<p>
</p>
<p>But this is a bit inconsistent legally and logically. </p>
<p>It was the father who chose to cut off all contact with the child in question at 18 and compounded it by making a “female acquaintance” his heir. In such a situation, if one wants legal and logical consistency, it’s the female acquaintance who should have been paying that fine…not the son whose father cut off all contact with him. She received his estate and he seemed to have cared/had more contact with her after cutting off his son. </p>
<p>And the court’s reasoning that “the father did provide for him as a minor” is extreme weaksauce. </p>
<p>That was his legally obligated duty as a father to a minor…and one he’s likely to have done the bare minimum of considering he felt entitled to cut off all further contact with said son when he turned 18. Sorry, but that’s cold and shows he’s doing the bare legal minimum as a parent…and being a jerk about it to boot.</p>
<p>In many ways, what this German local court is advocating is behavior not too far removed from hateful ex-es who still feel entitled to ask their former bf/gf/spouse for favors* even though they hated/resented him/her to the point of wanting a complete break in the relationship with minimal/no contact for years/decades. </p>
<p>Sorry, but once a relationship ends…ex-es are no longer entitled to demand onerous favors unless it’s related to facilitating joint custody of children they’ve had together. Especially if there hasn’t been any contact since the breakup for decades…</p>
<ul>
<li>Many friends have been so softhearted/naive enough to fall for such demands for favors ranging from a secret family recipes to exorbitant loans they couldn’t really afford. Thankfully, I was able to talk some sense into the friends being asked the latter so they weren’t taken to the financial cleaners by hateful ex-es who entitlement to ask for such special favors had long expired.<br></li>
</ul>