Support NeoGAF

[KingV]

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.

Then go after the real father for the $65K.

Honestly, this woman should be in jail for perjury.

 

[F34R]

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.

... and that's where they go wrong. It's their responsibility to check their pay statements. that way you can catch small changes that can eventually come back to bite you hard.

I make a certain amount each month. It's an exact number. Even if it's not off a single penny, I still check to make sure it's the correct amount for the correct reasons.

My wife has a lot more to look at though. Their hourly wages are different depending on the time of day, plus which days lol. Can't just say she worked x amount of hours for x amount per hour. That's too damn simple. It's mostly easy to keep track of as long as we keep to it.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

* Lady in good faith claims a man is father
* Father doesn't contest it, in fact, runs with it
* Father gets paternity test 20 years later
* Father then slaps mother with a suit for a couple million bucks.

The law is specifically in place to prevent a situation like this. You can't leave a time bomb in the law like this.

As opposed to:

*Sleep with random dudes
*Don't know which one knocked you up
*Find one you can lay the blame on
*Wait 20 years
*Claim he's the father
*Hide behind bullshit laws like this
*Profit

 

[Zhylaw]

I don't think you should be responsible for "back-pay" after DNA testing UNLESS DNA testing became standard or mandated.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

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

Extremely ordinary. Like, happens everyday.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

... and that's where they go wrong. It's their responsibility to check their pay statements. that way you can catch small changes that can eventually come back to bite you hard.

I make a certain amount each month. It's an exact number. Even if it's not off a single penny, I still check to make sure it's the correct amount for the correct reasons.

My wife has a lot more to look at though. Their hourly wages are different depending on the time of day, plus which days lol. Can't just say she worked x amount of hours for x amount per hour. That's too damn simple. It's mostly easy to keep track of as long as we keep to it.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe people should have to closely observe their pay statements each month to ensure that the state isn't inappropriately garnishing their wages. Wage garnishment should undergo numerous layers of checks/approvals and numerous, auditable communication channels (Such as verified mail) to ensure that the subject is both aware of the action and has had an opportunity to dispute it.

 

[Theonik]

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe people should have to closely observe their pay statements each month to ensure that the state isn't inappropriately garnishing their wages. Wage garnishment should undergo numerous layers of checks/approvals and numerous, auditable communication channels (Such as verified mail) to ensure that the subject is both aware of the action and has had an opportunity to dispute it.

And I mean, in this case the state made a mistake/the mother lied and all this would have done had he done it sooner was limit the damage but any amount taken from him unjustly to that point is forfeit. How is this defensible?

 

[Krauser Kat]

As opposed to:

*Sleep with random dudes
*Don't know which one knocked you up
*Find one you can lay the blame on
*Wait 20 years
*Claim he's the father
*Hide behind bullshit laws like this
*Profit

Let me guess, everyone woman also lies about being raped or assaulted. Setting precedent that every woman is liar is terrible. More then 60% of all child support isnt paid. People in general are bad about having children and not giving a shit.

 

[TheCochese]

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe people should have to closely observe their pay statements each month to ensure that the state isn't inappropriately garnishing their wages. Wage garnishment should undergo numerous layers of checks/approvals and numerous, auditable communication channels (Such as verified mail) to ensure that the subject is both aware of the action and has had an opportunity to dispute it.

Fully agree.

 

[ApharmdX]

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.

This is the crux of the issue. The way the system is set up, its primary purpose is to relieve the burden on the state by any means necessary, just or unjust. Shit sucks. And this motivation is why politicians are scared to touch it, no matter how many of these horror stories pop up, and they do, regularly.

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.

As a bit of an aside, percentage-wise men are actually fucked over by women with child support more than women are fucked over by men; far more women do not pay their court-obligated child support, and when they do pay, they pay less. It's just that custody typically goes to women because of outdated gender stereotypes, so the actual number of men who have primary custody of their children is much less. The system in most states just doesn't exist to enforce support on mothers.

All of this shit needs to change ASAP. The family court system in most states is fucked, and I say that as one of the rare cases of a dad who has primary custody of his kids.

 

[Theonik]

Let me guess, everyone woman also lies about being raped or assaulted. Setting precedent that every woman is liar is terrible. More then 60% of all child support isnt paid. People in general are bad about having children and not giving a shit.

Well, I mean, we have a way of solving these kinds of disputes in an unambiguous manner. There is no reason why once proven innocent the original presumed father should be on the hook.

 

[Keri]

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

Saying "there's an issue with service" is not the same thing as saying: "The records conclusively show he was never served." If the latter were true, the judgement would clearly be void and never would have issued. The issue his lawyer has identified is probably just that service was made on an address where he now disputes living.

