I prefer the krispy kreme glaze, thanks anyway. :evil:

Probably because it didn't meet the exact definition of fraud for that jurisdiction. Something you learn really quickly in law school is that words don't mean what you think they mean. To prove something like fraud, you have to prove that someone did all the things (elements) that that specific jurisdiction considers the necessary elements of that offense. What's fraud in my state may not be exactly the same as fraud in your state.

Making appropriate and functional laws is harder than it looks. For example, in general, it's considered good policy that your body parts aren't property, and therefore can't be sold. I won't go into the pros and cons, but you can't sell your kidneys. But there are some exceptions for things like blood and sperm, either because we want to encourage "donation" or because we want to allow people to "donate" if they choose.

So, in a very simplified fashion, the existing state of affairs is that you can't treat body parts like property, except for blood and sperm/eggs. Except that "giving" your sperm to a lover isn't the same as giving them a book or a box of chocolates. That's why laws get re-written and refined.

Sorry for going all Professor Prudence. School is like a drug. I can quit any time!

Yes, but whether it was a gift or not shouldn't affect a fraud claim. Afterall, there are plenty of fraud cases that have been prosecuted successfully in which the victim willingly handed over money or property. But willingly or not, if the recipient uses that "gift" in a way that differs from the stated purpose, it's generally defined as fraud. Heck, I'd go so far as to call this case extortion since it's not even about the initial transfer of property (which is what fraud usually covers), but about the future demand for payments (child support) based on fraudulent use of the gift.

Ditto.

Since she did this on her own, she needs to raise the kid on her own too. He should not have to pay child support.

If only it was that good....now there's some genetic engineering I can get behind! :eek: :evil:

Still depends on what the elements of fraud are in that jurisdiction. If the prosecution doesn't think they can prove all the elements, or the judge determines that they absolutely can't prove all the elements, they can't prosecute for fraud. I haven't taken torts yet, so I dunno what the elements are for sure (we've only covered fraud as a defense to breaking a contract.) In my state, there are something like 9 elements to fraud. Doesn't mean she's not a lying bee-otch who shouldn't get a dime. Just means that they have to charge her with something else. Sometimes prosecutors have to be creative. The law is surprisingly underdeveloped in this area. Sometimes it's hard to anticipate behavior this outrageous.

Slightly off topic here...

Have you heard about the whole pineapple juice theory?? Appearantly drinking lots of pineapple juice will turn sperm into some sort of hawaiian cocktail chaser flavored with the taste of pineapple. Supposedly it is true but I don't know if I believe it.....

And back to the lady... CRAZY!!! She sounds like the type of woman that Tom Leykis is always warning men about.....

Here's my official unsolicited opinion: he shouldn't have to pay a DIME, AND... he should be granted visitation. It's one thing to have actual sex with a woman, and she gets preggers. Fine, ya did something you KNEW had a .2% chance of resulting in a child (assuming you used protection). But a blow job? Get friggin' real!

How about misuse of personal information (eg: DNA code)? There must be SOMETHING to nullify the paternity suit. Yes, it's his kid, NO it's not remotely his fault. Huh uh, sorry. This was no accidental pregnancy, and there was no chance of accidental pregnancy. On the other hand, there is a kid out there for whom he is the daddy, and I think, despite his lack of intention to have a child, he ought to be granted visitation at his option.

Actually, tonight he was talking about this exact case. The lawyer who represents the woman was on. I didnt hear much but it made me sick to think some woman would do that just to have a child. How completely selfish!

It's appaling.

Had she gone out and gotten a spermcicle she would not be getting child support.