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 think the courts put a lot of weight on the establishment of parent/child relationship in determining this assumption law or whatever it is. One does not have to actually be the owner of the reproductive material that created a child to be its parent and just because its later discovered that there is no DNA bond does not by default terminate that bond.
But IMO the courts dont always apply that logically. In this particular case and others like it there was no parental bond established and although, if possible, parentage should be determined ASAP, given the fact there was no parental bond and this man is not the biological father it is not logical that he be held responsible for any child support.
And I would agree if the idiot did not wait so many years to contest it. If he had asked for the paternity testing, oh 16 years ago, the rightful bio parent would have been paying the support all this time, which is now really to late to attempt. The child will be 18 in a short time and child support will be a non issue. The mother can only collect child support from this man, because the bio dad would only be responsible from the time she would file a case against him.
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.
Yes I agree but thats not the point here. You assume the non custodial is just being obstinate about paying. We are talking about inability to pay. The custodial parent in you scenario is still not going to jail, not living without electricity, running water, becoming homeless or going hungry because she is putting all her funds into paying daycare and medical bills. There are advantages and safety net programs aimed at those with legal and physical custody of children that are not available to those without children.
No they should not refund his money. He should have contested the child support when his check was first garnished. By ignoring the issue for so many years, he was admitting responsibility of support to this child. The burden of proof was on him to prove he was not the father and he should have pushed to have paternity testing. He did not. And there is no way I believe that he had no idea the money was coming out of his check. My ex tells me every week about the money coming out of his check. He literally mentions child support in every conversation we have had in the last 4 years. They know when they are paying...
If he had questioned it 16 years ago, the mother would have been able to contact and file for support from the other man. But because this guy did not, she is unable to go back and collect from the bio father. Child support begins only on the date filed. So if she filed today, the bio dad would start paying based on today going forward. It is not collected retro actively. For the last 16 years he was the father in the courts eyes, because HE DID NOT CONTEST IT, so HE SHOULD PAY IT, because the mother won't be able to get it from the bio dad at this point.
well, first of all, I did not know the whole situation. I admit the bolded part is a bit strange.
But I don't agree with the opinion that he deserved what he got. something need to change for situation like this one.
Yes I agree but thats not the point here. You assume the non custodial is just being obstinate about paying. We are talking about inability to pay. The custodial parent in you scenario is still not going to jail, not living without electricity, running water, becoming homeless or going hungry because she is putting all her funds into paying daycare and medical bills. There are advantages and safety net programs aimed at those with legal and physical custody of children that are not available to those without children.
Only if they qualify based on income... I just can't show up at the social services office and say I need this, this and that because I have kids in my custody. I have to back it up with pay stubs.
And I would agree if the idiot did not wait so many years to contest it. If he had asked for the paternity testing, oh 16 years ago, the rightful bio parent would have been paying the support all this time, which is now really to late to attempt. The child will be 18 in a short time and child support will be a non issue. The mother can only collect child support from this man, because the bio dad would only be responsible from the time she would file a case against him.
well
what is your opinion on the bold part? especially the pink bold? Fair?
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.
You have no idea whether she thought it was his or not. One thing we do know is that she fraudulently attempted to bilk hundreds of thousands of dollars out of an innocent man; not to mention the untold potential emotional damage she attempted to inflict on the innocent party AND her child. As far as I'm concerned she belongs in jail.
You don't know any of that to be true, either.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
well, first of all, I did not know the whole situation. I admit the bolded part is a bit strange.
But I don't agree with the opinion that he deserved what he got. something need to change for situation like this one.
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.
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.
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 have no idea whether she fraudulently tried to do anything - it's only fraud if she knew he wasn't the father. She may have made a mistake but that doesn't mean it was fraud.
And frankly, a lot of women aren't as well informed as they could be about conception and she could very well have thought that the timing only worked for this one particular man to be the father even if that was not the case.
This is true.
It's also true that a woman can have her period and still be pregnant and not lose the pregnancy. This may have happened to her and the guy may have been the only one she had sex with after she had her period and therefore, the only guy she THOUGHT she could have been pregnant by.
If the timing was tight, even her doctor may not have known her true due date because that's not exact science and some women have babies that develop a bit faster in terms of length in uteri and will seem to be further along by a week or so.
Lots of factors at work that would keep her from being 100% sure, yet thinking she was 100% sure.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
what is your opinion on the bold part? especially the pink bold? Fair?
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.
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.)
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.
