Yeah, I'm not sure why the guy you quoted is framing this as if it's a zero sum game where one of the two has to get fucked (albeit they are both probably struggling financially).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man ordered to pay $65K in child support for kid who isnt his
- Thread starter Prologue
- Start date
Yeah, I'm not sure why the guy you quoted is framing this as if it's a zero sum game where one of the two has to get fucked (albeit they are both probably struggling financially).
#sorrynotsorry
Member
You guys aren't thinking straight at all. This law is to protect the caregiver and ensure that they get adequate child support. I'd be very surprised if the law wasn't the same in most, if not all states. How?
Think about it this way:
1. Mother has baby. Thinks she knows father. Files suit for child support.
2. Father acknowledges paternity and agrees to pay child support (or he ignores the suit).
3. Father doesn't pay but mother knows he has the assets and relies on the fact that these payments are coming. She takes out loans and the like to care for the child and make ends meet. She can't give the child everything it needs alone (and, in fact, this is why child support exists).
4. 10 years later, father proves by DNA he's not the father. He's relieved of all past and future obligation.
5. Mother now faces a mountain of debt with no recourse. Even if she can identify the true father, she can't get back all the past support she was never paid (he was never given notice of it and can't be liable for it, though certainly future payments are on the table). And even if she could, the real father would undoubtedly pay a different amount based on his income.
In this situation, mother and child are completely screwed by something outside of their control. This law is just because it prevents that. Perhaps more importantly, it's also not unfair to the false father.
It's not unfair to the man here because he had many, many years to contest this. He says he never knew but that's bullshit and a lie. It's not the state to do service. It's on the mother and you can guarantee the court checked to make sure it was done properly. You can't issue an order for child support ex parte. So she definitely did. He knew. He's just lying for sympathy.
If he was going to be a deadbeat who doesn't pay child support, he should have contested this a long time ago. Not withstanding more facts being revealed, justice was done here today. And justice would have likely been done the same in every state. This isn't a partisan issue.
Think about it this way:
1. Mother has baby. Thinks she knows father. Files suit for child support.
2. Father acknowledges paternity and agrees to pay child support (or he ignores the suit).
3. Father doesn't pay but mother knows he has the assets and relies on the fact that these payments are coming. She takes out loans and the like to care for the child and make ends meet. She can't give the child everything it needs alone (and, in fact, this is why child support exists).
4. 10 years later, father proves by DNA he's not the father. He's relieved of all past and future obligation.
5. Mother now faces a mountain of debt with no recourse. Even if she can identify the true father, she can't get back all the past support she was never paid (he was never given notice of it and can't be liable for it, though certainly future payments are on the table). And even if she could, the real father would undoubtedly pay a different amount based on his income.
In this situation, mother and child are completely screwed by something outside of their control. This law is just because it prevents that. Perhaps more importantly, it's also not unfair to the false father.
It's not unfair to the man here because he had many, many years to contest this. He says he never knew but that's bullshit and a lie. It's not the state to do service. It's on the mother and you can guarantee the court checked to make sure it was done properly. You can't issue an order for child support ex parte. So she definitely did. He knew. He's just lying for sympathy.
If he was going to be a deadbeat who doesn't pay child support, he should have contested this a long time ago. Not withstanding more facts being revealed, justice was done here today. And justice would have likely been done the same in every state. This isn't a partisan issue.
Shouldn't even matter if it's true or not since this whole thing was initiated by a lie from the mother. Point is, he's factually not the father.
$31... How the fuck would you even notice $31 missing from your paycheck? When working hourly with different shifts and clock-out times, your paycheck can fluctuate five times that much.
What a fucking load of bullshit.
It certainly makes me pause. If you marry someone, even if they're not your children you can potentially end up on the hook for paying for them.
Can a stepparent be required to pay child support?
That's why as soon as I see someone even mention in passing that they have a child, I nope the fuck out of there. I don't care how awesome the person is, I don't want to have to deal with that bs. I mean, I know it's not like that all the time, and I may eventually be ok with becoming a stepdad, but for now, nah, screw that.
Earthbound64
Banned
You're making a lot of assumptions in the favor of "this was all done properly, clearly the man was reasonably notified."