And, again, $31 is obviously not enough to support a child for a month so, if the amount was that low, it's safe to assume he was making very little. $31 dollars isn't a lot, but if that was, say, 20% of your check, would you notice then? It's something he's going to have to address. He'll have to prove he never received notice of the action over 14 years, to have an equitable basis to now challenge the order. This has to be the law, because otherwise, there's no incentive for anyone to respond to legal documents or actions.

 

[Exile20]

There is actually a very good reason that the law is the way it is.

Think of it like this:

* Lady in good faith claims a man is father
* Father doesn't contest it, in fact, runs with it
* Father gets paternity test 20 years later
* Father then slaps mother with a suit for a couple million bucks.

The law is specifically in place to prevent a situation like this. You can't leave a time bomb in the law like this.

That's why as soon as the man accepted that he was the father without a paternity test he fucked himself. There's a reason why there's statute of limitations on civil cases and that's so that someone can't come along twenty years later can screw you over something that should have been long forgotten. His remedy was to take responsibility for his situation sooner.

Now, you may think that shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on the child support?
No because the guy here was technically evading child support until he got the paternity test. You don't get statute of limitations from a theoretically ongoing crime which is why he's still on the hook. It all comes down to irresponsible people being further irresponsible complaining about their irresponsibility coming back to bite them in the ass and turning into a "WTF FAMILY COURT FUCKING THE MAN/GREEDY WOMAN!" hatefest.

I honestly don't look at my pay check. So a random woman can say i owe child support over 20 years and collect from me?

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

Let me guess, everyone woman also lies about being raped or assaulted. Setting precedent that every woman is liar is terrible. More then 60% of all child support isnt paid. People in general are bad about having children and not giving a shit.

I'm not actually making this claim, just listing out the polar opposite of his ridiculous framework.

 

[Silvard]

Let me guess, everyone woman also lies about being raped or assaulted. Setting precedent that every woman is liar is terrible. More then 60% of all child support isnt paid. People in general are bad about having children and not giving a shit.

How then would claiming his parenthood in that (or this) case be "in good faith"?

 

[Exile20]

Let me guess, everyone woman also lies about being raped or assaulted. Setting precedent that every woman is liar is terrible. More then 60% of all child support isnt paid. People in general are bad about having children and not giving a shit.

How can you compare the two? I don't get it.

 

[HawksWinStanley]

Let me guess, everyone woman also lies about being raped or assaulted. Setting precedent that every woman is liar is terrible. More then 60% of all child support isnt paid. People in general are bad about having children and not giving a shit.

Swing and a miss.

 

[KingV]

Saying "there's an issue with service" is not the same thing as saying: "The records conclusively show he was never served." If the latter were true, the judgement would clearly be void and never would have issued. The issue his lawyer has identified is probably just that service was made on an address where he now disputes living.

And, again, $31 is obviously not enough to support a child for a month so, if the amount was that low, it's safe to assume he was making very little. $31 dollars isn't a lot, but if that was, say, 20% of your check, would you notice then? It's something he's going to have to address. He'll have to prove he never received notice of the action over 14 years, to have an equitable basis to now challenge the order. This has to be the law, because otherwise, there's no incentive for anyone to respond to legal documents or actions.

If his pay was very little, he probably works hourly, and thus there is fluctuation in his paycheck week to week, so there's even less reason he might notice $31.

That said, none of this is his responsibility. He is the victim, and you are blaming the victim for getting screwed.

 

[Bluenoser]

So.,... the actual dad gets off scott free, and this poor dude has to pick up the tab for a child that isn't his, and only found out existed a year ago?

If the mother didn't come to him immediately to disclose the birth, and his obligation to pay, why is he liable? How could he have reasonably gotten a paternity test at an earlier time when he had no idea the child existed?

Why isn't the biological father the one the courts are going after?

 

[Keri]

If his pay was very little, he probably works hourly, and thus there is fluctuation in his paycheck week to week, so there's even less reason he might notice $31.

That said, none of this is his responsibility. He is the victim, and you are blaming the victim for getting screwed.

If he had notice of the action and judgment, it was his responsibility to respond. You cannot ignore legal action against you. In that scenario, he is not a victim, but an individual who made the choice not to contest paternity, for possibly 14 years.

IF he really had no notice of the action (despite what must have been multiple attempts spanning years, to serve him with collection efforts), then the judgment will almost certainly be found void. But since we can assume service was shown to the court back in 2003, the burden will now be on him to contest it.

Personally, I feel that someone making so little, that $31 is a significant percentage, probably needs every dollar and is MORE likely to notice, but if he has a reasonable basis for not noticing, the court will take that into consideration. It will have to be explained though.

