 

[Ohiogal]

Oh, we go CODONING all the time. It's fun!

Tiny Child, you haven't posted a LAW, nor discussed a LAW, YET. It's understandable. It's naptime: you're not at your best till after your sleepy.

Silver sweetie, take it easy on her. She is nineteen and will soon be babysitting her husband who is 16.

 

[Ohiogal]

MORAL responsibilty Isabella, not RELIGIOUS responsibilty. Whether or not they were married, dad should still be there. Just because someone didn't honor the religious dictat that you be married before bearing children does not change the fact that the dad is morally WRONG for ignoring his child.

Unless they are married, the child doesn't automatically have a father. At all. Morals don't matter in the courtroom or legal arena.

 

[Silverplum]

Silver sweetie, take it easy on her. She is nineteen and will soon be babysitting her husband who is 16.

As in, the new thread:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2095952

Hi my name is Lina and I am 19. My boyfriend is 16 and he is an emancipated minor. He wants to get married and i was wondering, can an emancipated minor get married in California without parental consent? It doesn't really make sense to me but here are some details to help with the question:

-both his parents did not have custody of him when he was emancipated
-he was granted emancipation by the courts

Does the fact his parents were unable to give permission to get emancipated therefore overthrow the fact that he needs to get permission from them to get married?

If so, are we clear to go ahead and get married or do we need to get a court order or something?

Thanx!!

I guess she's NOT a "kid," after all.

 

[Isis1]

As in, the new thread:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2095952



I guess she's NOT a "kid," after all.

oh for pets sake, i missed that post!!! LMFAO!!

the court of law still does not apply religion or moral, which was my point since OG pointed that out. just clarifying lina's argument .

 

[Lina2009]

Psst... moral responsibility is NOT what the courts use to gauge anything. They use the law. just saying.

Yes.
And by the way, i know this is a legal webite and i'm not disputing law or anything. I was however, disputing the fact that a man isn't a dead beat dad just because he sends a check. Yes, i know, legal terms, but that term has more then one definition and i was willing to point them all out, to convey, that in a way everyone is correct. And last time i checked it was my constiutional right to have an opinion, so if that goes for everyone else too, then why are people trying to out debate me on morals, terms, and logic if it is just an opinion?

I never said i was an attorney and i never said i wanted to argue LAW, just the moral aspect of the situation. So for someone to say that i would get laughed at in court is idiotic because i never planned to take my argument there. Everyone is so bent out of shape because my opinion about morals conflicts with their respect and knowledge for the law. But yet and still, my opinion will not change.

Now i respect people who are attorneys, just not the attitude that some have about anything that might not be solidly dealing with the legality of a situation. But just as their educated opinion is to be respected, so should my opinion. I am educated too, and therefore, not inferior, so those who want to name call, go ahead, but i will always and forever say...

A check does not compensate for caring for the emotion/psychological needs of a child.

I know that wouldn't be a good argument in court, but still its MORALLY wrong.

 

[Zigner]

Yes.
And by the way, i know this is a legal webite and i'm not disputing law or anything. I was however, disputing the fact that a man isn't a dead beat dad just because he sends a check. Yes, i know, legal terms, but that term has more then one definition and i was willing to point them all out, to convey, that in a way everyone is correct. And last time i checked it was my constiutional right to have an opinion, so if that goes for everyone else too, then why are people trying to out debate me on morals, terms, and logic if it is just an opinion?

I never said i was an attorney and i never said i wanted to argue LAW, just the moral aspect of the situation. So for someone to say that i would get laughed at in court is idiotic because i never planned to take my argument there. Everyone is so bent out of shape because my opinion about morals conflicts with their respect and knowledge for the law. But yet and still, my opinion will not change.

Now i respect people who are attorneys, just not the attitude that some have about anything that might not be solidly dealing with the legality of a situation. But just as their educated opinion is to be respected, so should my opinion. I am educated too, and therefore, not inferior, so those who want to name call, go ahead, but i will always and forever say...

A check does not compensate for caring for the emotion/psychological needs of a child.

I know that wouldn't be a good argument in court, but still its MORALLY wrong.

This is a legal site.
You sure do know a lot about the emotional needs of a child.
Don't you have a pedophilac relationship to foster...?

 

[Lina2009]

She's already been laughed at here. It was mildly amusing.

It's mildly amusing that i'm arguing one point that has nothing to do with a LEGAL term but a term in general but you are so absorbed in your mission to appear superior that you didn't even notice i was arguing the point from a MORAL stand point in the 1st place.

 

[Zigner]

oh now you are CODONING pedophilac behavior OoOOOooO

Ouch

 

[Lina2009]

Silver sweetie, take it easy on her. She is nineteen and will soon be babysitting her husband who is 16.

i am young yes, but at least i know what stand point i'm arguing from, not just throwing out unsolicited malice because i probably lost a case yesterday....

 

[Lina2009]

This is a legal site.
You sure do know a lot about the emotional needs of a child.
Don't you have a pedophilac relationship to foster...?

Don't you have a unsuspecting forum member to throw your legal jargin at? huh, maybe YOU are the predator....and you think that pedophile comment would actually upset me..save your shock value for the courts..

 

[Ohiogal]

i am young yes, but at least i know what stand point i'm arguing from, not just throwing out unsolicited malice because i probably lost a case yesterday....

Actually nope. Won my cases. Thanks for your concern. And the only standpoint that matters on this site is the LEGAL standpoint. LEGAL. Please comprehend what that word means. If you want moral go to moral.com.