What if he wasn't? I also don't understand why anyone is comfortable with anyone (man or woman) paying paternity money for children that aren't their own, barring extenuating circumstances/longstanding relationships.
Also, why can't we make the true father liable for all the past support that was wrongfully paid by the misidentified father?
Contest the child he didn't know existed, and then immediately proved wasn't his? He was never served documents, and his wages were garnished less than $100 in three increments, removing any means of him noticing.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
You missed the part where he obviously was served and he did know. He's lying. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have this judgment against him.
You mean the mother screwed herself because only she knows who the potential father(s) are. If the mother had doubts of who the father was she should be the one responsible for letting that time pass when she knew full well back then that there was another potential father.
You missed the part where you just made stuff up.
TheCochese
Banned
Receipts please.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
Because he wasn't given notice at the time. There are options he might have taken. He may not even have owed it at the time. Evidence and witnesses may be unavailable.
Far better to charge the person who didn't contest and thought he was for years.
And no assumptions are made except one very good one. A court's judgment is void if notice isn't properly given. If that notice was void, he wouldn't have this judgment against st him. So unless you think the court is blatantly disregarding the law, then the far more likely fact is that the man lied in his interview.
See above.
Where are your receipts? I just trust the judgment of a court over one man's statement to the contrary in a news interview.
SyenceLabb
Member
I don't think we are working on the same sheet of music? Why does it seem you have facts of this case no one else seem to have? He didn't show up to contest the facts because he claims he never received the subpoena. And if he was never served, then the only issue that could bite him in the butt, is the pay garnishment, which is what the ex-girlfriend's lawyer is trying to nail him on. I agree he should be somewhat culpable there. But 65K and at risk of being put behind bars (probably unlikely) seems to be a bit excessive, don't you think?
I mean notice may have been given. He could be lying, very true. My point is whether it was reasonable, if it was just small docked increments from his paychecks, and whether the policy underlying this system really makes sense.
I think if you leave this as is you incentivize non-biological fathers to vigorously contest even giving a single cent before a paternity test. Which may be good, but eh.
I definately wouldn't notice 30 bucks. My pay might have 30-40 dollars less or more than the previous week. It all depends on whether or not the managers ask me to leave early or ask me to work a few hours later depending on how good sales are that day or what needs to be done for the next day.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
If someone believes they may not be the father, they should contest. Otherwise they can get around to it later and fuck the mother who didn't know better.
My mother found a judgment on her credit report a few years back. She was never served papers. Luckily it got dismissed because of collection agency lost her paper work that verified her debt. It happens.
I would've assumed there'd be some sort of document both parents would have to sign [potentially through court order] in order for child support to be put into effect, and not just random stealth skimming off of paychecks.
The law may have been followed, but that ain't justice.
How is it beyond her control when she knew full well that there were other possible father's out there? She had full control of the situation at the time but decided not to pursue the whole truth of who the father was and just assumed one was the father without actual proof.
Some people believe that their significant other is faithful. The mother if the only one that knows the truth.
Brown_Corolla
Member
Sooooo guilty until proven innocent, but still guilty
The only sure way for her to get proof, is through a paternity suit. She can't force a paternity test otherwise. And if the man sued defaults by not contesting paternity, then the case is over.
She may have brought suit against him, thinking he was the most likely candidate and expecting it to result in a test that would determine the truth, only to have it end this way, because he didn't respond to the action.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
Then, again, he should have gone to court and contested it. Any attorney in the world would have asked her if she was faithful and then had a paternity test when she said she wasn't. But he didn't contest it. That's on him.
Also we have no idea if she's unfaithful. We don't know what circumstances led to the pregnancy.
TheCochese
Banned
After hearing about too many people who have to pay when all the facts are in their favor, I don't.
This is a system that does not necessarily rely on truth.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
I re-ordered some of what you wrote here to illustrate.
I know you threw this out there as a hypothetical, but man does that kind of trip over itself. Looks to me like she made a bunch of assumptions and just rolled with it hoping for the best.