 

[Ecotic]

Yeah under a lot of law, such as contract law, if something happens to you and you don't contest it, it's as though you acquiesced to it.

If money was being taken out of his account and he didn't contest it then he's going to have trouble getting out of this.

 

[ronaldthump]

ridiculous. wtf is this even

 

[KingV]

If he had notice of the action and judgment, it was his responsibility to respond. You cannot ignore legal action against you. In that scenario, he is not a victim, but an individual who made the choice not to contest paternity, for possibly 14 years.

IF he really had no notice of the action (despite what must have been multiple attempts spanning years, to serve him with collection efforts), then the judgment will almost certainly be found void. But since we can assume service was shown to the court back in 2003, the burden will now be on him to contest it.

Personally, I feel that someone making so little, that $31 is a significant percentage, probably needs every dollar and is MORE likely to notice, but if he has a reasonable basis for not noticing, the court will take that into consideration. It will have to be explained though.

He is a victim. You are speaking legalese instead of actual common sense.

We don't really know whether or not he was served. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

But there is nothing you can say that will convince the standard person that this is in any way fair. I get that there is a legal argument that will say he accepted the judgment.

But you yourself suggest he likely makes little money. Are there a lot of lawyers out there willing to work pro bono to contest child support payments? Does he have resources to hire a lawyer if he makes "very little money"? Is this stuff easy to figure out on your own?

If the answer to all of the answers above is no. What happened may be legal, but it is not just, and he was victimized by the woman AND the system.

 

[rjinaz]

Then go after the real father for the $65K.

Honestly, this woman should be in jail for perjury.

That's even worse. Imagine having sex with a woman, then 18 years later getting a bill for 65k for a kid you never even knew existed. Your name wasn't put on the birth certificate. Granted that's what this man is claiming that happened to him, but in that scenario we would know it's true.

Honestly I feel like the courts are to blame more than anybody. If this man is lying about not knowing, he is only able to do so because the courts left that open. The Mother isn't exactly innocent here either, she had to know another guy could be the father and she also has to know how damaging a 65k bill would be for any family but especially for a man that isn't even the father.

You can put things on a scale and probably rate who is more to blame.
Man did this.
Mother did this.
Courts did this.

In the end though it's a messed up situation and I can't help but feel bad for everybody involved.

 

[jroc74]

So.,... the actual dad gets off scott free, and this poor dude has to pick up the tab for a child that isn't his, and only found out existed a year ago?

If the mother didn't come to him immediately to disclose the birth, and his obligation to pay, why is he liable? How could he have reasonably gotten a paternity test at an earlier time when he had no idea the child existed?

Why isn't the biological father the one the courts are going after?

The law.

Its insane. Then again, maybe not so insane....

 

[Keri]

He is a victim. You are speaking legalese instead of actual common sense.

We don't really know whether or not he was served. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

But there is nothing you can say that will convince the standard person that this is in any way fair. I get that there is a legal argument that will say he accepted the judgment.

But you yourself suggest he likely makes little money. Are there a lot of lawyers out there willing to work pro bono to contest child support payments? Does he have resources to hire a lawyer if he makes "very little money"? Is this stuff easy to figure out on your own?

If the answer to all of the answers above is no. What happened may be legal, but it is not just, and he was victimized by the woman AND the system.

The papers he was served, would have told him that a failure to respond would result in a judgment against him. It would likely have been underlined and bolded. Typically, the court website offers resources for individuals with limited funds and self-help.

I understand why someone making very little would find the task of responding daunting, but IF you have notice, you MUST respond. If he appeared in pro per, the court probably would have made every effort to consider his position and give reasonable instructions.

And, to be clear, I'm not saying he definitely had notice. I do think it's unlikely he didn't know about this action for 14 years, but in the unlikely event he really had no idea, the judgment will certainly be voided.

 

[YourMaster]

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.

Of course it would work, it would work really well. If on parent gets 100% of the joy of raising the child, that parent would pay 100% of the expenses. If in 90% the mother is the lucky one, than so be it, but in general I feel a father also deserves to be part of the childs live.

And of course you can't force somebody to become a parent, they make their own child and when they decide to let it be born it is their responsibility. If somehow they refuse to take care of their child you could penalize them for that sure, you could even have them pay somebody else to take care of their child, but in most cases there's at least one parent happy to take care of the child.

And shared custody isn't some strange exotic context,.... you could have the child stay one week with the new family of the mother, and the other week with the new family of the father. Of weekends with one parent, and weekdays with the other.

But under no circumstance is it just to deny a parent their right to raise the child but force them to pay money to somebody else or the other parent for the privilege.

 

[Tyraniboah]

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!

I hope your brother makes it through that alright.

