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.
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.
I see you keep on comparing apples to oranges. I also see you refused to answer couple of very simple questions.
YOUR situation and the example you listed above HAVE absolutely NOTHING TO DO with this situation.
Here, let's do it this way
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 If she chooses some random ex-boyfriend from years ago and the address is no longer valid, he will not receive the summons and a default judgement will be issued when he doesn’t show up to court.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.
There is no way I don't know I have a house I need to pay; there is no way I don't know I have a loan I need to pay. So quit playing games.
If the debt is a result of identity theft, then no, no one needs to pay just because court says so. Duh.
This is why law needs updating, that is why people are discussing this case HOPING law will be just and fair in the future.
And you keep ignoring the facts...
Most states, I know mine does for sure, will establish paternity before a judge will sign a child support order.
I think at the first hint of a wage garnishment, he should start making phone calls and figuring out what is going on so he can get a paternity test.
He should not have to pay if it is established early on that he is not in fact the parent. Now if he ignored the garnishment and stuck his head in the sand until the problem ballooned many years later, then I think he should have to pay, because he did not contest it, and put the ownership back on the mother to find the bio father.
(Most states do have laws that establish paternity before a child support order is signed by a judge. I had to establish paternity with a dead guy to get social security, so even the federal government is big on establishing paternity.)
Yes, I agree with you that he should have corrected the error a long time ago. But something is telling me that there is more to the story. Be completely honest, it looks like this poor fellow did not know that his wage has been garnished, which is the strange part.
Once the DNA proves the child is not biologically his, he should be immediately off the hook.
This is the example of nice guys finish last. Period.
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.
I agree that he should've immediately ordered a DNA paternity test, but I don't agree with the "opinion" that he deserved what he got.
I agree that the DNA test should have exempted him from FUTURE payments, but he really should have to figure out a way to pay the arrears because he never stepped up and said he was NOT this child's father, yet he also didn't pay support that the state ordered him to pay.
The money has to come from somewhere because there's a kid here that needs to be provided for.
And, all he had to do was ask why his wages were garnished nearly 16 years ago and ask for a DNA test.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
I'm confused, you are saying his paycheck was garnished for years, then you say that you question if child support was being deducted????
Given the information that we know so far, he had three paycheck deductions, years ago for $33 each and we don't know if he admits that or if it's a claim the state is making.
Most states, I know mine does for sure, will establish paternity before a judge will sign a child support order.
sigh. LOL @ fact
YOU keep on bringing up YOU and every single mom you know as some kind of "fact" I don't doubt your words, but..
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.
Please forget about YOUR situation for a second, and focus on this case and the above link, things need to change in order to protect both parties especially the children, law needs updating in order to be fair and just.
Come on now. Even you can't deny that bold black is unfair to say the least. Yes, I still believe MOST men have no problems raising children who are biologically theirs, no one should be forced to be financially responsible for a child who is not biologically theirs especially when he is the victim of paternity fraud (Not implying this woman deceived him on purpose)
It's much easier than it is if your not a single parent. The fact is a custodial parent has resources to care for their kids a custodial does not. If mom loses her job and is in a financial bind they don't take the kids and jail her they give her some assistance. Not so for the non custodial.
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.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Ok so let's say you defaulted on a loan you were court ordered to pay 16 years ago. Your check was garnished for a little while, but you never bothered to contest or inquire about the amount being taken every week. Many years later the amount owed has ballooned to a huge sum. Do you really think you should be let off the hook for the debt, after you failed to question the amount many years ago? He failed to take care of his business and just let it go. That is his issue and no ones fault but his own.
...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?
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...
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.
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.
