Party On!
 

bitch please! dont' even go there.

Party On!
 

See, this is exactly the type of attitude that got you in trouble down at W&L.

Party On!
 

Certainly, and clearly somebody in your family made the wrong decision to not say no quite enough.

Its OK, walk around with your chip all you want.

Party On!
 

Fucking amateurs...[yawn]

Party On!
 

I tell you again - be still. Or am I going to have to have coochie Paigow speak to you ad nauseum about mojitos and Baja Fresh.

Announcement
 

seriously. where does someone named after a one hit wonder from 1997 get off dissing Minneapolis? The great city that gave us Soul Dancing and Runaway Train. And Prince and Kirby Puckett. Minneapolis is classic hip bc it was the new Seattle in the mid nineties but was under the radar about it. So it didnt get exploited like the real Seattle did. There wasnt a movie made about it with Kevin Bacon's wife and a spawn of chain coffee joints didnt splooge all over everyone's neighborhood as a result. It is the land of the Mary Tyler Moore theme park, sizzling music, hot blondes and homes for under 100K where you can raise your kids to be responsible citizens who would rather kayak than watch schlock telelvision.

And it has PLF who I will mate with and spawn a generation of Paigow Prettys. It is gonna be the new Palo Alto. Buy now.

Announcement
 

Maybe not, but I have spent a lot of time in Coon Rapids, drinking Mojitos at the Applebees.

Party On!
 

yes, a word you are adequately familiarized with, I'm so sure.

Announcement
 

Now there's a guy who would like a party at W&L.

Party On!
 

Please, this is Penske's new PC , exclamation point and acronym free sock. He is varying the mileage, if you will.

Announcement
 

Donno. W&L was lacking on the social opportunities for the brothers. As was Lexington as a whole.

Party On!
 

I think there are few too many negatives in that one, Sparky. My guess is that one of us--probably you--has been reading too much boilerplate lately.

Is that hipster slang for drugs? If you knew PLF in the same non-biblical sense that I do, you would know that he doesn't smoke the pot, my addicted friend. Or should I call you "dude"?

Announcement
 

How sad for you. That must be murder on your metrosexualness.

Just out of morbid curiousity, do Applebees' mojitos come in an oversized souvenir novelty glass?

Starting a new sock parade
 

Anyway, long-time poster, first-time sock. Advice desired, although perhaps the Mom & Dad Esq. board would be better for this one:

Nephew, in the way of an irresponsible 20 year old, got his girlfriend pregnant. Of course, at 20, a relationship lasts less time than a pregnancy, so they're now broken up. She's somewhere about 7 mos. along (not that abortion was ever an option for her). She apparently has no real desire to maintain any contact with Nephew.

Anyway:

1) I'm assuming he'll be on hook for child support of some sort. Any thoughts on how this is handled? Particularly since his ditch-digging job isn't exactly paying the bills.

2) If she tries to cut off all contact with nephew, does he have any rights? And does he have to claim those rights at birth (or shortly thereafter?).

3) If she refuses to allow nephew-daddy any contact, does that affect the answer to 1 (i.e., his support obligations)

I know we're not supposed to sling legal advice around here (this is Virginia, but neither of them went to W&L), but any general observations would be most helpful, because inevitably people start asking the lawyer in the family. And, yeah, I'll tell him to get a real lawyer if they can't get things worked out amicably (and fortunately I can tell them I'm not licensed to practice in Virginia).

Back to beating up on socks, now.

Announcement
 

Bitch, please. Go get yourself a deep-fried twinkie on a stick already.

Party On!
 

????????????????wait a girl goes with you to FD, not to mention the fraternity and sorority formals and she isn't expecting to "go all the way?" I'm sorry but a W&L man only gets so many FD weekends in his life.

Party On!
 

exactamundo! which is wyh I have chosen to delurk as a longtime lurker first time poster and battle back againts his sharkjumpin' socks. nttawwt. lol.

Party On!
 

I must side with the Bug man on this. I had the pleasure of attending parties in fabulous Lex Vegas, and I was not raped once, whether on a date or otherwise. But I believe that this is where I learned of the phenomenon of debutante virgins. So maybe they expect to go all the way, but in a different way.

Announcement
 

No.

I will mail them to you.

As many as you want.

QE
 

Last night's episode was excellent.

They showed more than just Carson being silly with clothes or Kyan teaching shaving techniques.

QE
 

I liked the focus on the girlfriends TITS!!!.

Party On!
 

Plus, the influx of people is not limited to women coming to Lex Vegas.

QE
 

They were mesmerizing.

