Pretty interesting.

I sued a surgeon for malpractice. Funny thing is, my husband was also a party in the suit because of the claim of loss of love and affection of his spouse due to the malpractice done to ME.

We settled, but I was surprise that his claim was even allowed.

so I guess she could sue on that ground. But I am confused because my husband was party of MY suit against the doctor.

Since she was not part of the lawsuit... I am not sure she would be entitled to anything.

I will be watching this with interest.

Why are people so offended by this kind of story? This is part of a World we all helped to create

A Man recently won £xxx Million on the Lotto, his Wife who divorced whom some 9 Years earlier was awarded a large amount of his winnings ??????????? Why ????????

Some dumb ass burnt herself on a Cup of Coffee in a Cafe and Sued the Cafe for almost half a million because they didn't tell her it was hot ????????? Why ?????????

A Criminal broke into someones home and whilst robbing the homeowners possessions, was attacked by the Families Dog, he was also awarded several £1000 worth of cash????? Why????

We live in a World obsessed by Monetary gain for whatever dumbass reason we have - There is no right or wrong, there is only "How much can I make outta this".

BklynBabe said:

child support?

For who?

Cerebus said:

BklynBabe said:

child support?

For who?

The child called back child support ....my father recently was sued from the state cause he was incarcerated for a period of time when i was younger. And my mother was on financial aid at the time..she tried to sue my father for that and guess what SHE LOST! And he was incarcerated for 10+ yrs. so imho she wont get a dime for divorcing him after 3 yrs of incarceration as for the x getting inheretence law.that is INHERENTANCE not incarceration big difference.

toots said:

Cerebus said:

For who?

The child called back child support ....my father recently was sued from the state cause he was incarcerated for a period of time when i was younger. And my mother was on financial aid at the time..she tried to sue my father for that and guess what SHE LOST! And he was incarcerated for 10+ yrs. so imho she wont get a dime for divorcing him after 3 yrs of incarceration as for the x getting inheretence law.that is INHERENTANCE not incarceration big difference.

He was in jail for 25 years. Apparently they had no children during their marriage.

She is not claiming back child support, that would go to the state in any case in California.

Inheritance and incarceration are definitely two different things, I agree.

missfee said:

She won't get a dime.

He was wrongly accused.

She left him.

He received money as personal compensation for the time HE spent in prison.

She has zero right to claim that money.

There is no precedent for the courts deciding that an outside party should get any of the money in a case like this and they won't want to set one. Far too dangerous.

She won't get a dime.

------------------------------------------------

As far as child support goes, even if there was a child, it would be over 18 at this point and that makes if very hard to collect (trust me, I know from my own life experience). Regardless, the only way back child support could be collected is if a judge had ordered a monthly payment at the time of the divorce that had not been fulfilled. And I'm pretty sure the child would have to sue for it at this point, not the mother. Regardless, child support is not the issue. A greedy woman, who left this guy, trying to pick his pockets is the only issue at hand.

Also, I thought maybe BklynBabe meant child support for this lady. Like, she is one.

Cerebus said:

She won't get a dime.

He was wrongly accused.

She left him.

He received money as personal compensation for the time HE spent in prison.

She has zero right to claim that money.

There is no precedent for the courts deciding that an outside party should get any of the money in a case like this and they won't want to set one. Far too dangerous.

She won't get a dime.

------------------------------------------------

As far as child support goes, even if there was a child, it would be over 18 at this point and that makes if very hard to collect (trust me, I know from my own life experience). Regardless, the only way back child support could be collected is if a judge had ordered a monthly payment at the time of the divorce that had not been fulfilled. And I'm pretty sure the child would have to sue for it at this point, not the mother. Regardless, child support is not the issue. A greedy woman, who left this guy, trying to pick his pockets is the only issue at hand.

I think she may claim that she lost love and comfort of spouse while he was fasely imprisoned so she should be compensated for her lost.

Not saying that this is correct... but if I was her lawyer that is how I would play it. And imo it COULD work.

