Creative Destruction

May 23, 2007

This Is Why They Pay Judges The Big Bucks

Filed under: Content-lite — Off Colfax @ 1:25 am

Honestly, If I had to sit there and try to figure out a paternity case involving a pair of paternal twins, I’d drink more.

A lot more.

[Turn Signal: Grandmaster Jeffy G’s trusty sidekick]



  1. Don’t be a wimp. At least it wasn’t a case involving identical twins.

    Comment by Dianne — May 23, 2007 @ 4:27 am | Reply

  2. Oops. My error. They are identical twins. (I misread your link as “fraternal” not “paternal” twins.) Drink all you like if you become a judge and have to deal with a similar case. Maybe they ought to declare them equally the father, since all either of them contributed to the making of the child was an orgasm, which would have produced the same mix of genes from either. Half child support from each one.

    Comment by Dianne — May 23, 2007 @ 4:36 am | Reply

  3. Half child support from each one.

    *sniff* King Solomon would be so proud of his student!

    Comment by Off Colfax — May 23, 2007 @ 7:00 am | Reply

  4. So much for the theory that genetic ties create a powerful evolutionary instinct to support a child, whether or not that child is your own.

    I’m not a big fan of unpublished court opinions, but this is a good case for issuing one. The fact pattern is unlikely to repeat itself very often, there are no compelling reasons for one rule over another, and the impact on more ordinary cases is potentially significant. Hard cases can make bad law.

    Comment by ohwilleke — May 24, 2007 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  5. What I love about this story is how “mommy” had sex with both twins in the same week. My question is: “Was that willful or a prank by the brothers?”

    I can promise science is blind here, as for the law, if both admit having sex with her, then the judge must find for both. Contract law is not like criminal law, both are in for 50%!

    Comment by Vilon — June 1, 2007 @ 4:34 pm | Reply

  6. FWIW, this is neither contract law nor criminal law. It is family law. Joint and several liability would be even better.

    Comment by ohwilleke — June 4, 2007 @ 2:39 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: