Support NeoGAF

[Sho_Nuff82]

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.

I disagree with every assertion made here. It's not justice if the person who is not responsible for something is made to pay or suffer a penalty. If the state makes a mistake, it must correct the mistake, or pay the money itself. That would be just.

 

[Nictel]

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.

I don't see how the case is not disposed on this falsehood. Seems to me the original claim is based on a lie and thus invalid.

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.

I find it strange you do not consider that the woman cheated and lied.

1. The mother lies to her partner about the possibility of another father.

2. The man, who assumes he is the father, takes responsibility for his child.

3. This is why social security is a thing, taking out loans is irresponsible.

4. Man finds out truth.

5. Again taking out loans based on future income is not a good idea. That is why at least in Europe, there is government child support and other support. Sure it is not a lot but should warrent off mountains of debt.

In this situation, mother and child are completely screwed by something outside of their control.

No, the mother lied and screwed the child. As such I would sooner argue the child is taken away then a man must pay a large sum of money for a fundamental lie.

In the end, the child matters most but the mother should not be rewarded nor should the party lied to be punished. As such I would point to government support. If this is not available the child should be placed somewhere else where it can be taken care off.

 

[Syriel]

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

It varies by state.

If this was in CA instead of Texas, it wouldn't even be an issue given the DNA test.

 

[MaulerX]

Honestly, to avoid all this, courts should just mandate a DNA test to go along with all child support claims before they slam someone.

I mean, regardless of weather he did or did not ignore or receive prior notices, having to pay 65K for a kid that has ultimately been proven to not be yours is some fucked up shit.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

I feel sorry for this guy but for every example like this there will be hundreds of women struggling to feed their kids cause the real father isn't paying a penny.

They just aren't in the news because it's so common.

 

[MajinSweet4]

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.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...pay-child-support-for-kid-that-s-11305261.php

As I've already mentioned depending on his situation it's very reasonable that he didn't notice the garnishes.

'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."

That's an absurdly low amount to garnish, and only from a mere three checks. Also...

"I've researched the records and found that there is an issue with the service where they served him back in 2002," Coleman said. "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."

So according to his lawyer, proper documents of his serving for the original garnishes do not exist and that's why they don't have proof.

So lets recap everything the best we can. This is all based on a lie by the mother. She claimed that...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/2...g-in-child-support-for-kid-that-isnt-his.html

In 2003, a child support court in Texas ruled that Gabriel Cornejo, 45, had to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend who had recently given birth because she vowed that there was no way he wasn’t the rightful dad.

Now that we know that he isn't the father means she must have known there was a chance someone else was. As mentioned above, he wasn't properly served for his original garnishments, and those garnishments were for only 3 checks and for a paltry sum of money. Then he gets served over 10 years later. So now a guy that supports a large family is either going to be crippled financially over this, or locked up most likely because of those 3 garnishments. Yeah, seems totally fair and just.

 

[Nictel]

I feel sorry for this guy but for every example like this there will be hundreds of women struggling to feed their kids cause the real father isn't paying a penny.

They just aren't in the news because it's so common.

There should be proper government support for those cases. That being said, there is a lot of irresponsible behaviour out there. Multiple children are sometimes born in families that are broken or can barely make ends meet. Children are preventable;

A genreal thought: looking at the overpopulation taking place, basic birth control should be made available for free to everyone.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

There should be proper government support for those cases. That being said, there is a lot of irresponsible behaviour out there. Multiple children are sometimes born in families that are broken or can barely make ends meet. Children are preventable;

A genreal thought: looking at the overpopulation taking place, basic birth control should be made available for free to everyone.

They are preventable and birth control should be free. When it's too late for that though then both parents need to step up.

 

[snap0212]

They are preventable and birth control should be free. When it's too late for that though then both parents need to step up.

Yeah, the parents. Not some dude who isn’t the child’s father.

 

[H.Protagonist]

It's a shame that this has become so convoluted and that the court system can't adjust in some way to accommodate unusual circumstances like this (even if the process has been working as intended as Keri has been patiently explaining), but it's a rare case that's going to overshadow all the real dead beat dads that do everything in their power to avoid paying support. My dad followed almost that exact same pattern - claimed he was never served properly even though he'd had multiple garnishments and kept job hopping to avoid said garnishments (they were also for paltry sums at the time). He was served by enforcement a decade plus later again as well for over $33,000 in unpaid child support that he owed my mother, but the state passed the buck and no one will act on it now because it's so old (I'm 35 now). So, while this case is pretty extreme and we could definitely do with some updates in family law, let's not pretend that the real problem isn't the other way around.

