And what of the children that are now deprived, such as those the man is taking care of, on top of the alimony payments?
-
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
And what of the children that are now deprived, such as those the man is taking care of, on top of the alimony payments?
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
She still made choices based on assumptions. Your proposition is that she didn't do anything wrong, when she clearly made some critical thinking errors.
All I did was point that out. I'm not saying she shouldn't win the legal argument - I'm saying your hypothetical is a little wonky in its execution. After I pointed that out you added extra material to justify the wonkiness.
Your hypothetical was just off - that's all I'm saying.
This is exactly how it works, in every civil context. A plaintiff serves the defendant with the Complaint. If the defendant doesn't file an answer and appear to defend the suit, then a default judgment is entered against them and they may be liable for the whole amount requested by the plaintiff. Typically, if notice actually wasn't received, the defendant discovers the judgment when the plaintiff begins collection efforts (like wage garnishment) and then they can contest it at that time and have it set aside. If this weren't the rule, then people wouldn't respond to lawsuits, ever.
SyenceLabb
Member
I think most of us here is willing to concede the point to #sorrynotsorry that the letter of the law is being followed in this circumstance. But the point initially I was trying to make, and I'll repeat it, was that Family Law, as it exists today, has issues. The way the system is built today, it can sometimes cause more conflicts than create solutions. And we all know why, in order to drag out the process and increase the amount your lawyer can place on your invoice.
I mean, if you're in an unhappy marriage with a child and want a divorce, asking yourself, "Shit, can I afford to get divorced" shouldn't come to mind!
I mean, if you're in an unhappy marriage with a child and want a divorce, asking yourself, "Shit, can I afford to get divorced" shouldn't come to mind!
Could say everybody in the story except the mother is a victim, including the other kids who have to deal with a legal battle and potentially 65,000+legal fees being taken away from their family. Really should be mandatory paternity tests at birth to prevent nonsense like this.
MaulerX
Member
Exactly. And if you have direct deposit, most people won't even look at their paystub unless they notice a drastic change in pay.
Might be for the best.
Muppet of a Man
Member
This is some bullshit. Apparently, you didn't read the part where he was not given notice until 1 year ago.
On top of that, if the mother is sleeping with multiple partners simultaneously, she should be responsible enough to inform the state of this so that this type of thing does not occur. The onus should be on her to prove which man fathered her child in that particular situation instead of playing Russian Roulette with people's lives.
MajinSweet4
Member
And yet you just skip over the part where he wasn't served. And the courts response to having no proof of him being served is to say "Well, you totally were!". Cuz ya know, that's a professional and just court system. And as I've said in my last post, those "collection efforts" were a joke. Honestly, I think you're being really disingenuous if you can't claim to see how this situation isn't anything other than this guy being screwed.
Even if that is true, it still doesn't make sense to only garnish him for a few paychecks. And if he supposedly has that little money, this whole would be pointless anyway and I doubt the mother would be pursuing it this late after the fact.
It's not very credible, that he wasn't served. There would have been multiple points where notice was given, before it reached the point of wage garnishment. He would have been served the complaint, notice of all proceedings up to judgment, notice that judgment was being entered, notice that the mother was seeking to collect on the judgment, notice that a wage garnishment order was entered, etc.
Even if all those notices were served on an incorrect address, it's not very credible that he didn't notice the wage garnishment, which should have been calculated to be a not-insignificant percentage of his wages.
I mean, it's possible something really abnormal happened here, but the simplest answer is that he ignored legal papers (because that's actually pretty common).
MajinSweet4
Member
Except it doesn't work that way. A person serving papers is required to document proof of the serving as well as all the details. How, when and where it happened etc. And these documents are supposed to be present in court as proof of said serving. They didn't have these documents.
They absolutely had those documents or his wages never would have been garnished. He's contesting the validity of those documents now and arguing that he wasn't served.
MajinSweet4
Member
According to the OP, he was garnished before any official serving. So how does that work?
