See, honey? It's a "gift".

[Ghoulish Delight]

Missed that line. Yeah, definite fraud action here. Don't quite understand why that part was dropped. Theft, sure, but not the fraud.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Missed that line. Yeah, definite fraud action here. Don't quite understand why that part was dropped. Theft, sure, but not the fraud.

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!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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.

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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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.