 

[Izuna]

I think unless the woman knew he wasn't the father, this is the best for the child of the biological father is not available for the payments.

Outside of that, this is what happens when the system just doesn't have the time to give any shit.

 

[SomTervo]

Sort of shit that MRAs love the smell of in the morning.

Like really, shit like this has to stop. Get your act together, USA.

 

[N3DS]

Wow better watch my paycheck closely from now on.

 

[Greddleok]

How exactly can money be taken out of someone's paycheck without them noticing and doing something about it?
I mean, don't people wonder where their money is going?

I don't even look at my pay check. It's not so uncommon for people not to noice things unless they're a big change. If my pay went down by 31€ one month, I wouldn't notice at all.

 

[elyetis]

So, while this case is pretty extreme and we could definitely do with some updates in family law, let's not pretend that the real problem isn't the other way around.

The real problem is that if a country really did care about children, the state would pay. A child shouldn't suffer because one of his parent doesn't want to pay child support. And that man shouldn't have to pay $64k in child support.

 

[YourMaster]

The only fair system is that the person who has custody of the child, pays for the child. Want to share the expenses, share the custody.

Of course, this means that a court should be able to sentence somebody to take care of a child, instead of simply paying for a child.

 

[oneils]

If someone garnishes your wage for child support and your first reaction isn't a paternity test you may as well cover your eyes and wish it would go away. Which he basically did.

31bucks? If that didn't come with a notice, I would never have realized my pay was garnished. Do we know exactly how this 31 dollars was obtained?

 

[Gray Matter]

I don't know who is worse. The justice system for being so broken that an innocent man has to pay for something he didn't do, or the woman looking a scapegoat for her problems.

 

[Apathy]

Fuuuuck that, skip out and don't pay.

 

[Charles Brandon]

I can see the argument for being forced to pay if you don't contest, even if you do contest later and are proved not to be the father. Therefore the issue boils down to whether or not he was given adequate notice. If he was, then he's out of luck. If he wasn't, then forcing him to pay is ridiculous and grossly iniquitous. The fact that the case for making him pay seems to hinge on the occasional garnishing of his salary by a trivial amount of money suggests the state is not altogether confident that it has its ducks in a row when it comes to the original subpoena.

Whilst the woman must bear some responsibility for the error, if the papers were not served correctly, it is the state that is ultimately at fault. The correct remedy should be, if that is that case, that the man does not have to pay the woman and the woman can sue the court for fucking up the subpoena, for the $65,000. If the state had served the papers correctly and the man had contested them, she would have had the opportunity to go after the real father at the time.

I have no idea if is possible to sue a state.

 

[H.Protagonist]

The real problem is that if a country really did care about children, the state would pay. A child shouldn't suffer because one of his parent doesn't want to pay child support. And that man shouldn't have to pay $64k in child support.

Can't disagree there. Any single parent who has custody of the child/children should get some support. Single parenthood is incredibly tough. And the law shouldn't be so inflexible that it runs roughshod over common sense.

The only fair system is that the person who has custody of the child, pays for the child. Want to share the expenses, share the custody.

Of course, this means that a court should be able to sentence somebody to take care of a child, instead of simply paying for a child.

This...wouldn't work at all. The vast majority of custodial parents are the mothers, and over 90%(?) of those cases were decided without the court interfering, i.e. most mothers gain custody of the children because the father did not want it/contest it. And even if you had a court 'force' someone to take care of a child to share the expenses, how would that work? You can't force someone to be a dad or a mom. Would they have to grudgingly take the kid to a ball game or something? Watch the kid a certain number of hours per day (how would that work at all in sits where one parent is a SAH?) The cost of raising a kid is the only thing you can settle on a 'sum' for, as arbitrary as that can seem.

 

[Shredderi]

So the woman lied under oath and it's all a-fucking-ok? Right on. And an easily ignored sum of money was taken from his paycheck years ago and that's enough to just bulldoze on the guy like this? Yeah everyone involved in this whole thing are completely and fully aware that this is wrong, even and especially the woman in question. Money was taken from his paycheck because of a mistake, he isn't the actual father after all, and then they just double/triple/quadruple down on it because of some fucking hole in the system that technically allows them to. Where is the biological father? Why not go for the money from the man who actually fathered the child?

