Posted by
Deborah A Rorabaugh on
URL: https://www.shado-forum.com/RE-CC-AOK-tp1489003p1489097.html
In most states in the US, Straker would no longer pay alimony - It's assumed her
husband was capable of supporting her (and why should her husband take advantage
of her alimony income from a previous relationship) Child support continues
unless there are good reasons for it not to - such as Dad being broke or Mom's
new husband agreeing to pay because his income is more than enough.
When my Dad married a woman with children from three previous marriages - each
of the boys had their own father's last name.
The fathers of the eldest two were foreign nationals and never paid any child
support, the father of number three was on retirement pay and when my Dad came
along with a good income, the court agreed that child support was no longer
required from father of child three.
Personally, I suspect Straker wouldn't have asked to be let out of child
support. But the monthly check would have been a thorn in Rutland's side - proof
that he wasn't an adequate earner to support his wife and her child.
[hidden email] wrote:
> In a message dated 7/27/00 2:17:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
[hidden email] writes:
>
> << For the adoption proceedings, the natural father must sign away his
> parental
> >rights. This also means the natural father is no longer obligated to
> provide
> >child
> >support and visitation is no longer a right.
> >Straker obviously didn't do this. >>
>
> So now my question is, after Mary remarried, would Straker still be paying
> alimony and child support? What are the Brit laws on that? I'll bet my
> paperweight collection he still would be sending money to Mary to support
> Johnny, even after she married Mr. Stand There And Do Nothing Rutland. Not
> because he was obligated to, just because that seems like something he'd do.
> I doubt very much he'd leave the costs of raising, clothing, feeding and
> educating Johnny to Rutland. Just seems un-Straker to me.
>
> Amelia