Not to deride John, but the girlfriend is really out of his league, and she knows it. She's ambivalent and gorgeous and he's soon to be history.

And baby talk, like non-cinematic sex (i.e., between ordinary people), is fun to engage in but embarrassing to watch. It made me cringe, schmoopie.

Carson's comment (you know the one I mean) brought back memories of the thread that we are all trying to forget. Thanks, Carson.

QE
 

The less Carson the better as far as I'm concerned. I was showing some reruns of the show to a few gay men this weekend, and they universally despised Carson. I was relieved, because I thought I was the only member of the viewing public that thinks he's a waste of space in an otherwise good show. (Granted, one of the gay men I was with had spent an hour beforehand showing me everything he was planning on doing this season with his wardrobe based on the various collections at http://www.firstview.com/designerlists/menslist.html, so he may have been hypercritical of the fashion choices in general, and Carson's fashion choices in particular. On the other hand, he is a designer by profession, and he didn't harp on Thom (much)).

Did you notice Kai's accent slip when he was talking to the SG? Mine does the same thing when I'm talking to someone with my regional accent.

Ted was trying to explain a lot. I think that he's having confidence issues. The torta's disintegration wasn't his fault, but he seemed to take it personally.

Thom seemed nervous about this house. He kept on asking the SG if he liked it. I was also confused as to why he chose the cowhide LC1 chair for a vegetarian's house. Yeah, sure, she accepted a red leather couch, but the red leather isn't as in-your-face about the source of the leather as the cowhide.

The SG was adorable when he was with his girlfriend, showing her everything that had changed.

Starting a new sock parade
 

This sort of thing doesn't come up too often in the slip and fall cases I try, but like you, I am expected by my family (and all of the various friends of my family) to know all of the law in all of the 50 states, so here's some general advice.

Martindale-Hubbell has a survey of law for each state (they call it the "Law Digest"), and reading the family law section for Virginia might help answer some of your questions. At a minimum, it will point you to the relevant statutes. I quickly scanned the digest while I was posting, and it looks like it may answer some of your questions -- they apparently have a statutory schedule for support payments.

Also, go to FindLaw (yeah, I know) and see what resources they have for Virginia. The quality and quantity of what they have really does vary from state to state. Virginia may also have family law forms and standard orders and such on-line at the state government's web site(s).

Good luck to you, your nephew, his former girlfriend, and your soon to be great-nephew or niece.

QE
 

Agree with RP re: the baby talk. Ugh. SO and I were sure he was going to be mercilessly teased by his law enforcement friends for that.

I didn't find the show to be as LOL funny as others, and there were a couple of times that the SG's attitude grated on me (esp. during the tanning session).

GF's TITS were great. And impossible to turn away from in the top Carson put her in.

I like Carson. Hate his wardrobe though.

Still The Land of the Free
 

Jackson, MI -- A strip club dancer accused of squirting a patron in the face with breast milk won't face an assault charge, the city attorney decided.

The 20-year-old Jackson woman denied the patron's claim that she squeezed her breasts and squirted him with the milk while performing a lap dance last month at The School House. Instead, she told police that the man had grabbed her breast.

"We looked at the report and, based on the evidence, we don't believe we could obtain a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt," Julius Giglio, city attorney, told The Jackson Citizen Patriot for a story Wednesday.

--

Read the whole story by clicking the always popular

quasi-required link

Starting a new sock parade
 

With all the necessary qualifications (TINLA, TAOAM and YNSSAEOVFL)[1], from what I understand, the answers to these questions are pretty much the same in most states, because they all deal with fundamental principles of the way we run our family law systems in the U.S.

But, seriously, your nephew should get an esperienced lawyer. And you can also help him be smart: don't get a bunch of extra jobs which will cause his support obligations to be set at a level he won't be able to afford if he loses one of those jobs. Keep receipts for everything he gives, and always pay by check or other verifiable method.

And, in general, the advice the family law attorney I worked for for a while gave me was: don't EVER have a kid with someone or marry someone you aren't sure you want to have significant financial, personal and emotional involvement with for the rest of your life. Regardless of what people think that the biases are (and she, a woman who represented almost exclusively poor women, thought that the laws and their application in our state were very biased against men), it's not a good system for anyone to be in.

Anyway, answers (I've referred to the nephew, and generally referred to "he" and "she." Of course, the woman is not always the custodial parent, but that's most common, so it's just for ease of description):

1: Usually, there will be some sort of order to pay as soon as she seeks it. It sounds like nothing is in dispute here about paternity or anything like that. If he, even briefly, ignores the order, he may be subject to contempt charges or the other nasty [2] stuff done to non-paying parents. Somwhere in that timeframe, his paycheck, other sources of income or other assets will be garnished/raided by court order to pay his obligation.

