Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-26-2017, 12:28 AM
 
10,196 posts, read 9,882,691 times
Reputation: 24135

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss20ts View Post
It's called incentive to keep your pants on or use 10 different kinds of protection.
But it's bad for husbands who are intending to parent. If any time later the woman says "psych you aren't the father" you lose all parental rights and don't get and back money spent on the kid. And the. She can sue the bio dad for all the back years of child support when her husband was supporting the child and he will have to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2017, 03:46 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,914 posts, read 2,687,743 times
Reputation: 2450
Tom Leykis has talked a lot about the State of Washington where if you live with a chick and her son for a certain amount of time or marry and then divorce her then you can be on the hook for child support. Insane laws!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 06:07 AM
 
Location: Central IL
20,726 posts, read 16,363,404 times
Reputation: 50379
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird View Post
Texas has some really messed up and complicated paternity laws...the guy is almost always screwed no matter what in Texas.
I'm amazed...maybe it's the state's way of paying back because the women are screwed when it comes to abortion rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
296 posts, read 644,643 times
Reputation: 349
Crazy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Houston area
836 posts, read 1,119,704 times
Reputation: 1856
This is crazy! Somebody needs to change the law. For him to have to pay $65,000 because the dumb woman can't remember who she slept with??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 12:15 PM
 
17,569 posts, read 13,344,160 times
Reputation: 33007
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGirlNow View Post
This is the definition of injustice. Makes me ashamed to be a woman. The state of Texas is turning this man's life into a nightmare. A damn shame.
Amen!

What a crock of crap!

What kind of law is that? Texas must have some very strange laws on the books

NYP, I wonder if ths is real of fake news????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in America
15,479 posts, read 15,618,351 times
Reputation: 28463
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird View Post
But it's bad for husbands who are intending to parent. If any time later the woman says "psych you aren't the father" you lose all parental rights and don't get and back money spent on the kid. And the. She can sue the bio dad for all the back years of child support when her husband was supporting the child and he will have to pay.
Simple solution...get a paternity test at birth. Problem solved!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in America
15,479 posts, read 15,618,351 times
Reputation: 28463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyrallnamestaken View Post
This is crazy! Somebody needs to change the law. For him to have to pay $65,000 because the dumb woman can't remember who she slept with??
He caused much of this himself! He was served court documents and ignored them years ago. There was a garnishment from his paycheck for child support because he didn't show up in court. He probably changed jobs and the garnishment stopped because he didn't notify the courts he had a new job. This has been sitting in legal limbo for years. He could have 100% prevented this entire mess by showing up to court and having a paternity test done. He didn't both so he's on the hook. Here's a tip....don't EVER ignore a court summons! It will ALWAYS bite you in the behind later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
5,104 posts, read 4,832,669 times
Reputation: 3636
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I strongly suspect that there is information missing in this story.

In Texas, this is how this works. A child is born to an unwed mother, and she can choose to name a dad on the birth certificate or decline to name the dad. If she names the father, and then goes on to apply for welfare benefits, the state comes after the Dad for child support. If she hasn't named him on the birth certificate, but applies for welfare, she has that chance to name him at that time. He will get served with a summons to appear for DNA testing. If he either actively refuses to do that, or he makes himself impossible to find or ignores the summons, he can be "defaulted" as the father. (Or, as I've heard a lawyer say in court, then "default his ass"). That is, a man who refuses to DNA test and refuses court requests can legally be declared the father on the word of the mother. So you don't get baby daddies just running from the paternity test.

And then child support payments begin to accrue.

My guess is, he'll be forgiven this debt so all this whining about being forced to pay for a child that isn't his is really disingenuous. It's not going to happen.

But it is a cautionary tale, about men who ignore that the courts are asking for proof of paternity from them.

Interestingly, the way the article is written, he didn't at first know he wasn't the father of the child. It took the DNA test to reassure him of that. So he COULD have been the father of the child, and the mother may well have believed he was. It's not like they hadn't had sex, which is what the article seems to be trying to imply.

I'm sure laws vary in different states, but to my knowledge in CT it's a little different. First if the couple is married the father is assumed to be the child's natural father. If the couple is unmarried a DNA test is ordered. If the test comes back negative I don't know what happens.

I would assume a lot of these cases of "I'm not the baby's daddy" are actually cases in which the couple was previously married.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2017, 05:30 PM
 
17,298 posts, read 22,030,713 times
Reputation: 29643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campfires View Post
What a country!

Man ordered to pay $65K in child support for kid who isn’t his | New York Post



I cannot even begin to understand the gall of the ex-girlfriend. She may not be able spell entitlement but she sure knows what it is.
Courts: Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian's ex-wife says their daughter, 3, needs $320,000 a month - LA Times

Kirk Kevorkian (billionaire) is paying child support on a kid later to find out it isn't even his!

Ex-wife wanted to increase it to 320K a month!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top