I was talking to someone about unfair laws and legal practices and they brought up something rather crazy. They said that a guy who has a kid, could lose custody of that kid to his wife even if the kid is not the biological child of his current spouse.
Meaning: If Bob has a child with Melissa but Melissa chooses to not be in the kids life, Bob has custody of his kid. If Bob gets married later to Amanda, then divorces. Amanda could get custody of Bob's kid and force him to pay child support.
Now, i called Bull on this story. Didn't believe it at all. Didn't even research it. Then this person I spoke too gave me an example of something else to show how messed up the law is. He stated that male victims of statutory rape must still pay child support to the rapist. I couldn't believe it. So I looked this one up. It seems that there is actually a precedent that is pretty standard that the boy who has been raped must still pay child support if his rapist decides to keep the kid.
I don't even know what to say about this. This is just all kinds of wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer