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.
Yes. That's how it works in pretty much every state. They cannot just grab numbers out of the air.
If that could be done, any man could claim he makes minimum wage, even if he makes six figures and his support would be based on that.
Any woman could claim a guy make six figures when all he makes is minimum wage and the support figure would be based on what he woman claimed.
Which would never happen.
They can and do accept the plaintiffs word for income if the defendant fails to appear. When my son filed for child support against his ex, he gave the court the name and address of her employer and told the court what she had admitted her salary was, since she failed to appear in court so the judge set support according to what my son claimed. When she was served with the judgment she went back to court with pay stubs showing that she no longer worked full time so the judge modified the order.
It worked the same way in the case we are discussing; the woman went to court for a support order and the father wasn't there, so the court believed her when she said that he was the father, they did nothing to ensure that she was telling the truth.
Question: If you either didn't recall having sex (because you were inebriated, passed out, etc) or you had sex prior to a menstrual period and after that period, did not have sex with anyone but the man you claimed was the father, would you feel okay about being referred to as a perjurer? You cannot perjure yourself about something you literally had no idea was possible. My point is that we have NO CLUE whether or not this women legitimately believed that there was no way anyone else could have been the father. If you were pregnant tomorrow (stick with me here) and you'd been with the same man ever since your last menstrual period (or longer, if you'd been raped while unconscious or something unsavory) would you not assume you felt pretty damned sure you knew who was the father? I know I would.
Also... it's possible that the man who is the actual father had told his woman he was infertile and she was having sex with both men at the time she got pregnant, so she honestly did not see how it could be the other guy's kid. Plenty of possibilities that don't include assuming she's a bald-faced liar.
Could she have been lying? Of course.
So could he, though.
Other than her having someone sneak in her room, while she was under the influence of a date rape drug or some surgery level sedation, and they managed to get all her clothing back on her correctly with no "icky, doesn't feel right" feeling in certain regions, then she lied. I call bull on all that period malarky, no possible way means you engaged in no sexual activity at all during the possible impregnation window.
Her willingness to lie, so that he was not afforded the right to have paternity proven, should not cost him $65,000 dollars - money he needs to support the children that he has been supporting, and continues to need to support, as a responsible father.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Question: Also... it's possible that the man who is the actual father had told his woman he was infertile and she was having sex with both men at the time she got pregnant, so she honestly did not see how it could be the other guy's kid. Plenty of possibilities that don't include assuming she's a bald-faced liar.
Could she have been lying? Of course.
So could he, though.
Okay, if we assume she really thought he was the dad and she did not lie at all, it still says something about her character that she would continue to try to extract payment from him knowing he is definitely not the father. So he made a mistake, she made a mistake. Should they not be even? If he has to pay this large amount of money, 65K, it will negatively impact his family and is taking money away from his children. How she can do this, I don't know.
I think most people are saying the legal system is a bit weird if the woman can state he's the father and he indeed has no ability to refute it and order a DNA test.
I don't get where anyone's saying he should not be able to actively participate in this situation.
I don't see that at all. I see a lot of people focusing on what happened AFTER the child support was already adjudicated. I haven't seen anyone talking about the man not being able to combat her claim. But even so, a person against whom a claim is made is NOT REQUIRED to defend themselves in any way. It's up to the person MAKING the claim to prove that it is true. And in this case, that standard was ignored, to this man's detriment. That's just the icing on the cake of this nonsense. The real issue is the complete lack of an evidentiary standard. This whole thing could have been rectified or avoided by the court requiring some proof of who the biological father was.
And no, sorry, it's not "a bit weird". We're talking about placing a substantial burden on a person without a shred of evidence whatsoever. That's not "a bit weird", it's a complete travesty and it stands our legal system on its head. There are certain cornerstones of our justice system that should never be disregarded. The child support should never have been issued in the first place based solely on he word that the man was the father. Everything after that is just fruit of the poisonous tree, as lawyers like to say.