But again... that would be if she was party of the the original lawsuit and the defender was the entity that did the false imprisonment (ie the state). Not sure if this will work against the man himself.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

missfee said:

They were divorced AFTER he received his settlement...she shouldn't get shit. Point blank.

You're right she shouldn't but I work in the court sytem andknow hat goes on. She will someone walk out with something as sad as that sounds.

You work in the court system and know what goes on.

Ok.

There is no back room deal that is going to take place to give her some of his money. Why do that when a court is more likely to make the determination that she is not entitled to his award and that her claim should be against the state, not his awarded compensation?

Merely suing someone does not entitled you to be compensated. Merely making a claim doesn't make it a valid claim and no need to award one because one goes to the legal system crying.

I don't get this kindergarten, give-everyone-a-gold-star mentality. Because she makes a claim, it must therefore be valid and she must be validated with compensation. She wouldn't be asking for it out of greed, avarice, ignorance or at the suggestion of other(s).

If she wanted some of that money she should have stayed married until he was released. She made the wrong choice and there shouldn't be money/compensation for that.

Okay, from the bit I'm reading they did have a kid together before he went to prison. So she raised the kid the entire time he was in prison for being wrongfully accused, both her and the child lost out on his presence whether they would have stayed together or not is irrelavant. She gets possibly the .1 of the amount, definitely not half or anything like that, of course then it comes down to what is the kid is entitled to cause he is a ultimate victim in the mess too.

morningsong said:

Okay, from the bit I'm reading they did have a kid together before he went to prison. So she raised the kid the entire time he was in prison for being wrongfully accused, both her and the child lost out on his presence whether they would have stayed together or not is irrelavant. She gets possibly the .1 of the amount, definitely not half or anything like that, of course then it comes down to what is the kid is entitled to cause he is a ultimate victim in the mess too.

No.

He did not willfully wrongly convict himself.

Her claim(s) should be addressed to the state, who deprived her of a wage-earner and present father for her child.

The state by wrongfully convicting him, led to their marriage ending.

She is not automatically entitled to anything simply because she was at one time married to him.

If he had married in prison, would anyone's opinion be different?

She sees an opportunity for a windfall and expects it to come from her ex-husband. He doesn't owe her, the state does.

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

Okay, from the bit I'm reading they did have a kid together before he went to prison. So she raised the kid the entire time he was in prison for being wrongfully accused, both her and the child lost out on his presence whether they would have stayed together or not is irrelavant. She gets possibly the .1 of the amount, definitely not half or anything like that, of course then it comes down to what is the kid is entitled to cause he is a ultimate victim in the mess too.

No.

He did not willfully wrongly convict himself.

Her claim(s) should be addressed to the state, who deprived her of a wage-earner and present father for her child.

The state by wrongfully convicting him, led to their marriage ending.

She is not automatically entitled to anything simply because she was at one time married to him.

If he had married in prison, would anyone's opinion be different?

She sees an opportunity for a windfall and expects it to come from her ex-husband. He doesn't owe her, the state does.

Just trying to think like a lawyer, her lawyer. I know she's trying to grab at as much as she can, but the fact does remain that he didn't contribute to the rearing of his child, through no fault of his own of course but sometimes who's fault doesn't count. Maybe she does have a petition against the State. I don't know if I'm comfortable with just saying he was the only one hurt in this situation, when it all comes down to being a decent person, all parties were injuried.

morningsong said:

SUPRMAN said:

No.

He did not willfully wrongly convict himself.

Her claim(s) should be addressed to the state, who deprived her of a wage-earner and present father for her child.

The state by wrongfully convicting him, led to their marriage ending.

She is not automatically entitled to anything simply because she was at one time married to him.

If he had married in prison, would anyone's opinion be different?

She sees an opportunity for a windfall and expects it to come from her ex-husband. He doesn't owe her, the state does.