He says he was never served. The article doesn't state that a proof of service was never offered to the court. A judgment cannot be entered against someone in the United States, without the party seeking the judgment offering proof of service to the court. Absent proof of service, it's a violation of due process and there would be no question that the judgment was void. I doubt very much that this court decided to forego this very basic tenet of law, so I'm certain a proof of service was offered.
So, he must be arguing that the person they served wasn't actually him. It's the only argument he can make. (Or, in the case of substituted service, that the address was wrong).
http://abc7ny.com/news/court-man-who-isnt-father-of-child-still-owes-payments/2240073/
He was served a subpeona in 2003. The OP is missing that I think.
What likely happened here is that the dude thought the kid was his, and was avoiding paying child support, ignoring family court, etc., and got away with it for years. It eventually caught up with him, but he hit a home run on a paternity test. I have no sympathy, the laws are so strict on this shit because there are so many deadbeats out there who try to get out of child support through various means.
And if he doesn't pay the state gets to put him in a cage.
It's a system that exists to make sure the state never has to foot the bill.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Fucking disgusting. No other words.
DNA tests should be the first thing before child support is considered.
DNA tests should be the first thing before child support is considered.
MajinSweet4
Member
That's not what he said.
Cornejo, who is currently raising three children of his own and two nephews, claimed that he was not made aware of this and only found out about the child support payments last year when a deputy served him court papers claiming that the state of Texas lists him as having another child.
He acknowledges this serving, which was carried out just last year. But...
His ex-girlfriends attorney, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo's paycheck several years ago and he didnt contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago.
Several years ago, before said serving, his wages were garnished, and that is NOW being used to find him accountable. If he was truly served all those years ago before he was garnished, this situation wouldn't have even come to this. So either he was garnished with no serving, notice of any kind, and now that's being used to nail him or they did serve him all those years ago but no longer have the documents, so they are serving him again after the fact. Either way, that's bs. In fact, if they did properly serve him, and he ignored it, why would they stop garnishing him? At that point it would make sense to just keep taking whatever money you can from him.
As I mentioned earlier, they have no proof of said subpeona.
Court records suggest, but do not prove, that he got a subpoena years ago. Cornejo denies it.
double jump
you haven't lived until a random little kid ask you "how do you make love".
Yeah this is pure wrong with no grey in my eyes. I really hope a miracle happens for that man.
Yeah, it's weird. I can only speak for my experiences, but a lot of young adults don't have a clue about how to handle their finances. They'll go out to eat every week, drink every weekend, and then complain about living paycheck to paycheck or how they suddenly don't have money in their account. Hell, it took me a little while to figure out that I didn't have to live like that either.
captjohnboyd
Member
What I want to know was how my father was able to get his payments down to only $150 a month and still end up thousands of dollars in arrears and never pay those back payments. Then when his business went belly up he got the monthly amount dropped to $50 and the back child support dropped to like $1500 vs the old $10,000.
Never paid that either. Nor the $50 a month.
Guess the laws favored dead beat dad's when I was growing up but now this poor guy who did nothing wrong has to pay $65k? Ugh
Never paid that either. Nor the $50 a month.
Guess the laws favored dead beat dad's when I was growing up but now this poor guy who did nothing wrong has to pay $65k? Ugh
Angelus Errare
Banned
I mean you just described most Americans at nearly every income level not just youth.
Not sure what makes you think I'm comparing it to anything. It can be ass backwards on its own merits.
Oh, I see where you are confused. Remember above, when I said there are multiple instances where notice is provided? Each time the mother seeks to collect on the judgment, separate service is required. So, that service he's referring to above, is probably a new garnishment order, because she found his new employer. Which is the most likely reason the prior garnishment ended--- he probably changed jobs.
Point being, the service he's referencing as occurring last year, is probably related to post-judgment collection and is separate from all prior service in the action.
Huh, i actually wasn't aware of that.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Texas
why you so shit?
law
MajinSweet4
Member
That still doesn't explain how the court doesn't have proof of the original serving. Either they have the documents or they don't.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
What feminist publication/group is going to bat for men on the issue of paternity fraud? One of the most feminist nations on the planet outlawed one party DNA testing on your own (alleged) child.