This is bullshit. The court and this woman can go fuck themselves. The guy already has children of his own to provide for and they do him like this?

 

[H.Protagonist]

So the woman lied under oath and it's all a-fucking-ok? Right on. And an easily ignored sum of money was taken from his paycheck years ago and that's enough to just bulldoze on the guy like this? Yeah everyone involved in this whole thing are completely and fully aware that this is wrong, even and especially the woman in question. Money was taken from his paycheck because of a mistake, he isn't the actual father after all, and then they just double/triple/quadruple down on it because of some fucking hole in the system that technically allows them to. Where is the biological father? Why not go for the money from the man who actually fathered the child?

This is bullshit. The court and this woman can go fuck themselves. The guy already has children of his own to provide for and they do him like this?

Not saying this is the case (have no idea about the actually nitty-gritty details of this particular situation) or that this judgement isn't out there given the paternity test, but she could have 100% believed that he was the father. Ovulation's not set in stone, and dates can be very misleading.

 

[TimmmV]

The real problem is that if a country really did care about children, the state would pay. A child shouldn't suffer because one of his parent doesn't want to pay child support. And that man shouldn't have to pay $64k in child support.

Yeah, whenever I see stuff like this from the USA the laws always seem to be about making sure the child isn't a burden on the state, with no thought as to the welfare of the child, or how fair it is to pursue the child support from the parents

Its weird, because that ethos exists because of people's fear of anything "big government", but then is part of the reason why the government behaves in a shitty way in the first place.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Not saying this is the case (have no idea about the actually nitty-gritty details of this particular situation) or that this judgement isn't out there given the paternity test, but she could have 100% believed that he was the father. Ovulation's not set in stone, and dates can be very misleading.

Didn't she say it's impossible that anyone else was the father?
It was claimed somewhere here, but it might have been a poster misinterpreting something.
Anyway, if this was the case, she was lying.

 

[Apathy]

Go find the actual father, make him pay, not am innocent man.

 

[H.Protagonist]

Didn't she say it's impossible that anyone else was the father?
It was claimed somewhere here, but it might have been a poster misinterpreting something.
Anyway, if this was the case, she was lying.

I think she did, but say she'd had a night with guy A (actual father) on her period, then began a relationship with guy B (man in this case ordered to pay support) that lasted a fair while and she got pregnant, she'd probably be certain in her mind that guy B was the father. Or if she'd used birth control with guy A but not B, she'd also think guy B had to be the dad. Both scenarios are not rare per se, but they are very uncommon, so in her own mind, there's no way guy A could be the dad. Again, I'm not saying anything like this happened here, but there are a number of ways she could have genuinely thought she was right here even though the test proved otherwise.

 

[entremet]

How much jail time?

I think I'd choose that just to spite her

He has five dependents.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Travesty. Hope the court comes to their senses.

 

[Westbahnhof]

I think she did, but say she'd had a night with guy A (actual father) on her period, then began a relationship with guy B (man in this case ordered to pay support) that lasted a fair while and she got pregnant, she'd probably be certain in her mind that guy B was the father. Or if she'd used birth control with guy A but not B, she'd also think guy B had to be the dad. Both scenarios are not rare per se, but they are very uncommon, so in her own mind, there's no way guy A could be the dad. Again, I'm not saying anything like this happened here, but there are a number of ways she could have genuinely thought she was right here even though the test proved otherwise.

In my eyes, any kind of sex would make the statement "It can only be Person X" a lie.
Period? Birth control? Guy with vasectomy?
It's not impossible.

 

[The Last Wizard]

Mandatory DNA tests would clear up a lot of the not knowing who the parents are or if the present man is the father.

Really feel for the guy, $65k gonna be taken away from his actual family and he's definitely gonna lose.

 

[Arttemis]

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.

The mother should face perjury charges.

"In 2003, Cornejo's ex-girlfriend went to court and said Cornejo was the only possible father. The state of Texas started assessing child support payments, which continue to add up, now totaling nearly $65,000. Cornejo was never told, he claims. Court records suggest, but don't prove, he got a subpoena years ago. He denies it."