I know you threw this out there as a hypothetical, but man does that kind of trip over itself. Looks to me like she made a bunch of assumptions and just rolled with it hoping for the best.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
Not the same situation. Your mother would have gone to court and contested the validity of the service. If it was wrong, the debt would have gone away.
Here, the husband did go to court and failed to contest service recently (or did and it was ruled proper). Either way, the court must have determined service was proper recently (in addition to originally).
#sorrynotsorry
Member
Or she made hard decisions which she had to make. Maybe if she didn't take out the loan she couldn't afford a home or clothing. Or hell maybe she wanted private school. Either way, she was entitled to it, justifiably relied on it, and ultimately it's for the benefit of the child.
You guys are losing sight of the fact that this law exists to protect the child.
Edit: Sorry double post.
This is a system that gets it right 99% of the time. So you're going to doubt it based on a few bad verdicts? And instead believe a random person with nothing to lose and something to gain by lying?
SyenceLabb
Member
Where are you reading that he was served? The article states the court hasn't proven he was served.
MajinSweet4
Member
So many things wrong with this that it needs to be addressed. First off, what facts? She made a claim with no evidence what so ever. Ask yourself, would this make sense in any other context? I claim a person I know stole a large sum of money from me. The state starts taking money from his paycheck and if he doesn't notice that means he consents to us taking his money. Also, the fact that his "garnishes" were such a small amount for such a short time should set off red flags to anyone with a lick of commonsense. That's not how garnishes are supposed to work. This guy is a victim from every angle you look at it. This would be like a court siding with a conman that got your credit card info because you didn't realize your account was emptied the moment it happened. Makes zero sense.
spazchicken
Member
There's a guy at my job who looks like the guy from the movie Avatar, his wife looks similar with very "German" or "Irish" features, light hair and eyes. His daughter does too.
They divorced because he caught her cheating. His twin boys look like George Clooney and I don't think he's caught on yet.
They divorced because he caught her cheating. His twin boys look like George Clooney and I don't think he's caught on yet.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
The court would have made that determination in 2003.
Rereading it I see what you mean. But then that means the entire thread is wrong. The man wasn't ordered to pay $60k. He hasn't even been to court on the issue yet. Nothing has happened.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
That's not in your original hypothetical. The original reads as: mom expects payments even though none have come -> mom takes out loans expecting to get guy's money to pay them back -> mom doesn't get money -> mom has loan problems now.
And she wasn't entitled to it because he wasn't the father. And relying on money you don't have yet is stupid financial sense.
Many people have paychecks that vary more than $30 check-to-check. No one checks every stub, as long as the direct deposit is in the right ballpark.
More likely is that the mother just named whoever she thought had the most assets.
As for service, if you think every court always properly serves, I have a bridge to sell you.
There are plenty of alternate service methods, such as advertising in a local paper, that can be used if an attorney claims that they couldn't do personal service.
I once had someone sue a former employer and they wanted to depose me, but the lawyer couldn't be arsed to pay for someone to serve me in person. So he flat out lied to the court, saying it was impossible to do personal service, and the judge granted his motion to serve me via email.
Anyone who thinks that process serving is always done 100% by the book has been getting their legal expertise from shows like Law and Order.
#sorrynotsorry
Member
She was entitled to it because she had a court order that is final saying she's entitled to it.
And it is stupid financial sense. We agree. But some people aren't lucky enough to have a choice.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
SyenceLabb
Member
See what I mean? What does "don't prove" mean? You would think if the damn subpoena was sent to his door step and records show it was mailed out would be enough "proof"
Anyway, enough fun playing armchair lawyer.
MajinSweet4
Member
"The law is just because it's the law."
TheCochese
Banned
I'm 100% sure you're just bullshitting at this point, random internet person.
WaterAstro
Member
I read the attorney's name as Carel Sith.
psynergylover
Member
Yoooo!!!! Was thinking the same thing!
Private school is not a right. My wife and I can't afford private school so guess what our kids don't go to private school. The law is there to protect the child but sometimes it comes at the expense of screwing someone over.
Isn't it illegal for women to get paid less than men? Assuming they're doing the same job.
But anyways, really fucked up that this happened. Never heard of a situation this severe where the guy was that distant from the child and expected to pay.