I think this is the insane. Regardless of whatever you "think" he should have done, the very second it was discovered he was not the father, he should have been completely resolved of any CS and this pos "mother" should have been forced to pay years of back payments for compensation. Women like this are the scum of the earth and just make women look bad. This woman should spend the next 16 years giving this guy any paycheck she gets. I agree the whole court system is all kinds of messed up, and it anything BUT fair, equitable and just. While not related the likes of Alimony should be discarded all together, unless a woman is stupid/lazy/retarded there's no excuse for a woman living in the west not to be making something. In regards to child support, the father should be allowed to not have to pay if he is not the father.
No it isnt.
Alimony or spousal support laws differ state by state but overall it is awarded when there is a significant discrepancy in incomes, it is usually temporary and usually a couple must have been married as set number of years. It has become less and less common as more and more women are in the workforce and equal earners.
Ever known of a case where the woman was forced to pay alimony?
There absolutely should be no required child support without a paternity test.
Exactly.
If courts allow DNA to PROVE a man IS the father in order to make him pay child support, the COURTS have to allow that a DNA test prove NO paternity to REMOVE child support.
The problem is, courts DON'T want to admit their rulings are WRONG as any overturning of a case a judge decided goes against the judge. NO judge wants to be over turned!
But if DNA is used, the courts MUST abide by its results.
I hope he takes it to the SCOTUS! Maybe then the laws regarding paternity and DNA proof/denial will be accepted as hard evidence.
Some women claim paternity just to "keep a guy in contact with her" hoping to make him her husband to raise the child together, when in reality the child is some one else's whom she doesn't want. Sad but true.
I'm glad I have no children and was never accused of one. There's actually no way possible as I produce no sperm due to malformation of the testes at birth. But I'm old enough that my youthful years were PRE DNA, so I could have been accused. Would a 0 sperm count be accepted by the court as evidence of NON paternity? Probably NOT.
Everything you say is accurate. I don't doubt any of your words.
However, I think "law" should be fair and just. If the guy was not a biological father, the "law" should not force him to pay child support
Of course, all these are just wishful thinking.
unfortunately in today's legal environment, is no. In fact, under the laws of most states, even if you find out the child you've been supporting is not your biological child, you will still be on the hook for child support until the child reaches 18.
More often than is widely known, a paternity case may turn out to be the kind of situation where nice guys actually finish last.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that, for a variety of reasons, including fear, wishful thinking, or not wanting to be joined for life to the jerk who is the baby's daddy, single moms may provide the DA with the wrong name in connection with a child support claim. And many men, having absolutely no reason to doubt that the child belongs to them, do the right thing and start making those monthly payments, no questions asked.
The lesson: All men faced with a claim of paternity should request DNA testing before admitting paternity or signing anything. This is your legal right. And, it holds true no matter how much you trust the mother of your child. Trust has little to do with it.
Sex with the bio dad, had her period, then sex with the presumed dad as soon as period ended. Those are a week apart and she'd think the last guy she had sex with after her period is the dad.
And... her obgyn would think the same thing. Especially if she's a woman who gave birth to a large baby. My eldest kid was 9lbs, 10ozs. My obgyns kept adjusting my due date forward and I knew that it was too far forward because I knew when I got pregnant. Sure enough, he was born the day after his original due date.
So she may have had a period, you think that would make an 8 month term delivery look like a 9 month term delivery? Yes I'm not a moron I do know that women can experience menstruation during pregnancy, and not every pregnancy is textbook.
So you kinda prove my point.
You were to term, by count back you could determine rough conception date. Either know or not care about any post conception pre delivery light periods (and they will be lighter than normal) or spotting. So you'd have a target date for a potential bio father.
What your obs/gyn predicted during pregnancy is irrelevant at birth, because you have all the data at birth i.e. level of neonate development and delivery weight. There's no more need for prediction. Pediatricians can be pretty variable during pregnancy but are pretty accurate once they have the living breathing infant to look over.
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.