Just trying to think like a lawyer, her lawyer. I know she's trying to grab at as much as she can, but the fact does remain that he didn't contribute to the rearing of his child, through no fault of his own of course but sometimes who's fault doesn't count. Maybe she does have a petition against the State. I don't know if I'm comfortable with just saying he was the only one hurt in this situation, when it all comes down to being a decent person, all parties were injuried.

The fact that he didn't contribute to supporting the child, doesn't entitle her to 'back child support.'

That would go to the state. She can't argue that he owes her what he otherwise would have paid to help rear the child. If her present husband of twenty years supported the child, why is she looking for a windfall?

Thinking like her lawyer, he may settle, but it probably won't even get to trial. It will be thrown out via summary judgment. As her lawyer, the best I can do is get paid for little effort. It's not about winning.

No court is going to say that because you were once married, an ex has a perpetual claim on any future compensation or earnings.

The court will tell her her claims are against the state, not her husband. That is a better policy decision than granting open ended claims on future property.

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

Just trying to think like a lawyer, her lawyer. I know she's trying to grab at as much as she can, but the fact does remain that he didn't contribute to the rearing of his child, through no fault of his own of course but sometimes who's fault doesn't count. Maybe she does have a petition against the State. I don't know if I'm comfortable with just saying he was the only one hurt in this situation, when it all comes down to being a decent person, all parties were injuried.

The fact that he didn't contribute to supporting the child, doesn't entitle her to 'back child support.'

That would go to the state. She can't argue that he owes her what he otherwise would have paid to help rear the child. If her present husband of twenty years supported the child, why is she looking for a windfall?

Thinking like her lawyer, he may settle, but it probably won't even get to trial. It will be thrown out via summary judgment. As her lawyer, the best I can do is get paid for little effort. It's not about winning.

No court is going to say that because you were once married, an ex has a perpetual claim on any future compensation or earnings.

The court will tell her her claims are against the state, not her husband. That is a better policy decision than granting open ended claims on future property.

Thinking about the hot coffee incident, it's not a matter of what's right or fair, but legal. I just think there is a strong possiblity that a judge may see that due to what happened to this family as a whole that all parties involved should receive some part of the compensation that the State has paid since they all were affected against their will. For all I know the kid could have been 17-1/2 when dad got locked up or he could have been 2, who knows. There's the possibility that for 5 years she was a single parent against her will, through no fault or poor planning of her own. It would have been nice if she could have waited 25 years, that would be very romantic. But she didn't, and there still was a child involved. Maybe she did a horrible job at raising it, or maybe she did an excellent job. I just think there are more elements at play than just the fact she didn't wait for him therefore she automatically gets nothing. Trust I do think she is being greedy hoping for half or something, but the courts might see something else given all the information. But they will probably settle out of courts since the cost of fighting it wouldn't even be worth it.

morningsong said:

SUPRMAN said:

The fact that he didn't contribute to supporting the child, doesn't entitle her to 'back child support.'

That would go to the state. She can't argue that he owes her what he otherwise would have paid to help rear the child. If her present husband of twenty years supported the child, why is she looking for a windfall?

Thinking like her lawyer, he may settle, but it probably won't even get to trial. It will be thrown out via summary judgment. As her lawyer, the best I can do is get paid for little effort. It's not about winning.

No court is going to say that because you were once married, an ex has a perpetual claim on any future compensation or earnings.

The court will tell her her claims are against the state, not her husband. That is a better policy decision than granting open ended claims on future property.

Thinking about the hot coffee incident, it's not a matter of what's right or fair, but legal. I just think there is a strong possiblity that a judge may see that due to what happened to this family as a whole that all parties involved should receive some part of the compensation that the State has paid since they all were affected against their will. For all I know the kid could have been 17-1/2 when dad got locked up or he could have been 2, who knows. There's the possibility that for 5 years she was a single parent against her will, through no fault or poor planning of her own. It would have been nice if she could have waited 25 years, that would be very romantic. But she didn't, and there still was a child involved. Maybe she did a horrible job at raising it, or maybe she did an excellent job. I just think there are more elements at play than just the fact she didn't wait for him therefore she automatically gets nothing. Trust I do think she is being greedy hoping for half or something, but the courts might see something else given all the information. But they will probably settle out of courts since the cost of fighting it wouldn't even be worth it.

