Man ordered to pay $65K in child support for kid who isn’t his (income, banks)
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 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.
Bingo. And this is exactly had the court system sees the case.
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.
If the money has to come from somewhere, why don't you pay it?
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.
Man ordered to pay $65K in child support for kid who isn’t his | New York Post
It doesn't add up. He says he never knew about it and this happened back in 2003? Could it be that they only took a little bit out of his paycheck so he never noticed it? How else could he have never noticed it? Why didn't he notice it? Why didn't he receive a notice about this too? Didn't a court or a sheriff ever tell him? That's fishy.
If it's true that he never received notice and only a tiny bit of money was taken out, so little that he never even noticed it, then that COULD be a possible reason why he never asked for a DNA test.
Now they're coming for the rest of the money? The $65K? Is that what's happening? It's not clear in the story.
That law that says men are responsible for paying child support until the DNA report establishes paternity is wrong, imo. That's a separate issue. A woman could use it to get money from some innocent man even when she knows that he isn't the father. Whether or not she knows who the father is, no man should have to pay until paternity is established. But if a man IS the father, payment should be retroactive.
I'm really surprised that any state would do this. I mean, usually a man is named as the father and then they are contacted and told they are being named and they can either agree that they're the father or they can ask for a DNA test (most will do the latter). I know someone who works in family services and this is how it works legally in North Carolina.
Prior to the establishment of paternity, either by the father signing off on it and agreeing that he's the father or by the DNA test establishing paternity, the mother will be eligible for AFDC and other benefits if her income is low enough to qualify for those benefits.
Once they know who the father is, they'll turn to him to pay back some of the AFDC benefit (recoup the loss) and they'll look for him to be making regular child support payments that are set by the courts.
I've never heard of a mother naming a man as the father, the court never telling him, the courts somehow garnishing his wages and him not knowing he's under garnishment (that's against the law), or a court requiring a person who has never been informed of any of the aforementioned to pay back support.
It's weird. There's something not being reported.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
I am saying "I" would know if child support was being taken out of my check. He should have been aware also.
But the entire thing would have been avoided if he had just brought the issue up when his paycheck was garnished, however many years ago. That was the time to rectify it and he didn't.
So if you do not think he should have to pay, who do you think should?
The mother thought he was the father for all these years, so she only pursued child support from him.
The bio dad is unknown, and child support cannot be collected for the past, prior to the filing date for the child support order. So he would only be responsible for the next 2 years.
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.
Yes, I completely agree with you.
The only strange part in the story is that he claimed he didn't know his wages were garnished nearly 16 years ago.
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.
If there was a garnishment why did it stop after three deductions from his paychecks for $31 each? Depending on his income, and whether or not he received overtime I can make a case for why he wouldn't have even researched three $31 deductions. Years ago my overtime would fluctuate from paycheck to paycheck and since the withholding rate was higher on overtime I would just look at my net and 'guesstimate' whether it was right, I didn't go through my check stub to confirm a $20 or $30 variation."
"Court records indicate that Cornejo’s paystubs at a previous car dealership job showed three garnishments of $31 from each check. Cornejo’s lawyer said that his client never received any letter from the state of Texas informing him about the garnishments. ‘There were three garnishments of $31 each when he worked at a dealership. He’s never gotten a letter from the state of Texas,” Coleman said. “At issue is he’s still not the father.” Nobody is disputing that. The mother is not disputing that."Paternity test proves man is NOT the father, ordered to pay child support regardless – Crime Online
He was never served the original court subpoena
“I’ve researched the records and found that there is an issue with the service where they served him back in 2002. There are some anomalies with how this case handled by the attorney general’s office. He was never served with those documents in 2002 when the actual paternity petition was filed against him.” Texas Man Ordered To Pay $65k Child Support For Child That Isn't His
I'm really surprised that any state would do this. I mean, usually a man is named as the father and then they are contacted and told they are being named and they can either agree that they're the father or they can ask for a DNA test (most will do the latter). I know someone who works in family services and this is how it works legally in North Carolina.
Prior to the establishment of paternity, either by the father signing off on it and agreeing that he's the father or by the DNA test establishing paternity, the mother will be eligible for AFDC and other benefits if her income is low enough to qualify for those benefits.
Once they know who the father is, they'll turn to him to pay back some of the AFDC benefit (recoup the loss) and they'll look for him to be making regular child support payments that are set by the courts.
I've never heard of a mother naming a man as the father, the court never telling him, the courts somehow garnishing his wages and him not knowing he's under garnishment (that's against the law), or a court requiring a person who has never been informed of any of the aforementioned to pay back support.
But the entire thing would have been avoided if he had just brought the issue up when his paycheck was garnished, however many years ago. That was the time to rectify it and he didn't.
So if you do not think he should have to pay, who do you think should?
The mother thought he was the father for all these years, so she only pursued child support from him.
The bio dad is unknown, and child support cannot be collected for the past, prior to the filing date for the child support order. So he would only be responsible for the next 2 years.
Who should pay the support for the last 16 years?
well, if the guy KNEW his wages were garnished at one point and did not correct the error somehow, it was his mistake. I agree.
However, this is where law needs updating.
According to this article,
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.
The "mother does not have to prove who the father is; she simply must list someone and provide an address" part needs to change.
In my opinion, the man needs to sign a legal document before they garnished his wage to avoid the change of address situation. If the guy is proven to be the bio father, then he should pay ALL back child support even if he has changed his address. But if the guy could prove he wasn't the bio father through DNA test, then no one should after him for the so called back child support. It should be as simple as that.
Just because court says he owes money, doesn't make it true. Do you pay credit card debt of a result of identity theft?
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 07-25-2017 at 08:54 AM..
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.
And this is exactly had the court system sees the case.