The amount of his obligation will vary. In most states, it's a percentage of the income of the parent in question, so he won't necessarily be that screwed just because he has a low-paying job. However, as mentioned above, he has to be really careful about additional jobs or income. If he has some extra jobs and the support obligation is set based on that income, he'll be responsible for that even if he loses the other jobs. He can go back to the court for an adjustment, but those are hard to get. If he gets more jobs, works overtime, or otherwise increases his income, he is supposed to report that to the court. In my state, not doing that can screw you, and his higher support obligation, if the court finds out, will be applied retroactively to when he started working more hours or getting paid more.

2: In all states, he'll have rights to see his child absent some sort of abuse (or, unfortunately, allegations of abuse, but that's why it's good for him to have a decent lawyer). This can be complicated by her attempts to hide the child or prevent visitation. Different states have different standards for asserting paternity, but I think that the custodial parent usually has a decent chance to file for support a while after the fact. It's not like if she doesn't file something in six months or a year the guy is off the hook.

3: Generally, not. She can't just say that he can't see the kid; he should be able to see the kid if he wants to. One of the biases in most states' family law systems is towards support of the kid, so even wrongful failure on the part of the custodial parent to allow visitation is not likely to extinguish the support obligations. The theory is not to punish the child for the bad acts of either parent.

[1] ("This is not legal advice", "these are only anecdotal musings" and "your nephew should seek an expert on Virginia family law").

[2] Not suggesting they don't deserve it or making any sort of value judgment, just saying that it's one of the few instances where you can be incarcerated for not paying money you don't have.

Still The Land of the Free
 

This is so mammalian.

Starting a new sock parade
 

To add to these:

1. Even if the mom does not request support, if she is receiving any kind of public assistance the state agency/agencies can request it on her behalf and collect it through wage garnishment. If he has health insurance available to him through his job and she does not, he can be involuntarily required to add the kid to his health insurance. This includes involuntarily enrolling him in his health plan even if he had opted out. Again, state agencies can do this independently -- the mom may not even be involved.

3. I believe it's quite rare for a parent's support obligations to be cut back or excused just because they don't get to see the kid.

Condoms are your friends. Along with birth control pills, diaphragms, and cervical caps.

Edited because didn't delete everything I meant to delete. Saying I'm editing for this because otherwise the "edited" notation makes it look like I sneakily changed what I said after the fact.

Starting a new sock parade
 

Yes; unfortunately she is a good catholic, so doesn't use birth control. Or so it would seem.

Anyway, thanks notbob, mmmm3587, and ltl. All very helpful to get me going with some general advice.

I think he will be reassured to know that he can get visitation rights. And I'll make sure he waits to score that big promotion to assistant chief ditch digger.

Starting a new sock parade
 

When my cousin was in a similar situation earlier this year, there was much grumbling in the family as to willingness of good catholics to break the "no premarital sex" rules, but not the "no birth control" rules. I firmly believe if you're going to break one, you should break both.

I'm really amazed that people let religion dictate that they won't use birth control, but not that they won't have sex. I mean, what do you think is going to happen?

Geez....

I think it's fun when two people come up with the same comment at the same time, so I'll leave it.

Starting a new sock parade
 

It would also seem that he did not use a condom effectively. If someone is a bad enough Catholic to have premarital sex they'd better be a bad enough Catholic to use birth control. I have heard that "can't use bc, the priest wouldn't like it!" thing and that's just insane. But condoms are your nephew's friends.

Three.

Starting a new sock parade
 

This preachy message was brought to you by Fringey's Silk Flower Emporium, serving your need for color in your exceedingly responsible life since August 2003.

Mom seeks man to pee on her daughter
 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...eut/index.html

Inspired by the NBC reality series "Who Wants to Marry my Dad," Wood posted an ad in a local paper and planted a sign on her lawn seeking the perfect gentleman, who should enjoy movies, horse-back riding, long walks and watersports.

Starting a new sock parade
 

Just for that, I'm not paying you any support for our kid. Happily no responsible scientist will believe that I'm the other biological mother.

Mom seeks man to pee on her daughter
 

That's just wrong. Besides she's only 22, what makes mom think that even if she did find Mr. Right, that stupid daughter will stay with this guy for any length of time? Her taste in men are Ashton Kucher and older tattoo guy? She obviously doesn't know what the hell she wants yet, and she obviously is one of the stupid "no birth control for me" people.

Starting a new sock parade
 

Agreed. In my mind not doing so only compounds the sin, regardless of what the pope says about the preciousness of life.