Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Show me where it is the law. I know for a fact they do not require a DNA test or established paternity in my state UNLESS the unmarried father CONTESTS paternity and I can not find the law requiring it in any state divorce/child support legislation. You continue to quote a web page written by the department of child support enforcement. The dept. of CSE is not a legal entity they are not judicial. This page is calling to unmarried women to establish paternity in the event they, at a later date, would sue for child support. It is informing them that if they do not the presumed father can contest and they will be required to have a DNA test before any support is ordered.
If you choose to believe it is a law and a requirement by default in any support case outside of a marriage go ahead and believe it. But until you can provide legal code stating it is a law to do so stop trying to convince others it is always required. This is actually what some groups are trying to make a law.
You're right about your state law, but the state will not decide who the father is unless is legally served with a court summons. Proceeding without giving him the opportunity to refute the allegation and ask for a DNA test is as much a denial of due process as it is to hold a criminal trial and find someone guilty without telling them when the court date is.
At least in California that doesn't work very well. If you are working for less than your earning capacity the judge can and will set support at what your last salary was.
As it is in my state. The court will look at your past earnings history and your potential earnings. So if you have a degree/training/certifications and have made 6 figures you can not quit your job and go to work at Micky D's and pay CS on minimum wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
You're right about your state law, but the state will not decide who the father is unless is legally served with a court summons. Proceeding without giving him the opportunity to refute the allegation and ask for a DNA test is as much a denial of due process as it is to hold a criminal trial and find someone guilty without telling them when the court date is.
I agree. but if you don't get to court for whatever reason or you don't contest and ask for a paternity test the court by law is not going to withhold a CS judgement until one is done because that is your opportunity to refute. If you don't show or don't contest the court assumes you accept paternity.
I believe the court should not go on assumption and actually mandate DNA tests in these situations and they do not a present as far as I am aware.
As it is in my state. The court will look at your past earnings history and your potential earnings. So if you have a degree/training/certifications and have made 6 figures you can not quit your job and go to work at Micky D's and pay CS on minimum wage.
I agree. but if you don't get to court for whatever reason or you don't contest and ask for a paternity test the court by law is not going to withhold a CS judgement until one is done because that is your opportunity to refute. If you don't show or don't contest the court assumes you accept paternity.
I believe the court should not go on assumption and actually mandate DNA tests in these situations and they do not a present as far as I am aware.
Agreed I'm not sure if they still do this, in the past Oregon would use the results of a DNA test to open a support case. Several years ago one of my boys dated a woman a few times, she moved to Oregon and almost a year later she called him and told him that she had given birth to his son and wanted support. He refused told her she would have had to have been pregnant for 11 months for it to be his kid. He subsequently got a certified letter from the State asking him to take a DNA test, he complied and never heard back. He called about a year later to find out what was going on and was told "thanks for cooperating in giving a DNA sample, you aren't the father but we can't tell you anymore than that" I think it's a good idea and removes a lot of the 'He said, she said" nonsense from a court proceeding
And if the mother legitimately thought this man was the father, and he didn't protest when the claim was first made against him and some of his wages were garnished, where's the fraud? She may have been mistaken but that doesn't mean she knowingly lied.
Of course the mother lied!
She did not disclose the fact that nine months prior to the birth of her child she engaged in sexual intercourse with at least one male other than the man she identified as the father.
Had she done so, honestly, the guy may well have demanded a paternity test. Her failure to disclose her sexual adventure with another man was deceitful.
IDK, some of you guys that are laying some blame at the guy's feet is way off base IMO. And blaming other unrelated people for not helping? What is helping, by pulling money out of their pockets to pay for an unjust settlement to someone that is pursuing money even though she knows he isn't the father? So generous with other people's money!
The wage garnishments was for $31 in 3 paychecks. Something that small is pretty easy to miss. I sure don't examine every paychecks line items. I roughly know how much I'm getting, but could easily miss $31. Additionally, he was never served with notification that someone was claiming he was the father of the child and that garnishments would be made, so he had no idea that someone stated he was the father of a child. It's almost like being sued for $65k, never being served with court papers and a date, and the court default judging against you for missing the court appearance. Is that fair?
If you really think about it, in the state of texas, someone could use your information claiming youre the father, despite you not even meeting the person, state garnishes $31 for 3 paychecks, then comes back 16 years later claiming you owe $65k. Not likely, but possible.
. "There are some anomalies with how this case handled by the attorney general's office. He was never served with those documents in 2002 when the actual paternity petition was filed against him."
“There were three garnishments of $31 each when he worked at a dealership. He’s never gotten a letter from the state of Texas,”
Exactly. His check was garnished for years. I know what every line item is on my pay stub. I would question if child support was being deducted.
are you guys just making things up? Can you link an article that says his check was actually garnished for years, and the amounts garnished during that time? everything I saw said 3 checks for $31.
