Captain Capitalism linked earlier this week to an infuriating story in the daily mail.
The astonishing story begins in 1999 when the man was about to have drug treatment for crippling arthritis.
He stored sperm at the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge to ensure that he and his wife, who married in 1979, could have a child if the treatment left him infertile.
In June 2000 the couple decided to divorce and weeks later she visited the clinic and forged his signature, allowing doctors to create embryos from his frozen sperm and her egg.
She gave birth to a girl in June 2001, claiming it was the result of a one-night stand, and a boy in September 2003.
I can’t say for sure, but typically “the couple decided to divorce” means the wife decided to divorce him. But had she left it there the amount of divorce theft she could haul in would have been too limited. Sure she got the house, but in order to be fully true to herself she needed to make him responsible for financing the children she wanted. Most divorcées are slackers and take the easy route. They wait until the youngest child is no longer in diapers and then “discover” that the man they married is unbearable. Hey, I’m a sucker for the classics, but you have to admire trailblazers. I’m guessing the judge on the case was giving her extra points (and pounds) for her creativity:
A judge ruled that a settlement he made after the divorce, in which the woman kept the family home, was unfair because it did not take the two children into account and the man was forced to pay out the cash. He says he has also spent almost £200,000 in legal fees over the years.
The man now has two daughters aged eight and seven with his second wife. He sees his other two children for two days every fortnight.
Yes, how terribly unfair of the man to not take into account that she would forge his signature and make him a father against his will. Give her an extra £100k. That should teach the smug bastard with his I’m so honest and upright that I follow the rules attitude. If there is a bright side to this story, at least the woman learned her lesson:
His ex-wife, now 51, said: ‘I don’t believe I have done anything wrong. It was getting later and later for me and I wanted to have a child. If I had not done it then I would not be blessed with my children. I have no regrets.’
It wasn’t her fault; she was trapped outside of marriage.
This example of an obviously insane judge reminded me of a story I read in the Telegraph a few months ago.
The man from Andalusia in the south of Spain had taken his parents to court demanding a monthly allowance of 400 euros (£355) after they refused to give him anymore money unless he tried to find a job.
Instead the judge at family court number five in Malaga, ruled against the man, who has a degree in law, and told him he must leave his parents’ house within 30 days and learn to stand on his own two feet.
The ruling will send shock waves across Spain where it is not unusual for offspring to remain living with their parents until well into their thirties.
So far, it sounds like a pretty reasonable ruling. But then comes this:
The judge ruled that in this case the man had “sufficient ability to work” and could not expect his parents to support him, although they had taken over the monthly repayments on his car.
He did, however, order them to pay their son 200 euros a month for the next two years “to help with his emancipation”.
This kind of ruling isn’t a one-off for Spain:
In 2007, a 22-year-old from Seville took his parents to court after they refused to up an allowance of 150 euros a month despite the father being out of work and only receiving unemployment benefit of 700 euros a month.
That judge also ruled against the plaintiff but ordered the parents to pay his university tuition fees and provide an extra 150 euros a month for books.