 

[H.Protagonist]

In my eyes, any kind of sex would make the statement "It can only be Person X" a lie.
Period? Birth control? Guy with vasectomy?
It's not impossible.

Sure, but your average person isn't going to be demanding 100% certainty if they feel they're pretty damn sure that in their mind that's the case. The courts might, and if the guy's not interested in staying in the relationship and paying child support then he might too, but a run of the mill breakup that results in a kid? Easy in hindsight to say he or she should have done it off the bat, but unless there's suspicion somewhere or a legal need, I don't think it's the norm, hence why it didn't come up until now (he himself didn't challenge it before or when he started getting his wages garnished).

 

[F34R]

Florida is just as bad when it comes to this stuff.

My brother is being taken to court for backed child support.

So the lady is 20 years old, my brother 38. Not that big a deal really.
So, she gives them the name, and that he lives in South Carolina. So they did a Facebook search. My brother just happens to have the same first/last name, and lives in SC. Well, for sure that means he's the father right?

So, they send out a letter saying he's being sued for child support. My brother was confused, and ended up finding the girl on Facebook and contacted her. She went to the people handling her case and explained that "this isn't the guy" and showed them the correct person. They are still taking my brother to court and he has to prove to the court he's not the father. Meanwhile, the other guy isn't being served with notice or anything lol.

They go to court, the first time, and the girl even testifies that HE IS NOT THE GUY. So, instead of dismissing it, they order my brother to do a paternity test, the he has to freakin' pay for!

 

[Krauser Kat]

Yeah this sucks. Our systems in place have a lot of problems. Childcare and entitlements should probably be a government thing so everyone helps share the burden.

It is in the benefit of the entire justice system if we have the assumption everyone is telling the truth. This one case where it backfires a little bit.

About 62% of all child support that is requested is backed out on. It is way way way way more common that women are fucked by the child care system then men. Of everyone receiving child care the split is 63/38 female men.

I feel for the guy that this loophole exists.

 

[kapowza]

You could definitely have them both murdered for a tenth of that. Easy

 

[jroc74]

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

This is straight bullshit.

How was even approved, or even legal?

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Florida is just as bad when it comes to this stuff.

My brother is being taken to court for backed child support.

So the lady is 20 years old, my brother 38. Not that big a deal really.
So, she gives them the name, and that he lives in South Carolina. So they did a Facebook search. My brother just happens to have the same first/last name, and lives in SC. Well, for sure that means he's the father right?

So, they send out a letter saying he's being sued for child support. My brother was confused, and ended up finding the girl on Facebook and contacted her. She went to the people handling her case and explained that "this isn't the guy" and showed them the correct person. They are still taking my brother to court and he has to prove to the court he's not the father. Meanwhile, the other guy isn't being served with notice or anything lol.

They go to court, the first time, and the girl even testifies that HE IS NOT THE GUY. So, instead of dismissing it, they order my brother to do a paternity test, the he has to freakin' pay for!

Lol, wow!!!

This is all kinds of messed up. I'm sorry for your brother, and for Florida for having a court system this bad that they're so willing to waste the woman's, your brother's and their own time for what amounts to simply admitting they were wrong.

 

[jroc74]

What's sad is this is normal. This isn't an anomaly.

lol. Family law here in America is so antiquated. And it goes largely ignored. No politician will go near it. This type of shit is ridiculous.

Yup.

Divorce laws are just as bad. Been saying it for years, divorce and child support laws are really messed up.

Even changing a name on your child's birth certificate. One person I now had their son's first name changed after the fact. On the certificate it still shows the old name along with the new one with some type of asterisk or something.

She wanted that taken off to only show the last name she chose.

No father was present or signed it, but somehow the mother needs the father signature to fix it....

Or how about kids by different men, and yet the support for one is supposed to cover all kids. No additional help from the state. Then the child support office seems like they dont really care, give them all the info about the father, and for some reason its like the father's untouchable.

Know of one case where it took 8 years to finally get papers served or served correctly. After giving the office every damn detail about the guy. Parents addresses, work addresses, etc.

You give them his social...and he still hard to find, trace, serve?

 

[snap0212]

It is in the benefit of the entire justice system if we have the assumption everyone is telling the truth. This one case where it backfires a little bit.

The justice system is straight up shit if it ignores scientific evidence. Especially if it does so deliberately. Everywhere else we use the best methods possible to find out the truth, but not here?

