I think it proves that there's 'normal' and 'not normal' people that read the Daily Mail. I don't know what you would call those that don't read it though.
---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
When women have children placed in care or put up for adoption, they do not pay anything towards their upkeep. Why are men forced to pay out in similar circumstances(ie no contact).
|
Good point.
I suppose the question with this case is, does she have the right to change her mind about giving the baby to the couple. if she did and her and the father agreed to access. then we would probably expect him to pay money for the child.
it does say that the father later relinquished his contact rights because he said it would be too difficult emotionally and that it was unfair for the baby to be split between two homes.
which in a way goes against him by he wants all or nothing.
I think it would be different if the 'mother' denied him rights to see the child and he was expected to pay the money.