Support from babysitter

File: anons bait.png (12KB, 500x294px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x294px

Short answer, no, obviously. In court cases where men are ordered to pay child support to a child that isn't theirs because they "accepted a fatherly role" they actually took on a fatherly role, as in called themselves the child's father, publicly. The best example is in cases where a man later found out one of his kids wasn't his, but called himself the father for several years. It's just like common law marriage, living together alone doesn't count, you actually have to hold yourselves out publicly as husband and wife. Just watching a child for two hours a day is insufficient. If you want child support, you should be focusing on the child's actual biological father.

u go girl

0/10, very poor trolling

>>17453709
But if his said he would babysit publicly doesn't that mean that he has taken a publicly fatherly role? Can I claim that I thought that he would do it often but won't and get support for daycare like that?
>>17453715
Ty
>>17453716
Ss shitlord

Sage and hide. Sage and hide

>>17453740
>But if his said he would babysit publicly doesn't that mean that he has taken a publicly fatherly role?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.

There is a legal term called "in loco parentis". It's Latin for "in place of a parent", and it's used to describe what people are doing when they watch over a kid on a temporary basis, which brings with it a set of legal responsibilities. Babysitters, for example, are acting in loco parentis while on the job. Daycares and schools can act in loco parentis in limited circumstances. By agreeing to babysit, your neighbor has agreed to act in loco parentis for a couple of hours.

But that is not the same as "assuming a fatherly role", which implies a much more permanent and intimate relationship to the child. Your neighbor has agreed to be a babysitter, not the child's father.

>Can I claim that I thought that he would do it often but won't and get support for daycare like that?
A simple misunderstanding, real or fake, isn't going to stand up in court. You'd need to be able to produce a signed contract stating that he'd agreed to do this regularly. And even that wouldn't really be enough, since the agreement would still only be for babysitting. Though if he isn't going to accept payment, then that contract would probably be considered invalid anyway: a contract has to include some form of consideration for both parties.

Also: what the hell is wrong with you? Taking advantage of the kindness of "a trustworthy guy" to trick him into a position where you could legally strongarm him into becoming your personal daycare service: have you really sunk so low?

This is an old thread from like 2009. Google it.

>>17453691
Let me get this straight.

A neighbor did you a favor, and you want to sue him?

Please, please, please never move anywhere near me.

Stale moldy pasta.