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.
Also, the state is the party coming after him to get this money. I'd lay odds the mom has been collecting AFDC for 16 years and they want to recoup some of that loss.
I don't think so, mom hired her own attorney- she'd have no reason to do that if the state was going to recoup the money
"His ex-girlfriend's lawyer, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo's paycheck several years ago and he didn't contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago. "Don't stick your head in the sand because it's not going to go away," Stith told local news. "There can be consequences even if you don't do anything."
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.
Of course the custodial parent is entitled to benefits... FOR THE CHILDREN.
The NCP can also go before the court, explain their financial hardship situation, and not wind up in jail if they are making every reasonable effort to find work, or better work, or more work.
I know a few guys who have had to do this and it has turned out well, with them agreeing to pay a modest amount until they get back on their feet and then going back to the original amount and/or having it adjusted if the man's new career makes a good deal less money and is the best available work option for him that is available.
Now, if a man is a CEO earning a seven-figure income, he cannot just up and decide to become a garbage collector without some eyebrows being raised, but a man who was a college professor who cannot find work and has to take a job teaching high school for less money and teach a couple of adjunct college courses on the side until his situation improves isn't going to be treated by the courts like someone attempting to punish his ex and his kids via lowering their household income.
The important point here is to notify the courts and to demonstrate that you're doing your best to provide.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
But, it did not take him 16 years to find this out.
Which is why I find this story rather dubious.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I don't think so, mom hired her own attorney- she'd have no reason to do that if the state was going to recoup the money
"His ex-girlfriend's lawyer, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo's paycheck several years ago and he didn't contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago. "Don't stick your head in the sand because it's not going to go away," Stith told local news. "There can be consequences even if you don't do anything."
That's weird. Why go after a guy you know isn't the father?
Unless... unless he agreed to pay child support.
Which, if he agreed and they were both in agreement that he was this child's father and the woman now needs this money, I guess I can see why she wants it.
It's not something I would do, though. He's not the child's biological father.
I wouldn't REFUND any money paid, but I would not ask for more.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
According to the rules listed on that pdf for Texas, there's no way he could not have known.
Unless Texas screwed something up.
Don't think anybody screwed up but the guy. DH had to with hold wages for child support for several employees. It was sent to the state of Texas who forwarded it to the mom. The withheld salary was reflected on the check stub.
According to the rules listed on that pdf for Texas, there's no way he could not have known.
Unless Texas screwed something up.
They don't require DNA testing though, it's bizarre - they can establish paternity by affidavit of the mother, if the father wants to contest it he has 60 days. If he wants to challenge it after that the challenge will be denied if a support order has been issued, but there's nothing in the law requiring that the father had knowledge of the support order
So, apparently his ability to challenge this will depend entirely upon whether he was ever served the support order. If the employer didn't serve him with that, but just garnished his wages then he might have a chance to appeal it.
But, it did not take him 16 years to find this out.
Which is why I find this story rather dubious.
Yes I can agree with this.
People can argue that this guy messed up, yes, I agree. But I certainly don't agree with the opinion that he deserved what he got.
I think this is where law needs updating. I think the man should be given the option to stay in that child's life or not, There should not be any legal or financial obligation to force him to stay in that child's life if the child is not biologically his. (especially he has been misled at one point.) Most loving fathers will choose to step up anyway.
Laws govern conduct at least partly through fear of punishment. Morality, when it is internalized, when it has become habit-like or second nature, governs conduct without compulsion.
I don't think any men should be LEGALLY and FINANCIALLY responsible for a child who is not biologically his, especially when he is the victim of paternity fraud. (Not implying this woman deceived him on purpose.)
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.
I realize this but that does not nullify what I said and we are talking about inability to pay not just refual to pay.
And that scenario would also apply to a married couple. When your financial situation takes a dive you do have to alter your lifestyle but when/if it comes down to it a family can get assistance to offset the loss of support for the kids, custodial parent can get assistance to offset the loss of support for the kids, a non custodial parent is still held fully responsible for that loss of income, there is no assistance. Spouses nor custodial parents are taken to court nor jailed in debtors prison for not having the capital to purchase food that month or pay the utility bill.
People can argue that this guy messed up, yes, I agree. But I certainly don't agree with the opinion that he deserved what he got.
I think this is where law needs updating. I think the man should be given the option to stay in that child's life or not, There should not be any legal or financial obligation to force him to stay in that child's life if the child is not biologically his. (especially he has been misled at one point.) Most loving fathers will choose to step up anyway.
Laws govern conduct at least partly through fear of punishment. Morality, when it is internalized, when it has become habit-like or second nature, governs conduct without compulsion.
I don't think any men should be LEGALLY and FINANCIALLY responsible for a child who is not biologically his, especially when he is the victim of paternity fraud. (Not implying this woman deceived him on purpose.)
Not unless he agreed to care for the child as his own (as is the case with men who are living with or married to the mother of a child they know not to be theirs, and the couple later separates or divorces).
I agree with you on that.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
That's weird. Why go after a guy you know isn't the father?
Unless... unless he agreed to pay child support.
Which, if he agreed and they were both in agreement that he was this child's father and the woman now needs this money, I guess I can see why she wants it.
It's not something I would do, though. He's not the child's biological father.
I wouldn't REFUND any money paid, but I would not ask for more.
You would not say
there was no way he wasn’t the father
either. This woman did.
I am not saying this woman purposely deceived him or the court, I will give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was naive. Maybe she is the type of woman who believes you won't get pregnant if you have sex standing up lol But I DO question her credibility. Unfortunately, law does not ALWAYS punish a potential or a real liar. sometimes, nice guys finish last.
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.