What do you mean the cost of fighting it?

It's not going to cost him that much to fight it.

How much is it going to cost her to pursue it?

No reason for him to settle based on cost.

The compensation was to him and solely to him. That does not entitle a judge to decide the state intended otherwise and they would have given her x amount. The state can still give her x amount.

I do not think there is any possibility of a ruling based on the judge looking at the 'totality' of the situation. The 'totality' of the situation is not at issue before the court, merely does she have a valid claim.

Having a lawyer doesn't mean you have a valid claim or case, it means you have legal representation. If the attorney is on contingency, how much are they going to sink into this?

Child support payments would go to the state, as the state has presumably been supporting the mother and child. If her present husband has been supporting her and her child, then she's not claiming child support, she's seeking a windfall. The child has been raised and she wants the cost of raising him, when the expectation is that as a parent you willfully provide.

I don't know why she isn't seen as double dipping. It's as if a painting is stolen, one files a claim with one's insurance company, gets paid by the insurance company and when the painting is recovered, balk at the insurance company claiming the painting as its own.

Too bad she can't just wish him well and go on with her life as she did for twenty years when he was in jail.

morningsong said:

SUPRMAN said:

No.

He did not willfully wrongly convict himself.

Her claim(s) should be addressed to the state, who deprived her of a wage-earner and present father for her child.

The state by wrongfully convicting him, led to their marriage ending.

She is not automatically entitled to anything simply because she was at one time married to him.

If he had married in prison, would anyone's opinion be different?

She sees an opportunity for a windfall and expects it to come from her ex-husband. He doesn't owe her, the state does.

Just trying to think like a lawyer, her lawyer. I know she's trying to grab at as much as she can, but the fact does remain that he didn't contribute to the rearing of his child, through no fault of his own of course but sometimes who's fault doesn't count. Maybe she does have a petition against the State. I don't know if I'm comfortable with just saying he was the only one hurt in this situation, when it all comes down to being a decent person, all parties were injuried.

Oh there was a kid? Well then, this is how it will go. Her lawyer will demand the amount of child support that she lost out on since he was incarcerated and could not pay. They will go back to how much he would have paid based on his pay at that time... allowing for estimated inflation.

I worked for a lawyer at one time. we had a case like this. The man hit the lottery and baby mama reared her ugly head and asked for money. Now get this. The woman NEVER INFORMED THE MAN THAT HE COULD BE THE FATHER. and now the boy was an adult. SEVERAL DNA tests showed he was the father. And she got the money. But as my lawyer/employer explained to me, she would get the child support that she was entitled to based on his money at that time.

My job as his secretary was to compile in orderly fashion his w2 over the years.

I believe this case is similar. The ideal that the child was entitled to his just share of his parents' income was stressed to me.

Since I am sure that the wrongly incarcerated man's lost of income, in addition to pain and suffering was used to come up with that figure... I bet his lost of income will come up in her case as well.

prodigalfan said:

morningsong said:

Just trying to think like a lawyer, her lawyer. I know she's trying to grab at as much as she can, but the fact does remain that he didn't contribute to the rearing of his child, through no fault of his own of course but sometimes who's fault doesn't count. Maybe she does have a petition against the State. I don't know if I'm comfortable with just saying he was the only one hurt in this situation, when it all comes down to being a decent person, all parties were injuried.

Oh there was a kid? Well then, this is how it will go. Her lawyer will demand the amount of child support that she lost out on since he was incarcerated and could not pay. They will go back to how much he would have paid based on his pay at that time... allowing for estimated inflation.

I worked for a lawyer at one time. we had a case like this. The man hit the lottery and baby mama reared her ugly head and asked for money. Now get this. The woman NEVER INFORMED THE MAN THAT HE COULD BE THE FATHER. and now the boy was an adult. SEVERAL DNA tests showed he was the father. And she got the money. But as my lawyer/employer explained to me, she would get the child support that she was entitled to based on his money at that time.

