I have a simple question for Family Practice attorneys. (No I'm not getting a divorce or anything like that)

I would ask my father, but he is a DA, not too versed in Family Law.

The question is-

Under WA law, any man who has acted like a father to a child with a single mother can be sought for child support at a later date. Being the biological father is not a requirement.

Example: Joe Schmoe dates Sally Smith, and Sally has a little 5 year old, Julie Smith. Sally has no idea who the father is, and Joe Schmoe has only met Sally in the last year. However, since Joe has been the only father figure in Julie's life, Sally can legally petition the court for child support after Sally and Joe's 1 year dating relationship is over.

Now, I know the above to be true, through hearing a few court cases. So here is the meat of my question-

Joe and Jane Schmoe are married with one kid, Jack Schmoe. Jane's longtime friend Sally Smith and her fiance Fred Franklin break up and Sally retains custody of her newborn, Sam Smith, without the help of the courts (Fred didn't want him).

Here's where it gets confusing. Joe and Jane Schmoe invite Sally Smith to live with them for a while until she can get a job and place of her own. So living in this house is Joe, Jane, and Jack Schmoe, with the newcomers Sally and Sam Smith. For the next six months, everything was harmonious in the house. Then Sally and Jane have a "fallin out", and Sally is forced to find a new place for her and Sam.

Now here is the question- Since Joe Schmoe acted as the father/male role model for Sam in the last six months, can Sally legally go after child support? Is it a possibility for this married father of one, to end up having to pay child support to a child that he never fathered, to a woman that he never had any romanitic relationship with?

The reason I ask, is that a friend of my wife just got kicked out of her house by a POS fiance, and we're thinking about bringing her in with us until she gets her shit together, and I want to make for damn sure she can't get me for child support later on.

-UHLEK-

I don't see how in any way shape or form you could be held to child support in that scenario.  But then again, OJ was found innocent.


BTW, I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV!

Hey, OJ wasn't found innocent-- he was let off on a technicality cause the pigs in LA couldn't competantly frame a guilty man!

I think any guy who has cops trying to frame him should get off.  Free pass.

If we can't trust the cops, we certainly can't trust the courts rulings.

I think not because unlike your example, this would not be a familial relationship, but merely a  friendship/landlord/tenant relationship.

That is, unless he starts banging her.  Or if his wife starts banging her.

Then you'd have to watch the Springer episode to find out how it ends.

By the way, that POS fiance isn't bigscrun is it?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Seeing if I can smoke him out.  I haven't heard from him in a while.  I think maybe the unemployment police caught up with him or something.

Quoted: Charge her rent. Even if it is a $1 a month.

YES!!!

Great idea!!! I hadn't even thought of that. That way, as long as I keep my hands off her (nothing difficult there), legally she was nothing more than a "Tennant" (as per the contract I'll make her sign), and I'm in the clear.

Thanks guys.




Oh, Stokes, I wouldn't be too upset. You know you were just going to waste the 2000th post anyways.

-UHLEK-

Quoted: Hey, OJ wasn't found innocent-- he was let off on a technicality cause the pigs in LA couldn't competantly frame a guilty man! I think any guy who has cops trying to frame him should get off.  Free pass. If we can't trust the cops, we certainly can't trust the courts rulings.

So how does this pertain to the topic at hand?

There might be a better audience for your agenda, but I don't know where.

Just don't forget to have her sign a contract and claim that $1 a month rent on your income taxes should you ever have to prove it.

I find your scenario highly unlikely, however. But stranger things have happened. Is this a Jerry Springer episode in it's infancy?

I am also not a lawyer.

If she paid $1.00 per month, would that be an implied lease?  A lease of course which would come with tenant rights?  

I did hear a horror story or two on Tom Leykis about Seattle dudes who are now indentured to pay child support as a result of a brief cohabitation with single mom.

Quoted: All right it is time for me to ask... Is she hot?

Quoted: Quoted: All right it is time for me to ask... Is she hot? www.flightfeathers.com/forums/html/emoticons/worthless.gif

Sorry guys. She's ugly with a capital "G".

Sorry guys. She's ugly with a capital "G".

Three bagger?
One for her
One for you
and one for anyone who might accidently see.

Quoted: Sorry guys. She's ugly with a capital "G". Three bagger? One for her One for you and one for anyone who might accidently see.

Nope. A 4 bagger.

One for you
One for her
One for anyone who might accidentally see
and one for me, because I want to hide myself with the knowledge that someone fucked her.

Tenant rights are a lot easier to get around than child support.

I have also heard tales that if not in WA then in Seattle itself that anyone you let stay with you whether they pay rent or not do gain some tenants rights regardless of compensation or contract.

There must be a tenants rights advocacy group that can give free advise about that.

+



+



OK... only kidding