-.-.- Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Apologies for the double post but I would really like feedback on this. ................................................................................. I am watching the beginning of an interesting one develop right now. A man I know has a g/f he was always about to break up with but never got around to it. The key for him is that he did not want to use condoms. He seemed to hate her half the time. Never a nice thing to say about her. She despised him and complained about him to her social circle, making very clear that her motive in being with him was financial. She was getting the depro provera (sp?)injections every few months and he claims that he went with her and saw her get them. Now that she is pregnant he has just finished the shock phase. His thoughts are that he will be able to support the child with a minimal amount of money and still be able to travel. She is thinking houses, cars, the new financial windfall that is coming......... The most interesting part of this is that in America there are apparently womens' groups that will take the side of women in this situation and go through the US court system if the father is a US citizen. Has anybody heard of this? This has the potential for a whole new industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegasdave49 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Dont know if it is true or not but there are surely groups in the US that would love to do it. Sounds like this fellow is not of the most ethical or intellectual bent. First off I think it is the responsiblity of each person to avoid any unwanted pregnancy. The girl should never trust the guy to not knock her up, and of course the guy should not trust the girl to not get knocked up. If he chose to not use condoms well then he should understand that there is a risk, even with them there is a slight risk. There are lots of ways she could have ended up not actualy getting birth control, for example a bit of money to the doc or whoever administered the shot to fake it. For me knowing that I have no intention of ever ending up in this situation, I simply got a vasectomy. Problem solved. This fellow sounds like a real prince. More concerned about his lifesyle of travel rather than his responsibilty to provide a decent life for his child. There is not doubt that the girl wants to think she has hit the lotto as well. Sounds like the child is being born to a couple of real pieces of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickman Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 If she is a poor Thai girl, there is probably not much she can or will do. Going to America to take legal action against him? This is very unlikely to happen. However, he should support the baby. The problem in Thailand ? and I have seen people have REAL problems with this ? is that a baby can be brought up reasonably on a very small amount of money, and often the woman will ask for a lot more money which will never be spent on anything for the baby, but rather luxuries and so on. Overall, this is a very difficult situation and one in which I think no-one will be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 IMO, she has zero chance of getting any $$$ via a US court, 1. how does she get a visa to get inot the USA? 2. the man is "innocent" until proven guilty, thus has does not have to provide a DNA sample, so it is only her claim that he is the father with no proof to back it up. 3. this is not a high profile case, so if no mass media coverage, no group will be interested. 4. does she have all the personal info on this guy so as to file a claim? his address in the USA? his social security number? driver's license number? passport number? most likely not, so where to begin? 5. back in the day (Nam), there were many children fathered by US citizens. I never heard of any case brought up in the USA. Sad, but the biggest loser will be the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LingNoi Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 There was a fellow in a Thai language class I took that worked for a company that had a US Gov contract to track down "dead beat" dads from Thai/Farang relationships. Apparently Thailand and the US had (at that time, maybe a year and a half ago) a legal agreement to pursue child support payments from Americans that were not supporting their children in Thailand. This guy was going to Thailand five or six times a year to interview these Thai women and deterine whether they had a legitimate claim. However, by the time the class that we were in was over, he no longer had that job because the the contract between the company he worked for and the US Gov had ended. Whether the agreement between US and Thailand had ended as well I don't know. I always figured that the Thai women would have to have some money to begin with and hire a lawyer who knew about the agreement and would begin the process. Maybe there are also women support groups to facilitate this process??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LingNoi Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 According to this website, no agreement with Thailand at this time: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_608.html#agreements U.S. FEDERAL INTERNATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT AGREEMENTS Q. WHAT COUNTRIES DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH AT PRESENT? A. Since 1996, when Congress for the first time specifically authorized federal-level agreements regarding child support enforcement, the United States has entered into a number of reciprocal agreements, which do not require U.S. Senate advice and consent. Currently, the U.S. has Federal reciprocal arrangements in force with Australia, Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Branswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario; Czech Republic, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic. On May 19, 2000, the Department of State issued a Public Notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 65, Number 98, Page 31953) regarding international child support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LingNoi Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Also individual states may have agreements, but again, none with Thailand at this time...Interesting list though. Alabama: Ireland, Slovakia??? Washington DC: none! Q. WHICH U.S. STATES HAVE CHILD SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS WITH WHICH FOREIGN COUNTRIES? A. Contact your state child support agency to find out about the existence and provisions of a state-level arrangements with a specific foreign country. You can also find whether your state has a state-level arrangement with a specific foreign country by going to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Online Interstate Roster and Referral Guide (IRG) and selecting your state from the map, then going to section C "Reciprocity." The information contained below, drawn from the individual state reports, may not be entirely accurate as state reciprocal arrangements change without notice. It is wise to consult the most up-to-date information, which is available on the HHS home page. Alabama: Ireland, Slovakia. Alaska: Australia, Canada (only the following provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon Territory), England, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Sweden. Arkansas: Canada (all provinces), Germany, Ireland, Poland, United Kingdom. Arizona: Australia, Canada ( including provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick , Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan); France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom, British Virgin Islands. California: Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Canada (all provinces), Czech Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of South Africa, Slovak Republic, Sweden, United Kingdom. Colorado: Australia, the following provinces in Canada: (Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and the Yukon Territory), France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Poland and the United Kingdom. Connecticutt: Australia; Bermuda; Canadian Provinces: (Alberta, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick); France; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Mexico (the following 27 of 32 states: Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Baja California, Nuevo Leon, Campeche, Puebla, Chiapas, San Luis Potosi, Chihuahua, Queretaro, Coahuila, Quintana Roo, Colima, Sonora, Distrito Federal, Tabasco, Guanajuato, Tamaulipas, Guerrero, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, Veracruz, Jalisco, Yucatan, Michoacan, Zacatecas, Morelos); Norway; Poland; Slovak Republic; United Kingdom.. Delaware: Australia, Canada (the following provinces in Canada, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Yukon; England, and Germany. District of