My job as his secretary was to compile in orderly fashion his w2 over the years.

I believe this case is similar. The ideal that the child was entitled to his just share of his parents' income was stressed to me.

Since I am sure that the wrongly incarcerated man's lost of income, in addition to pain and suffering was used to come up with that figure... I bet his lost of income will come up in her case as well.

In your case, had the woman (re)married?

Pomade said:

prodigalfan said:

Oh there was a kid? Well then, this is how it will go. Her lawyer will demand the amount of child support that she lost out on since he was incarcerated and could not pay. They will go back to how much he would have paid based on his pay at that time... allowing for estimated inflation.

I worked for a lawyer at one time. we had a case like this. The man hit the lottery and baby mama reared her ugly head and asked for money. Now get this. The woman NEVER INFORMED THE MAN THAT HE COULD BE THE FATHER. and now the boy was an adult. SEVERAL DNA tests showed he was the father. And she got the money. But as my lawyer/employer explained to me, she would get the child support that she was entitled to based on his money at that time.

My job as his secretary was to compile in orderly fashion his w2 over the years.

I believe this case is similar. The ideal that the child was entitled to his just share of his parents' income was stressed to me.

Since I am sure that the wrongly incarcerated man's lost of income, in addition to pain and suffering was used to come up with that figure... I bet his lost of income will come up in her case as well.

In your case, had the woman (re)married?

I honestly can't say for sure but I seem to remember that this boy was now a man, not caring his father's name and the young man and the father had been denied their relationship.

But that would not matter if the mother had remarried. His father was his father. No one adopted this young man. So he is still an heir to the man and evidently entitled to support from his parents.

prodigalfan said:

Pomade said:

In your case, had the woman (re)married?

I honestly can't say for sure but I seem to remember that this boy was now a man, not caring his father's name and the young man and the father had been denied their relationship.

But that would not matter if the mother had remarried. His father was his father. No one adopted this young man. So he is still an heir to the man and evidently entitled to support from his parents.

Very interesting...

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

Thinking about the hot coffee incident, it's not a matter of what's right or fair, but legal. I just think there is a strong possiblity that a judge may see that due to what happened to this family as a whole that all parties involved should receive some part of the compensation that the State has paid since they all were affected against their will. For all I know the kid could have been 17-1/2 when dad got locked up or he could have been 2, who knows. There's the possibility that for 5 years she was a single parent against her will, through no fault or poor planning of her own. It would have been nice if she could have waited 25 years, that would be very romantic. But she didn't, and there still was a child involved. Maybe she did a horrible job at raising it, or maybe she did an excellent job. I just think there are more elements at play than just the fact she didn't wait for him therefore she automatically gets nothing. Trust I do think she is being greedy hoping for half or something, but the courts might see something else given all the information. But they will probably settle out of courts since the cost of fighting it wouldn't even be worth it.

What do you mean the cost of fighting it?

It's not going to cost him that much to fight it.

How much is it going to cost her to pursue it?

No reason for him to settle based on cost.

The compensation was to him and solely to him. That does not entitle a judge to decide the state intended otherwise and they would have given her x amount. The state can still give her x amount.

I do not think there is any possibility of a ruling based on the judge looking at the 'totality' of the situation. The 'totality' of the situation is not at issue before the court, merely does she have a valid claim.

Having a lawyer doesn't mean you have a valid claim or case, it means you have legal representation. If the attorney is on contingency, how much are they going to sink into this?

Child support payments would go to the state, as the state has presumably been supporting the mother and child. If her present husband has been supporting her and her child, then she's not claiming child support, she's seeking a windfall. The child has been raised and she wants the cost of raising him, when the expectation is that as a parent you willfully provide.

I don't know why she isn't seen as double dipping. It's as if a painting is stolen, one files a claim with one's insurance company, gets paid by the insurance company and when the painting is recovered, balk at the insurance company claiming the painting as its own.

