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.
Now how in God's name is that not deliberately misleading the court? The only possible father? Did she forget that she had sex with another man? How likely is that when you're standing in court talking about who could be the father of your child?
This is why I said that so many people seem to be trying to make excuses for what this woman did. It's disgusting.
Because it's pretty easy to have sex with two men and think the other cannot be the father due to the timing of when you believe you got pregnant.
Quite easy. I'm willing to bet that unless she just blatantly lied about this, she had her period and was pregnant when she had it.
I know way too many women who had periods early in their pregnancies. I even know a couple who were lead to believe a different guy was the father of the baby because of it.
One of them was a woman who dated this guy she was really crazy about for a long time and they were engaged. They had a big breakup and she had her period, then she got together with an ex and they started dating and moved to another country, where she then found out she was pregnant. She and the new guy were making plans to marry and she thought he was the father.
Her child was born and they found out it wasn't his kid.
And, no... she wasn't messing around on the side because the guy who WAS the father was in a different country and she had no access to him.
I know another who had a period for the first 3 months of her pregnancy. She had no clue she was pregnant until month 4 when she saw her obgyn because her period was late. She was married and had only been with her husband, but if she'd dated a guy 4 months prior, broken up with him, and had started to see another guy right shortly after her breakup, she would have thought the last guy was the father, and he would not have been.
It happens. Women don't magically know who the father is when periods are irregular and dates are far enough apart that they feel safe in presuming to know which man is the father.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Well we know that intentionally or unintentionally the woman lied. Read the ABC13 report posted further up. It's suggested he was served, but not proven. Well duh! If it's not proven why is the burden of proof so low as to accept suggest? Also why isn't it proven? Aren't papers supposed to be served, to the named party, by a process server, who were they, where did they serve, do they recognize the "father". You can't assume that it happened if you have no proof.
Suppose we just accept suggest, well maybe your bank records suggest you're involved in money laundering. Here's a felony award and the grand prize of 5 years free board and lodgings.
The lawyer of the plaintiff claims he paid by payroll deduction, but he claims otherwise. Again isn't there a record, from CS, Employers, Banks? Wouldn't that be good information to present, if you have it? Again don't claim show.
Arguments of ignorance don't wash either, when the child was born they would have high confidence whether it was to term, or preemy. If preemy by how much (a month, 2 months, more). Simple count back determines rough conception date. Then only a complete idiot would stand up in court no less and "vowed there was no way he wasn’t the rightful dad." If they had a different partner within a couple of weeks of that conception date. Hello! Court, Judge in Robes... Forget claiming irregular periods either, if she was irregular she'd have known (because she would have experienced them) and should have allowed for that before making the original statement. Responsibility applies to both, and apparently she wasn't irresponsible (or was just lucky) with this guy, nor was he.
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.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
How can they take the kids from the non custodial parent? That parent isn't providing for them every day and they don't live with that parent.
The non custodial parent is free to move in with family, find some roommates, do whatever it takes to make some money that they can use part of to help care for their children.
And, that is what they should be doing. They don't have a whole house full of kids to take care of, unless they have kids from some other partner and if they do, this is calculated out in the support agreement and they're also eligible for assistance.
I think your missing the point. Do you deny that if both custodial parent and non custodial lose their income the custodial parent can get assistance for housing, food, clothing, etc for the kids until finances improve. At the same time the non custodial is still held accountable for the CS payments thought he lost his income. There is no safety net to help his financial burden of supporting his kids. Child services does not come and arrest the custodial parent because she doesn't have 400$ that month to buy food for the kids, they sign her up for FS.
And they can suspend visitation for non support. And sure everyone that just lost their job can immediately sell their house, break their lease to move in with family (we all have family willing to take us in at the drop of a hat, right), or find a roommate. And guess what, you dont have your own place with sleeping arrangements for your kid, no visitation.
Anyway we are not saying the non custodial isnt trying to earn money to help with the kids, he can not pay the court $400 dollars this month. That is non payment of child support, he will be summoned to court, he could be jailed. Meanwhile mom gets government assistance because she doesnt have 400$ this month.
I use he/she but it is a custodial vs non custodial issue not a gender one. And for the record I am not in anyway suggesting anyone get a pass on paying their child support just pointing out the difference in the way the system handles loss of income and supporting your kids between CP and NCP.
Tt is also a fairly common issue that arises when a child is born out of wedlock and the mother applies for state aid, such as welfare. Agencies typically require that the mother list someone as the father, which automatically opens a support case against them to offset the amount of aid the state will have to pay.
