Support NeoGAF

[jaekeem]

You guys are losing sight of the fact that this law exists to protect the child.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Keri]

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.

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]

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!

 

[ironmang]

In the end, I think we can agree the kid is the real victim here. Two adults making choices that led to this.

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]

$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.

Exactly. And if you have direct deposit, most people won't even look at their paystub unless they notice a drastic change in pay.

 

[Keri]

The only way a child support payment is going to be as low as $31 dollars, is if the man was making very little. Little enough, that he should have noticed it. This is meant to be a percentage of his income, sufficient to support the needs of the child.

 

[rjinaz]

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.

Might be for the best.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

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.

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]

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.

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.

The only way a child support payment is going to be as low as $31 dollars, is if the man was making very little. Little enough, that he should have noticed it. This is meant to be a percentage of his income, sufficient to support the needs of the child.

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.

 

[Keri]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Keri]

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]

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.

According to the OP, he was garnished before any official serving. So how does that work?

 

[Keri]

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).

 

[Instro]

According to the OP, he was garnished before any official serving. So how does that work?

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.

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.

 

[JABEE]

Yep, my friend is going through the same kinda shit. Kid isn't his, tested and everything. Because he just tried to do the right thing and just started paying, they said well you already are paying, so you're on the hook for all of it now!

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-]

Fucking disgusting. No other words.
DNA tests should be the first thing before child support is considered.

 

[MajinSweet4]

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).

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-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.

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.

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.

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]

Yeah this is pure wrong with no grey in my eyes. I really hope a miracle happens for that man.

 

[jwk94]

Guilty as charged.

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]

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

 

[Angelus Errare]

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.

I mean you just described most Americans at nearly every income level not just youth.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Compared to where?

Not sure what makes you think I'm comparing it to anything. It can be ass backwards on its own merits.

 

[Keri]

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-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.

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.

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.

 

[jwk94]

I mean you just described most Americans at nearly every income level not just youth.

Huh, i actually wasn't aware of that.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Texas

Spoiler

law

why you so shit?

 

[NimbusD]

Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proves otherwise. In Cornejo’s case, that amounts to some $65,000.

Literally what? How the fuck does that make sense.

 

[MajinSweet4]

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.

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]

True. And you could argue that if women earned as much as men or more than men more so than they do now, then this problem wouldn't exist. If they are so concerned about it, maybe they should become feminists instead.

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]

I posted this yesterday and it was locked immediately.

 

[Puruzi]

well aint that some bullshit

 

[Keri]

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.

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.

 

[bman94]

My question is who is the biological?

 

[MajinSweet4]

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.

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.

 

[ApharmdX]

Nightmare cases like this, but even more so the massive bias in family law, are responsible for radicalizing large amounts of men in America. Things are slowly improving but politicians are terrified to touch the issue of family law. Which sucks.

 

[adamsappel]

Beyond the guy getting screwed over this is the kinda thing the alt right points to in terms of males getting fucked by the system.

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]

It's stuff like this, why red pill exists.

 

[KingV]

Beyond the guy getting screwed over this is the kinda thing the alt right points to in terms of males getting fucked by the system.

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.

 

[ZoddGutts]

Man fuck that, I'll cross the border and never come back.

 

[Keri]

Court records suggest, but do not prove, that he got a subpoena years ago. Cornejo denies it.[/I]

This article says it plainly. They do not have proof that he was served for the original garnishes.

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.

 

[low-G]

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.

 

[wisdom0wl]

American family law is some antiquated shit yo. What the fuck type of foolishness

 

[MilkyJoe]

Land of the free my arse. America is in a state. Jeepers.

 

[MajinSweet4]

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.

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.

 

[ironmang]

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.

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]

How much jail time?

I think I'd choose that just to spite her

 

[Balphon]

Literally what? How the fuck does that make sense.

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.

 

[Keri]

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.

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.

 

[black_13]

Holy shit that is some brutal shit! Can't imagine having to pay that amount of money for a child not even yours.