Too bad she can't just wish him well and go on with her life as she did for twenty years when he was in jail.

As I said don't have all the info about these folks. But one thing I did find that back child support is based on each states statutes of limitation laws, such as California has no limitation on collecting back child support, of course there are exceptions.

And even though a parent is in prison they are still expect to pay child support, in Cali at least.

[img:$uid]http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii282/HeliosSister/childsupport-1.jpg[/img:$uid]

Plus you're assuming she received state help during the 5 years she was allegdely a single parent. Anyway, her remarrying has nothing to do with the child and his support, that's not a given.

morningsong said:

SUPRMAN said:

What do you mean the cost of fighting it?

It's not going to cost him that much to fight it.

How much is it going to cost her to pursue it?

No reason for him to settle based on cost.

The compensation was to him and solely to him. That does not entitle a judge to decide the state intended otherwise and they would have given her x amount. The state can still give her x amount.

I do not think there is any possibility of a ruling based on the judge looking at the 'totality' of the situation. The 'totality' of the situation is not at issue before the court, merely does she have a valid claim.

Having a lawyer doesn't mean you have a valid claim or case, it means you have legal representation. If the attorney is on contingency, how much are they going to sink into this?

Child support payments would go to the state, as the state has presumably been supporting the mother and child. If her present husband has been supporting her and her child, then she's not claiming child support, she's seeking a windfall. The child has been raised and she wants the cost of raising him, when the expectation is that as a parent you willfully provide.

I don't know why she isn't seen as double dipping. It's as if a painting is stolen, one files a claim with one's insurance company, gets paid by the insurance company and when the painting is recovered, balk at the insurance company claiming the painting as its own.

Too bad she can't just wish him well and go on with her life as she did for twenty years when he was in jail.

As I said don't have all the info about these folks. But one thing I did find that back child support is based on each states statutes of limitation laws, such as California has no limitation on collecting back child support, of course there are exceptions.

And even though a parent is in prison they are still expect to pay child support, in Cali at least.

[img:$uid]http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii282/HeliosSister/childsupport-1.jpg[/img:$uid]

Plus you're assuming she received state help during the 5 years she was allegdely a single parent. Anyway, her remarrying has nothing to do with the child and his support, that's not a given.

The state doesn't see it that way. If she divorced her second husband, he would owe child support if he had been supporting the child. If the child is living in his house, it is presumed he is supporting the children living there.

It does matter if she remarries.

California has no limitation on collecting child support, but who does the collected money go to? Not the parent, the state.

The state isn't going to find dead beat dad, collect their back child support and hand a check to the mother.

The state's incentive to collect is a lien against the deadbeat parent's assets. That can cover any assets present and future. So the state makes payments and support to the mother and child and puts it on the deadbeat parent's tab.

The state can act, not on behalf of the spouse raising the child, but on behalf of the state, which is 'owed money' from the deadbeat parent based on the lien.

Even if she didn't receive state aid during the five years, if he wasn't under any court order to pay child support, isn't she too late to press such a claim?

If she didn't press for child support, or file with the court that he wasn't paying ordered child support as determined at the time of their divorce, why does a claim arise now?

If the state never provided support and attached no lien, again, where does her getting a share come in to play?

SUPRMAN said:

morningsong said:

As I said don't have all the info about these folks. But one thing I did find that back child support is based on each states statutes of limitation laws, such as California has no limitation on collecting back child support, of course there are exceptions.

And even though a parent is in prison they are still expect to pay child support, in Cali at least.

[img:$uid]http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii282/HeliosSister/childsupport-1.jpg[/img:$uid]

Plus you're assuming she received state help during the 5 years she was allegdely a single parent. Anyway, her remarrying has nothing to do with the child and his support, that's not a given.

The state doesn't see it that way. If she divorced her second husband, he would owe child support if he had been supporting the child. If the child is living in his house, it is presumed he is supporting the children living there.

It does matter if she remarries.

