I shed a tear for you, Jiggs. Of all of the women that I've had encounters with, the only one I want back is the one over 30. HAWT.
That sucks when the woman wants out first , right before you were about to bail Time to rebound with the daughter.
Thanks for the support, fellas. I think I'm gonna play it cool, feel it out, and see if she'll get lonely enough to get me one last time. . . . . . . . . 'Cuz seeing the ride is almost over, I'm going for that butthole. Alright, alright, alright.
One thing you don't have to worry about are finding other MILFs, in the area I live in every gal over the age of 24 has a kid, there are many more out there.
just be careful when choosing the next milf for gods sake....in some states if the chick has a young one and you are routinly picklin' her pooper, she has the legal right to come after you for child support and I'm not talking about marrige or anything.....so lets say if you are in Washington state for instance, no milf hunting, cause when its over, it could cost ya....
I don't buy that. And a quick Google of the child support laws in Washington don't say a word about it either.
It doesn't even make sense. Even lawmakers aren't stupid enough to think you can impregnate a woman retroactively.
sorry, look closer. I had a friend in Washington have his pay docked to the tune of around 40% because he was schlepping a milf for about a year. The argument was that he was around often enough for the kid to consider him a father figure. Its law, though I am not well enough versed in law to quote you the exact statute. Its all over the local radio talk shows like tom lykis as well....not that what he preaches is gospel but once you know someone that had this happen to them....I'm just sayin, be careful. Edit: I am not an attorney but I called him and he said to look at Washingotn State RCW Tiltle 26 Chaper 26.18 - which I just looked is the child support enforcement act. Specifically there is verbage that does not specifically call out "marrige" as a child support qualifier. Thats how they got him. The courts decided that the child most likely saw him as a parental figure and thus he now has his pay docked....
Thats exactly what I am talking about. Sticking it to a woman that is single and has a child from someone else. Ie...just out for a good time... Regardless of whether he was seen as a father figure or not, if she was in WA and REALLY wanted to be a bitch, she could go after him.....there is precedent for it anyway. Remember when the ole man said, "Keep your pecker in your pants!"? He had a good reason!! LOL I am saying BE VERY CAREFUL who and where you boink. Jiggles, some pics and a Hot Carl would be a fitting ending to the relation ship....it would prove to her that you wanted to end it not her...???
I'm not one for calling people out, but it seems like there's something missing here. I've been digging through the RCW's, including Title 26, and everything based on child support implies that the person responsible is the parent of the child, and every ruling on who is financially responsible for a child is based on paternity. It makes no sense, there's not a word about who "seems" to be the father, and any decent lawyer should have been able to avoid any possible confusion here and reverse any court order that states otherwise. I'm not saying you're lying or your friend is lying, but there's not enough information here to make sense of this, and at best, I'd guess your buddy got screwed over by a vague ruling because he never got a competent lawyer to prevent all of this.
I agree, its not right and quite frankly it had a lot of my buddies really freaked out. I can tell you that the MILF hunting came to a very quick end...
