Posted: Jul 17, 2017 1:25 pm
So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?
Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?
Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?