California has no limitation on collecting child support, but who does the collected money go to? Not the parent, the state.

The state isn't going to find dead beat dad, collect their back child support and hand a check to the mother.

The state's incentive to collect is a lien against the deadbeat parent's assets. That can cover any assets present and future. So the state makes payments and support to the mother and child and puts it on the deadbeat parent's tab.

The state can act, not on behalf of the spouse raising the child, but on behalf of the state, which is 'owed money' from the deadbeat parent based on the lien.

Even if she didn't receive state aid during the five years, if he wasn't under any court order to pay child support, isn't she too late to press such a claim?

If she didn't press for child support, or file with the court that he wasn't paying ordered child support as determined at the time of their divorce, why does a claim arise now?

If the state never provided support and attached no lien, again, where does her getting a share come in to play?

You're making a lot of assumption. I know for a fact the State does not collect funds for itself UNLESS the custodial parent was on public assistance, then the State gets reimbursed for whatever amount it deems owed. Outside of that, whenever the State collects from the non-custodial parent they turn over to the custodial parent, the State just acts as a conservator or whatever the proper term is.

I. INTRODUCTION

A recent California case reiterated what is the law in all states, and is, indeed, the public policy of the federal government as evidence by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105: “A child’s right to support is owed by a child’s parents, not the state.” City and County of San Francisco v. Garnett, 70 Cal. App. 4th 845, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 924, 928 (1999). This statement can be taken one step farther: “A child’s right to support is owed by anyone the government can somehow make pay, not the state.”

Indeed, the contrast between the legal status of stepparents and the presumptive rights and obligations of natural parents is remarkable. Child support obligations, custody rights, and inheritance rights exist between children and their natural parents by virtue of a biological tie alone, regardless of the quality of social or emotional bonds between parent and child, and regardless of whether the parents are married. In recent years policy changes have extended the rights and obligations of natural parents, particularly in regard to unwed and divorced parents, but have not advanced with regard to stepparents. Stepparents in most states have no obligation during the marriage to support their stepchildren, nor do they enjoy any right of custody or control. Consistent with this pattern, if the marriage terminates through divorce or death, they usually have no rights to custody or even visitation, however long-standing their relationship with their stepchildren. Conversely, stepparents have no obligation to pay child support following divorce, even if their stepchildren have depended on their income for many years. In turn, stepchildren have no right of inheritance in the event of the stepparent's death (they are, however, eligible for Social Security benefits in most cases).'

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3153.htm

Of course there are exception and that's when it gets complicated. Hence it depends on how good the lawyer is.

C. The Doctrine of in Loco Parentis

In the absence of a statute, under the common law, marriage alone does not obligate a stepparent to support his or her stepchild. Where, however, the stepparent acts in loco parentis to a stepchild, then the stepparent assumes an obligation to support the stepchild. Stated succinctly,

The universal rule is that a stepfather, as such, is not under obligation to support the stepchildren, but that, if he takes the children into his family or under his care in such a way that he places himself in loco parentis, he assumes an obligation to support them, and acquires a correlative right to their services.

Because the establishment of an in loco parentis relationship is dependent on the voluntary assumption of responsibility by the stepparent, the relationship is terminable at the will of the stepparent. Ex parte Lipscomb, 660 So. 2d 991 (Ala. 1994); Franklin v. Franklin, 75 Ariz. 151, 253 P.2d 337 (1953); Jackson v. Jackson, 278 A.2d 114 (D.C. 1971); Cavanaugh v. deBaudiniere, 1 Neb. App. 204, 493 N.W.2d 197 (1992); Falzo v. Falzo, 84 N.J. Super. 343, 202 A.2d 192 (App. Div. 1964).

http://www.childsupportgu...99908.html

What the heck were we talking about again?

Cerebus said:

Nonsense. She left him because he was imprisoned. He got the money because he was WRONGLY imprisoned. She gets nothing.

She'll get something. This society is set up for women to rob men unjustly.

If I was him, I would strangle the bitch.