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.
My bad I thought I remembered several of your posts about receiving FS or gov. assistance.
There is section 8 housing and other rent subsidies, food stamps, and a mirage of services out there for custodial parents with low incomes. So if lets say, mom, loses her job, is between jobs, for whatever reason falls short financially there is assistance to cover the gap. On the other hand if non custodial parent is in the same situation there is no assistance to cover the gap. Lets say, he, is still held to pay whatever X amount of dollars which could be 10x what he is currently earning plus he is getting behind on his rent, utilities, etc. and it keeps spiraling until he is jailed.
Okay then let's say the custodial parent is not low income enough to qualify for any of these programs, but does count on the child support to help support the child for things like daycare or expensive medical care. The parent that pays child support should make sure the child's needs are covered first, which is done by paying child support. Good parents put their children ahead of their own needs all the time.
In this thread //www.city-data.com/forum/perso...uying-car.html you've boasted about how low your mortgage is, that you can easily afford to pay cash for your $45K car, and that you've spent $500,000 on vehicles over the past 20 years.
I'd say it's a good thing if you don't get assistance as that's meant for people who are in need, not for those who drive (and destroy) expensive cars.
Well assistance is based on income and not assets...so really I could drive a $500k car and still qualify for food stamps if my income is low enough, which starting this week...it probably is. I just was lucky enough to be dropped to a $13k annual salary...
Seriously, I'm amazed at the attitude that this guy should've done nothing, and even though he paid something and had no clue why he was paying it, or so he claims, he only contested this when the back support became a lot of money.
He sounds kinda slack.
Exactly. His check was garnished for years. I know what every line item is on my pay stub. I would question if child support was being deducted.
So, they were dating. She had a kid she thought was his. They started garnishing his wages years ago and he never questioned it.
He finally up and decided he wanted a paternity test and this test proved he's not the father.
Here's where he messed up... he didn't go right in immediately and ask for that test.
To the state, this demonstrated that he believed himself to be the father and that he was willing to pay child support.
It's his own fault for not getting this checked out right away. Nobody can say she was trying to pull a fast one, because she may well have believed he was the father.
And, ultimately, the child still needs care.
Men? If you are with a woman and you are not married to her, you need to get a DNA test if you don't want to pay child support. Period.
I'd rep you but I have to spread the love.
His mistake was taking on responsibility for the child. Once you do that you can't go back unless there is another man willing to adopt the child and take on that responsibility.
2. In 2003, a child support court in Texas ruled that the man had to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend, who had recently given birth, because she vowed there was no way he wasn’t the rightful dad.
3. He soon met the minor for the first and only time — describing her as a “wonderful girl” — but after taking a DNA test, learned she was not his after all.
It looks like he never established a father-daughter relationship with the child; it also looks like he has never paid child support.
"His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, 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."
Money was taken from his check and he did not contest it. That right there is what establishes parental responsibility in this situation.
In 2003, a child support court in Texas ruled that Gabriel Cornejo, 45, had to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend, who had recently given birth, because she vowed there was no way he wasn’t the rightful dad.
Cornejo, who is currently raising three children of his own and two nephews, claimed he was not made aware of this and only found out about the child support payments last year when a deputy served him with court papers claiming that the state of Texas lists him as having another child. He soon met the minor for the first and only time — describing her as a “wonderful girl” — but after taking a DNA test, learned she was not his after all.
She is still after him for child support, why? She is still after him for child support because of deeply flawed law.
"His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, 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."
He states he was never made aware of any CS actions, so I presume that CS either did not deduct payments from him, there was no such action or he's lying. But the only person stating he had wage deductions the same person who *vowed there was no way he wasn’t the rightful dad. So suspect liar vs. known liar (whether or not it was intentional it was lying).
Now it's real simple to figure out if CS deducted payments, it's easy to figure out if they were made against him, and it's easy to see if he actually made them. So we needn't jump to conclusions.
His entire defense is he didn't know there was any CS demands and he was not the father (either genetically or by relationship). Tomorrow someone could make the same claim against you (subject to genitalia) or any male relative, would you presume they were responsible? Would you expect them to pay 10s of thousands of back payments? Or would you wait until it's figured out?
The child support office has records of wage deductions and I am sure the lawyer has verified those before building a case around that key piece of evidence.
If a man helps to raise a child, and later discovers the child is not his own, it is certainly grounds for divorce, and should relieve him of responsibility for child support payments.
I think it should be as simple as that.
in California, a child conceived during marriage is rebuttably presumed to be the man's child. This presumption can only be rebutted with DNA or other evidence for the first TWO years after birth, after which the man, father of the child or not, is on the hook for paying for the child until it is 18 years old and in some cases older. So if two years and one month after the birth of the child you find out that your wife had an affair and the child is probably not yours - too bad; you are too late.
add: I am not saying she "knowing deceived" him, The key phrase is "knowingly deceive". Good intentions or otherwise, it's wrong to mislead.
A little off topic here, I'm sure a father who has raised a child as his own would not stop loving the child if he were to find out after years that they weren't biologically related (at least in most cases). But strictly speaking on moral grounds, he would have been living a lie believing his child to be his own even biologically (though he still wouldn't stop being a father in so many ways). I think the implications of such a lie can shatter relationships to a great extent even when people don't want it to. In that sense such an act should be discouraged.
This is one of the reasons I believe a man should NOT be legally obligated to pay child support if he finds out the child does not belong to him biologically. He should be given an option to stay in that child's life. The last thing you want is a paying man who doesn't want anything to do with a child.
But courts are not apt to orphan children, which is why the laws are written as they are currently.
My first marriage was exactly the same as you post. I was 6 months pregnant when we married. Child was 3 when we filed for divorce. He was not the bio parent, but he was the presumed parent on the birth certificate. He was ordered to pay child support. Eventually he stopped paying and seeing her and I was fine with that. But the judge had the opinion if he was going to play the dad, he was going to pay like a dad. I do not disagree with this philosophy.
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.
I'd rep you but I have to spread the love.