From a logical standpoint, if his check was garnished for "years", that would probably mean that he accepted he was the father of the child because it's hard to miss garnishments for that long. The only reason it's being contested now is because he just found out about the claim, felt a dna test appropriate, and didn't know about the 3 small check garnishments. The fact that the courts cannot show that he was served with documentation supports his claim.
YOU keep on bringing up YOU and every single mom you know as some kind of "fact" I don't doubt your words, but..
The mother does not have to prove who the father is; she simply must list someone and provide an address. If she chooses some random ex-boyfriend from years ago and the address is no longer valid, he will not receive the summons and a default judgement will be issued when he doesn’t show up to court.
Now he is on the hook for support and doesn’t even realize it. With more than 40 percent of children born out of wedlock, this problem does not appear to be slowing down any time soon.
Please forget about YOUR situation for a second, and focus on this case and the above link, things need to change in order to protect both parties especially the children, law needs updating in order to be fair and just.
Come on now. Even you can't deny that bold black is unfair to say the least. Yes, I still believe MOST men have no problems raising children who are biologically theirs, no one should be forced to be financially responsible for a child who is not biologically theirs especially when he is the victim of paternity fraud (Not implying this woman deceived him on purpose)
A fair solution is actually pretty simple, although as the article you posted mentioned, not really in the state's interest. At the time of the child's birth, required to privately provide the father with an option to conduct a paternity test for $20 or however much the paternity test costs (they're cheap nowadays), possibly non-profits could subsidize the cost.
-If the father chooses not to take the test, it's assumed that he is the father .
- If he takes the test, DNA not matching, no mandated responsibility for child support for life of the child, although he may choose to assume the roles of the father voluntarily.
- if he takes the test and is the father, may be subject to child support, depending on the circumstances of the couple's relationship.
- if the stated father cannot be located to give an option for the test, then no child support until he's served with notice to take the DNA test. If he declines, it's assumed that he is the father.
by following the above procedures, it eliminates deception and excuses of "not knowing". It eliminates forcing people to pay support that don't even know they're the claimed father. Up front at the child's birth, they will know who the parents are, and if the father declines to take the test, that he will assume responsibility for the child going forward.
My son lost his job, went to child services, filed a form for adjustment paid 75$ filing fee and was to be notified of the court date. A few days later I watched as the sheriffs department loaded him into the patrol car for non payment because his missed his last CS payment. Meanwhile the ex DIL living in section 8 housing, receiving FS..... yada yada.
So yes it does happen.
On the flip side I know men and women who never pay their CS and somehow never seem to be held accountable by the courts.
There is no logic or consistency. It all dependent on your attorney, how much $ your have, often yes, your gender, the judge, how much the ex bull dogs DCS and the court, your location. The family court system is a hot mess and in need of reform.
Debtor's prison is alive and well in the united states. I think it depends (to a degree) what state you reside in, and the judge's mood that day.
The woman always holds the bigger burden unless she gives her kids up to the father or some other person and walks away.
Unfortunately, that's how the world works. Men who gripe about paying CS (men who are the fathers, of course) are jerks.
I say this as the mother of 2 sons and a daughter. If my sons ever father any kids, I expect them to step up and provide.
the default arrangement should be shared custody, no child support IMO. Expecting a party to pay for support of a child while not granting them equal time with the child is not fair. "Providing" should be in the form of time and resources provided directly to the child, not a chunk of your paycheck sent over to the parent while you get to visit them once a week.
Only in the case where 1 party is abusive or gives up the right to shared custody should child support be required.
To me, if you're looking at a fairness standpoint, the above is most fair. I think that if a father wishes it, he should definitely be able to spend more time with his children, hence the shared custody arrangement. One major reason why we're having so many issues in society today is children being raised by a single parent with little or no involvement from the other parent.
---------------------
Some sobering statistics. Note: this is not to downplay the significance of a mother in the home, it's to show the possible detrimental effect that lack of a father figure has on children.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]
90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]
Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure if they still do this, in the past Oregon would use the results of a DNA test to open a support case. Several years ago one of my boys dated a woman a few times, she moved to Oregon and almost a year later she called him and told him that she had given birth to his son and wanted support. He refused told her she would have had to have been pregnant for 11 months for it to be his kid. He subsequently got a certified letter from the State asking him to take a DNA test, he complied and never heard back. He called about a year later to find out what was going on and was told "thanks for cooperating in giving a DNA sample, you aren't the father but we can't tell you anymore than that" I think it's a good idea and removes a lot of the 'He said, she said" nonsense from a court proceeding
