Crazy story about Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson

#26
#26
Every time I try to click on the OT thread I get redirected here
 
#36
#36
hog88 said:
That's the way it works in straight marriages. Same standards should apply.
Click to expand...

Any baby conceived in wedlock is going to be deemed to be that of the married couple. It is only a presumption that can be overcome with evidence, testimony, dna etc. In this instance, the law according to CWV, is that BG should provide testimony that she was against having a child and GJ went out and, without her knowledge conceived a child. In this case, it appears that BG is saying that GJ went out and cheated with a man and got pregnant. However, GJ is saying that she conceived with artificial insemination. That would be pretty easy to prove and proving it would make BG look bad.
 
#38
#38
KoachKrab127 said:
Brittney Griner Ordered to Pay Glory Johnson Child Support - The Root

Sum up: They were married, and then Glory Johnson got pregnant. Glory Johnson says she got pregnant through in vitro fertilization. Brittney Griner claims Glory Johnson cheated on her with a man, and she never agreed to wanting a child in the first place. So they had an annulment, and now a judge ordered Griner to pay child support despite not being biologically related to the child.

Unbelievable. It sounds like a bad soap opera.
Click to expand...

Cheated with Bruce Jenner. Back when he had balls
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
hog88 said:
That's the way it works in straight marriages. Same standards should apply.
Click to expand...

In straight marriages, one partner can impregnate the other. In those cases, a paternity test will settle everything. This is completely different, IMO. If she was in on it, there has to be texts or emails proving it. There is no way they didn't talk about it.
 
#42
#42
n_huffhines said:
In straight marriages, one partner can impregnate the other. In those cases, a paternity test will settle everything. This is completely different, IMO. If she was in on it, there has to be texts or emails proving it. There is no way they didn't talk about it.
Click to expand...

Not if the wife was artificially inseminated. The presumption will be that the child is that of the union and the husband will be required to support it. That is why we have trials to ferret out the "truth."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
ClearwaterVol said:
Not if the wife was artificially inseminated. The presumption will be that the child is that of the union and the husband will be required to support it. That is why we have trials to ferret out the "truth."
Click to expand...

Either she knew about it or she didn't, and that should be easy to prove, but I haven't read where they proved it.

The burden of proof is on the GJ or on the hetero wife who got knocked up by someone else's sperm.
 
#44
#44
ClearwaterVol said:
Any baby conceived in wedlock is going to be deemed to be that of the married couple. It is only a presumption that can be overcome with evidence, testimony, dna etc. In this instance, the law according to CWV, is that BG should provide testimony that she was against having a child and GJ went out and, without her knowledge conceived a child. In this case, it appears that BG is saying that GJ went out and cheated with a man and got pregnant. However, GJ is saying that she conceived with artificial insemination. That would be pretty easy to prove and proving it would make BG look bad.
Click to expand...

It does seem like that would stand out. I'd also be pretty shocked that, if there was ai involved, both wouldn't be on record as participating in the process to some extent. (consultations, etc)
 
#45
#45
n_huffhines said:
Either she knew about it or she didn't, and that should be easy to prove, but I haven't read where they proved it.

The burden of proof is on the GJ or on the hetero wife who got knocked up by someone else's sperm.
Click to expand...

Not in the case of artificial insemination.
 
#46
#46
n_huffhines said:
In straight marriages, one partner can impregnate the other. In those cases, a paternity test will settle everything. This is completely different, IMO. If she was in on it, there has to be texts or emails proving it. There is no way they didn't talk about it.
Click to expand...

Still the burden of proof lies with BG that she wasn't in on it.
 
#47
#47
n_huffhines said:
Either she knew about it or she didn't, and that should be easy to prove, but I haven't read where they proved it.

The burden of proof is on the GJ or on the hetero wife who got knocked up by someone else's sperm.
Click to expand...

If Griner has been ordered to pay it sounds like you have it backwards.
 
#50
#50
n_huffhines said:
Are you saying this is the way that judges commonly rule or are you saying this is the way it should work? I am talking about where the burden should lie.
Click to expand...

No, I am speaking to the way it typically works. Courts err on the side of protecting children conceived during the union. IMNSHO, this is a solid approach.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top