Royce McCutcheon
Junior Member
I posted this yesterday and it was locked immediately.
No one says they don't, except you. That wasn't in the article in the OP. You assumed they didn't have an original proof of service of summons, because you didn't understand why he would be served again.
MajinSweet4
Member
http://abc7ny.com/news/court-man-who-isnt-father-of-child-still-owes-payments/2240073/
In 2003, Cornejo's ex-girlfriend went to court and said Cornejo was the only possible father of her child.
The state of Texas got what it calls a "default judgement" and started assessing child support payments. They continued to add up, and now total nearly $65,000. Cornejo said he was never told.
Court records suggest, but do not prove, that he got a subpoena years ago. Cornejo denies it.
This article says it plainly. They do not have proof that he was served for the original garnishes.
adamsappel
Member
There's also an actual problem of ethics in videogame journalism, but when your cause is taken over by assholes, it's hard to argue for it.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
It's stuff like this, why red pill exists.
In this instance they would be correct.
Go through a divorce and you will see that MRA's, while wrong on most things, are partially right when it comes to how men get treated in family law.
Again, they have documents that indicate he was served, but now he's contesting that. So, for example, they have a document where a process server says he served Cornejo, but now Cornejo is asserting its a lie. This is the first time service has been contested, so beyond the above facts, there's no "proof" of anything, because the matter hasn't been heard yet.
I'd say, if they can prove he was served all those years ago, and he was avoiding what he thought his responsibility was at the time, he should get a light monetary punishment based on violating the law to the best of his knowledge, but not violating the law in fact.
If they can't prove he knew, then obviously he shouldn't have to deal with any of this bullshit.
But the law is going to go through a bunch of wasteful, broken bullshit instead that serves noone in reality.
If they can't prove he knew, then obviously he shouldn't have to deal with any of this bullshit.
But the law is going to go through a bunch of wasteful, broken bullshit instead that serves noone in reality.
MajinSweet4
Member
Agreed, if he was properly served it would be easy enough to prove it happened beyond reasonable doubt. And in that case yeah, he shouldn't have avoided his court order. But I'm fairly certain they are just going to use the garnishes as proof and call it a day.
Not all MRAs are women hating reddit trolls. Some actually have a lot of legitimate points especially when it comes to how men are treated legally not just when it comes to family law. Saying dismissive things like they're "wrong on most things" and "partially right" is the reason they even exist as something separate lol.
TheVampire
Banned
How much jail time?
I think I'd choose that just to spite her
I think I'd choose that just to spite her
Because the putative father would have failed to contest paternity and consequently held himself out as the child's father. The state doesn't compel the biological father to support the child during the period where someone else was, for legal purposes, telling the world he was the child's father.
It's a matter of equity balancing in which there are essentially three parties:
(1) The putative father, who fails to contest paternity,
(2) The biological father, who is presumed unaware of his status as such due to the actions of the putative father, and
(3) The child.
The child's interest is paramount, and is in need of support regardless of how complicated its paternity situation is. Extending the obligation of the putative father until such time as they can actually complete the TPR process makes sense, as they have been asserting guardianship over the child. Any attempt to clear or shift the burden of support once TPR is complete would put the interests of the putative father before the child.
The fact that the guy here was (so he says) unaware that he had failed to contest paternity doesn't really alter this, and in any event this is an edge case that shouldn't be used as the baseline for public policy.
Is all this unworkable in practice? I don't know; I don't have enough background in family practice to tell you. And who knows what the legislators who did the last recodification of the Texas Family Code were thinking.
In any event, though, the kid is what matters and bad facts make bad law.
That's because he was obligated to contest the judgment, as soon as he was aware of it, or he waives his right to do so. So, in theory, even if he wasn't served correctly in the action, if he knew his wages were being garnished and didn't seek to contest the judgment for several years, then he's found to have consented to it, in a way. It's the same logic that supports default judgments. The whole point is that you need to contest legal proceedings that are brought against you, as soon as you are aware of them. So, he's going to need to prove he wasn't served correctly AND offer some reasonable explanation for why he didn't notice the wage garnishments.