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.
Not all states do it that way, thank goodness. They require that the father be contacted before issuing any sort of judgment in a paternity case. This should be how it works all the time.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Not all states do it that way, thank goodness. They require that the father be contacted before issuing any sort of judgment in a paternity case. This should be how it works all the time.
well, if the guy KNEW his wages were garnished at one point and did not correct the error somehow, it was his mistake. I agree.
However, this is where law needs updating.
According to this article,
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.
The "mother does not have to prove who the father is; she simply must list someone and provide an address" part needs to change.
In my opinion, the man needs to sign a legal document before they garnished his wage to avoid the change of address situation. If the guy is proven to be the bio father, then he should pay ALL back child support even if he has changed his address. But if the guy could prove he wasn't the bio father through DNA test, then no one should after him for the so called back child support. It should as simple as that.
Just because court says he owes money, doesn't make it true. Do you pay credit card debt of a result of identity theft?
Most states that I know of, take who she lists and they order DNA paternity tests to establish who the parents are prior to ordering any child support.
Which is the next part...To establish child support, the judge takes the income from both people to figure out how much should be paid. This was done in court for me, each and every time, with everyone present. How did he not know this? A judge could not have just pulled his income amount of of thin air.
...let's say you DIDNT default on that same loan. Because $30 bucks was fraudulently garnished from your check years ago and you didn't drop thousands of dollars on a lawyer to contest it, you now owe 65k? And that would be on you, right?
That's crazy logic.
Fraudulent garnishment is something that a state cannot do. If they do it, they should make amends.
I doubt any state is going to fraudulently garnish wages. He let this slip and that's how it happened.
He probably knew his wages were being garnished originally. Pretty hard to miss money taken out of a paycheck. Most people know how much they are supposed to get paid and miss that money when it is not there.
If he's rolling in so much cash that he'd never miss garnished money, he can pay 65k, and move on.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Not all states do it that way, thank goodness. They require that the father be contacted before issuing any sort of judgment in a paternity case. This should be how it works all the time.
But contact usually means that a subpoena is mailed to the father's address, and they get the address from the mother. In California my son's girlfriend applied for welfare WHILE he was living with her and supporting their son. Welfare had DCSS (child support) open a case against him, they mailed the subpoenas to the address she provided (her friend's address) the case was settled by default with a judgment against him for support for a child he was living with and supporting, he knew NOTHING about it. The court failed to file a judgment against his wages so he only found out when DMV was going to suspend his license for non payment of child support.
Most states that I know of, take who she lists and they order DNA paternity tests to establish who the parents are prior to ordering any child support.
Which is the next part...To establish child support, the judge takes the income from both people to figure out how much should be paid. This was done in court for me, each and every time, with everyone present. How did he not know this? A judge could not have just pulled his income amount of of thin air.
well, I have already said, I agree with you he should have corrected the error a long time ago.
However, to be fair and honest, there is something missing in this story.
It looks like (according to one article) the woman and her lawyer said at one point, his wages had been garnished; obviously, this fellow did not know.
I am not a lawyer, but my brother is one. A lawyer won't just say things unless they have prove. So if the lawyer said his wages had been garnished at one point, he/she must have evidences to prove that.
The article is not clear on this part. I've read several articles of the same story online, not every article says the woman has a lawyer, one article says SHE claimed his wages had been garnished at one point, that is it.
All these said, nothing changes the fact that law needs updating.
According to you the non custodial should put providing for his kids above all else, CS should be the very first expense and you should never fall behind in feeding them until your finances improve. But you as a custodial parent admit you dont have to sell your $500K car or liquidate your assets to feed your kids because you can qualify for food stamps to provide for the kids if your income drops. Not so for the non custodial. This is what I'm talking about.
There are those of us who are not on food stamps and would not qualify for them based on our income and if the noncustodial parent didn't pay child support, we'd have to alter our lifestyles (and by extension, our kids' lifestyles) to make up for the shortfall.
I know this because I never got child support from my ex husband for our 3 kids and I can tell you that if I had, I'm quite certain I would have had a different lifestyle when they were little.
He, however, never had to alter his. At all.
I didn't fight it because my kids had a good life, despite his petty crap.
Not all women can afford to do this, though. If a woman needs government assistance when the father stops paying, she doesn't have the luxury of just choosing to live a bit more modest lifestyle, knowing she can still cover her bills and provide a good life for the kids with his help. That mom is someone who may wind up homeless with kids and without the help of the dad who isn't paying.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