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

Not victim-blaming, but just curious:



How exactly can money be taken out of someone's paycheck without them noticing and doing something about it?
I mean, don't people wonder where their money is going?

I guarantee you that there are more than a few people in this thread who get direct deposit and likely never even look into the details of the pay breakdown unless the numbers are seriously off.

A $31 difference in a check isn't that much to a lot of people.

 

[TheCochese]

This is straight bullshit.

How was even approved, or even legal?

Think the first word there has a clue.

But Family Law is messed up in more places than there. Guilty until proven innocent, sometimes.

 

[LiK]

Man, hope that paternity test result comes back soon. This is outrageous.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

If someone garnishes your wage for child support and your first reaction isn't a paternity test you may as well cover your eyes and wish it would go away. Which he basically did.

Ummm I don't even look at my bank statements or my check stubs unless I'm about to make a large purchase. If someone took 20 bucks out of my account I wouldn't even notice. That shouldn't be enough to slap me with a child.

 

[Theonik]

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.

You know, maybe the system is broken in more than one ways and we should address both of them. What fuels these people besides their ignorance and stupidity is when people dismiss this kind of thing in this way. *shrug*

 

[Krauser Kat]

The justice system is straight up shit if it ignores scientific evidence. Especially if it does so deliberately. Everywhere else we use the best methods possible to find out the truth, but not here?

Best methods were used in this case, they were used many years too late. They are not ignoring the evidence. He is not obligated to pay any future claims after he proved his non paternity.

The past claims and who is responsible and if she did it in malice and why was this man not informed he was going to have to pay child support earlier are why is this is weird. The situation is fubar.

 

[The Greek Freak]

I guarantee you that there are more than a few people in this thread who get direct deposit and likely never even look into the details of the pay breakdown unless the numbers are seriously off.

A $31 difference in a check isn't that much to a lot of people.

Yup when I worked for someone other than myself there is no way I would notice $31, hell I probably didn't look at a physical paycheck for years.

 

[E92 M3]

Family law is really bad in the United States - child support especially. Depending on your income, some payments can be as high as 10,000 a month. It's completely nonsensical.

 

[Shredderi]

I think she did, but say she'd had a night with guy A (actual father) on her period, then began a relationship with guy B (man in this case ordered to pay support) that lasted a fair while and she got pregnant, she'd probably be certain in her mind that guy B was the father. Or if she'd used birth control with guy A but not B, she'd also think guy B had to be the dad. Both scenarios are not rare per se, but they are very uncommon, so in her own mind, there's no way guy A could be the dad. Again, I'm not saying anything like this happened here, but there are a number of ways she could have genuinely thought she was right here even though the test proved otherwise.

Doesn't matter. If the fact that the guy wasn't properly informed of the whole thing when a small amount of money was taken from him years ago was enough of a reason to pulverize his ass with this shit then it doesn't matter if she believed she wasn't lying.

Also the reason for these things are always that the kid's needs come first, right? Then what about this guys actual kids? If forcing him to pay this huge amount of money makes him significantly less able to provide for his OWN children, then isn't it the children who gets the short end of the stick here? If everything is done for the sake of kids, then how does the system resolve situations like this where it's essentially a kids financial need vs other kids financial needs?

 

[jroc74]

I don't see how the case is not disposed on this falsehood. Seems to me the original claim is based on a lie and thus invalid.




I find it strange you do not consider that the woman cheated and lied.

1. The mother lies to her partner about the possibility of another father.

2. The man, who assumes he is the father, takes responsibility for his child.

3. This is why social security is a thing, taking out loans is irresponsible.

4. Man finds out truth.

5. Again taking out loans based on future income is not a good idea. That is why at least in Europe, there is government child support and other support. Sure it is not a lot but should warrent off mountains of debt.


No, the mother lied and screwed the child. As such I would sooner argue the child is taken away then a man must pay a large sum of money for a fundamental lie.

In the end, the child matters most but the mother should not be rewarded nor should the party lied to be punished. As such I would point to government support. If this is not available the child should be placed somewhere else where it can be taken care off.

Thank you.

If she willingly knew and/or lied....he's getting screwed. Straight up.

And where is her punishment if she did lie.....

They cant make her pay it back to him once the child no longer needs support?

Someone posted it earlier, moral of the story is get paternity tests ASAP.