Columbia: None. Florida: Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Canada (including Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory), Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Jamaica, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom. Georgia: Australia, Canada (the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan), Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Hawaii: Australia, Germany and United Kingdom. Idaho: Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Canada (all provinces), Czech Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico (Referrals/Payments thru Consulate of Utah or California), New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of South Africa, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom Illinois: Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Canada (all provinces), Columbia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, Scotland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Sweden and United Kingdom. Indiana: Australia, Canada (provinces of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador), Norway, Sweden, Poland, and the United Kingdom. Iowa: Australia, Canadian Provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territories), France, Germany, Ireland, Jamaica, Poland, Scotland, Slovak Republic, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Kansas: None Kentucky: , Australia, Bermuda, Canada (all provinces), Czech Republic, Hungary, France, Germany, Jamaica, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of South Africa, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Louisiana: Australia, Canada (provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland Poland, andUnited Kingdom. Maine: Canada (provinces of Newfoundland, Labrador, and Quebec), Germany, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Maryland: Australia, Canada (Provinces of Edmonton Alberta, Winnepeg Manitoba, Frederickton New Brunswick, St. John's Newfoundland , Halifax Nova Scotia , Toronto Ontario, Charlottetown Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory) , France, Ireland, Heidelberg Germany, Berlin Germany, Hungary, Jamaica, Poland, Sweden and United Kingdom. Massachusetts: Austria, Canada (provinces of Quebec), Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Michigan: Canada (provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, Ontario, Prince Edward Island), France and Germany. Minnesota: Australia, Austria, Canada: (provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Yukon Territories), Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Mississippi: Canada (provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan), Czech Republic, Ireland, Slovak Republic and Sweden. Missouri: Australia, Austria, Canada (provinces of Alberta, New Brunswick, Northwest Territory, Ontario and Saskatchewan), Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Micronesia, Poland, Slovak Republic and United Kingdom. Montana: All Canadian provinces and all countries with which the U.S. has federal agreements. Nebraska: Australia, Canada (provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan), Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and the Slovak Republic.. Nevada: Austria, Canada (provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia), Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom. New Hampshire: None. New Jersey: Australia, Bermuda, Canada (provinces of Alberta, Labrador, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory), Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, South Africa, United Kingdom. New Mexico: Austria, Canada (provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario,- Nova Scotia), Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, and the United Kingdom. New York: Australia, Austria, Canada (all provinces), Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden, United Kingdom. North Carolina: Australia, Canada (provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia), Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, and theUnited Kingdom, , North Dakota: Australia, Canada (provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory), France, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Sweden and United Kingdom. Ohio: Australia, Austria, Canada (all provinces, except Nunavit), Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and United Kingdom Oklahoma: Australia, Canada (provinces of Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan), Czech Republic, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom, . Oregon: Australia, Canada (provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory), Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Jamaica, Micronesia, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, United Kingdom and British Virgin Islands. Pennsylvania: Australia, Canada (provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan), France, Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland, . Rhode Island: All countries with which the U.S. has federal agreements. South Carolina: None South Dakota: Australia, Canada (provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Territory of Nunavut, Yukon, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan,), Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden, United Kingdom. Texas: Austria, Australia, Canada (provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon Territory), Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Utah: Canada (provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory), France, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom. Vermont: Vermont has no official arrangements with foreign countries. Virginia: Australia, Austria; Canada (provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Islands, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory), Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Scotland, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe. Washington State: Austria, Australia, Bermuda, Canadian Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, NW Territories, Ontario, Prince Edward Islands, Quebec, Saskatchewan; Czech Republic, Fiji, France, Germany, Hungary, Jamaica, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway,Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom. West Virginia: Not Available. Wisconsin: Australia, Austria, British West Indies (pending), Canada (provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories (pending), Nova Scotia (pending), Ontario, Prince Edward Island (pending), Quebec (pending), Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory, Newfoundland and Labrador), Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland (pending), Mexico (all states except Durango, Mexico, Oaxaca, Sinalos) New Zealand, Nigeria (pending), Norway, Palau (pending), Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Wyoming: None Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 A better question might be "what happens if the guy stays in Thailand, or if he leaves, what happens when he returns? Can Thai authorities get him?" I know one girl who married a U.S. Navy guy, he was mearly interested in the extra pay, he never helped her at all...it took 2+ years, but she was able to get him! The Navey made him sign divorce papers, and Pay her "their"settlement, which was more than what she wanted...but that is a slightly different story... My guess is, if she has the resources, and wherewithall to do it, she can possible try and get this guy for some basic support... could take ages... Cavanami wrote "...2. the man is "innocent" until proven guilty, thus has does not have to provide a DNA sample, so it is only her claim that he is the father with no proof to back it up. .." Keep in mind, a court can order a DNA sample if it comes to that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAT_AUSSIE Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 big question in my mind is that if a foriegn court could and did order the father to pay maintenance, would this sensibly reflect the Thai financial requirements of the mother and child or whould she clean up with a nice little percentage of a western income based on the costs of raising a child in the USA. I have heard of instances where Thai women are recieving maintenance from the west. not sure of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hi, the risk is that an american feminazi group will finance such a case with bad publicity as a result and finally big money to pay. Also an american passport for the baby and a green card for the mother are probable so the guy must pay for both in USA. There's also a bigger risk for a thai legal case if the first one not happens. Some lawyers in LOS now work for percentages. So if he returns to Thailand police can take him to court and the judge will order a DNA-test and take his passport until he pledged big money. elef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.