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.
The gubmint never pays for anything. The gubmint produces nothing and makes no money. All they have it what they steal from us. WE are the ones paying for the moochers to mooch!
It would still amount to one more person on welfare which either takes money away from being used elsewhere or requires taxes to be raised, which wouldn't be popular. So either way the government would surelt prefer to force an individual to take on the responsibility.
Child support is supposedly for the benefit of the child. In this case that child is now 28 years old! And it's not his. And the mother committed fraud, This judge's ruling is beyond asinine.
I saw a case like this on one of those Daytime Court shows.
In a moment of anger, the man's wife had insinuated the 5 year old child that he had raised so far and loved was not his. They divorced, and she took him to court for child support. It was proven that the child indeed was not his biological child.
The judged ruled the father needed to pay the support. Although it seems unfair, and the wife had indeed cheated, lied and hurt everyone in the small family, he was still for all intents and purposes the only father the child had known. Surely the child does not deserve to be punished. The child did nothing to fool anyone.
The judged had asked the man if he loved the child, and his answer was of course I do. I dont know if I would have had I known it was not mine, but believing it was mine, I love it as my own.
The judge had asked does the child love you, and his answer was yes it does.
Since the child was not a baby, it was then brought into the courtroom by the bailiff, and upon seeing its 'father', let go of the bailiffs hand and ran right up to him and grabbed his leg smiling. It did not run to its mother, but its 'father'.
The judge pointed down to the child, smiled and said, although I do not condone this mothers behavior, how could anyone seeing this say this not your child?
I think in the case I saw the judge made the perfect ruling. The 'father' now has court ordered visitation as well as child support.
DNA tests are cheap now. $30 at the hospital where I work to prove paternity (at least when the child is born there). There is no reason for any man to blindly accept he is someone's father, if the idea that he might not be is of concern to either him or his family.
I saw a similar case, however the judge on this show pulled a good one on cheating Mom. He decided that since this man had been good enough to be the child's father for so many years he could decide if he wanted to fight to have custody. Dad decided he wanted custody, so Mom now found herself fighting the biological non-Dad for custody. Dad won, and Mom now pays child support to biological non-Dad and gets visitation.
Child support is supposedly for the benefit of the child. In this case that child is now 28 years old! And it's not his. And the mother committed fraud, This judge's ruling is beyond asinine.
Honestly the fact that not that many family court judges in instances like this get found dead a week later surprises me.
Anything just so long as the government doesn't have to pay for it, eh?
Yes, that's basically the law and it's pretty much an archaic one. Still it's on the books and men have to be careful if they find themselves in this type of situation and don't want to be held responsible for paying child support for a child they no longer have anything to do with in any other way.
From the response just on this thread alone the way people are blaming the judge for upholding a law for which she herself did not make and has no choice but to uphold, it's pretty obvious that many are unaware that this is the law in Family Court and can happen to anyone. It often does. Why this particular case and this particular judge is being brought to the Media attention is the only odd thing about this case.
Yes, that's basically the law and it's pretty much an archaic one. Still it's on the books and men have to be careful if they find themselves in this type of situation and don't want to be held responsible for paying child support for a child they no longer have anything to do with in any other way.
From the response just on this thread alone the way people are blaming the judge for upholding a law for which she herself did not make and has no choice but to uphold, it's pretty obvious that many are unaware that this is the law in Family Court and can happen to anyone. It often does. Why this particular case and this particular judge is being brought to the Media attention is the only odd thing about this case.
The judge overturned his debt to the mother so I admit to being confused as to why she didn't overturn the one to the state. Is it not her jurisdiction?
There wasn't much of a story at that link.
The only way I see this is possible is if the guy took in the mother and child and they were living with him, he and the mom broke up and now the mom can't support herself and her child.
It sure sounds fishy but with the way the courts are getting so PC, Liberal, Soft on Criminals and Whacky I'm not surprised by this.
Instead of turning this story into a whining partisan snivel-fest, you could have spent about 30 seconds googling. Had you, you would have seen that by law this man had three years to challenge the ruling that he was the father of this child. He never bothered.
Three years.
Instead, he blew it off and ignored the problem for over two decades. And now, to get out of the predicament he let fester for decades, he wants the court system to waive the three year limit for challenges to such rulings.
You know what's hilarious? That you attribute this ruling to courts being - and I quote - "Soft on Criminals" when, in fact, this guy is a career criminal. If you'd informed yourself, you'd see that he's an ex-con who has been to court more than a dozen times since he was ruled the father of this child. You'd see that he knew about the order that he was the father of the child in question way back in the early 1990s. And he never bothered to do a thing about it.
Now he wants the law to make a special exception for him. Got it? You're complaining that the courts are soft on criminals in the context of a case in which the court refuses to be soft on a criminal.
Instead of turning this story into a whining partisan snivel-fest, you could have spent about 30 seconds googling. Had you, you would have seen that by law this man had three years to challenge the ruling that he was the father of this child. He never bothered.
Three years.
Instead, he blew it off and ignored the problem for over two decades. And now, to get out of the predicament he let fester for decades, he wants the court system to waive the three year limit for challenges to such rulings.
You know what's hilarious? That you attribute this ruling to courts being - and I quote - "Soft on Criminals" when, in fact, this guy is a career criminal. If you'd informed yourself, you'd see that he's an ex-con who has been to court more than a dozen times since he was ruled the father of this child. You'd see that he knew about the order that he was the father of the child in question way back in the early 1990s. And he never bothered to do a thing about it.
Now he wants the law to make a special exception for him. Got it? You're complaining that the courts are soft on criminals in the context of a case in which the court refuses to be soft on a criminal.
He says while he may not have filed a certain motion required by the bureaucratic court system, he did make sure Friend of the Court workers and judges on the case knew he was not this child’s father, had never been in the child’s life, and didn’t want to be held responsible.
“Every court appearance that she said I made, I made it clear to them I was not the father of this child,” said Alexander.
He couldn't afford an attorney and didn't know what to do and did the best he could.
The courts get away with this stuff because people let them get away with it. If more people took the law into their own hands stuff like this would be far less likely to happen. I could see this ending badly if it happened to me. Let's hope it never does.
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.