I think the people in this thread need to consider that courts are not infallible. Seems entirely possible to me that he wasn't served in 2003, especially if the nobody is able to prove he was served. These things typically have some kind of paper trail. Where he was served, when, who brought it to his attention, etc. That information doesn't just disappear unless the paperwork was lost or he wasn't served. In either case, he absolutely should not be held accountable for child support from that point onward if he didn't know.

Furthermore, we're all ignoring the fact that the mother went to court and said it was impossible that anyone else could be the father. The implication of that being that she did not sleep with anyone else during that time period...which is an outright lie. I'm not saying she needs to be punished, but to hold this man accountable for a child that isn't his on the basis of a lie and $91 over three paychecks years ago is a bit excessive. He has three of his own kids and two more nephews to take care of. Whoever said that justice was served was absolutely wrong.

Also, $31 in three paychecks won't look like much if you work an hourly job. Combine that with direct deposit and he wouldn't have ever noticed. And why did garnishments stop after three checks? If he knew she was coming after him for over a decade then why did he even bother to acknowledge the legal notice this time? If the best argument her lawyer has is that he paid and didn't dispute it, then his lawyer absolutely should be digging deep into whether he was served at all. I'm not familiar with civil litigation, but does the burden of proof not lie with the plaintiff? Shouldn't they have to furnish proof he was served and did nothing? I have a lot of questions regarding the whole thing. I just think holding a man accountable for a child he did not have by either imprisoning him or depriving his real family of $65,000 is wrong no matter how you slice it. There are five children that are about to be screwed over and the plaintiff's child will probably never find their real father at this point. Nobody really wins here except for the woman.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Yeah under a lot of law, such as contract law, if something happens to you and you don't contest it, it's as though you acquiesced to it.

If money was being taken out of his account and he didn't contest it then he's going to have trouble getting out of this.

So if I take $31 from you and you don't bother reporting it to the police that means you're ok with what I did?

 

[Krauser Kat]

Of course it would work, it would work really well. If on parent gets 100% of the joy of raising the child, that parent would pay 100% of the expenses. If in 90% the mother is the lucky one, than so be it, but in general I feel a father also deserves to be part of the childs live.

And of course you can't force somebody to become a parent, they make their own child and when they decide to let it be born it is their responsibility. If somehow they refuse to take care of their child you could penalize them for that sure, you could even have them pay somebody else to take care of their child, but in most cases there's at least one parent happy to take care of the child.

And shared custody isn't some strange exotic context,.... you could have the child stay one week with the new family of the mother, and the other week with the new family of the father. Of weekends with one parent, and weekdays with the other.

But under no circumstance is it just to deny a parent their right to raise the child but force them to pay money to somebody else or the other parent for the privilege.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. WTF. We cant even force normal parents who still like each other to be decent parents and you want to try and get the goverment to track down dads who dont want to be dads and force them to be decent fathers or throw them in jail.

 

[Keri]

So if I take $31 from you and you don't bother reporting it to the police that means you're ok with what I did?

Legally, it means exactly that. You have a limited period of time (within the statute of limitations) to report the crime. If you opted not to, it could not be prosecuted. If you came back, after the statute of limitations and tried to report it, you would be told you are out of luck.

 

[Krauser Kat]

I'm not actually making this claim, just listing out the polar opposite of his ridiculous framework.

The polar opposite you posted is based on the assumption this woman is automatically telling a lie, for no reason, other then her being a woman. We know she was lying now but the system still works better if we assume most people are in good faith and telling the truth with dealing with the courts and the law.

How then would claiming his parenthood in that (or this) case be "in good faith"?

Most people are telling the truth and are in good faith. Screwing the many for the few isnt just.

How can you compare the two? I don't get it.

If every case of child support is presumed to be a woman taking advantage of an unassuming man why believe a woman when they say anything? we cant start with the assumption they are lying.

Swing and a miss.

K

 

[Cj01]

My Ex sister in law has no job, does drugs, has prior convictions has custody of both kids despite them wanting to live with dad (Judge says that they are too young to make decision). The dad tried to take both kids from the mom good paying job with a wife court said no.

Lawyer says Iowa is a mothers state almost impossible to take kids from mother in these cases.


Ex sister in law says he can have the kids if he signs contract agreeing to continue paying her money


system is jacked up

 

[Theonik]

Considering the legal system is based around a presumption of innocent until proven guilty we can and should assume that everyone is lying until they can prove their claim beyond reasonable doubt. This is vital because proving a negative is usually nigh impossible.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Legally, it means exactly that. You have a limited period of time (within the statute of limitations) to report the crime. If you opted not to, it could not be prosecuted. If you came back, after the statute of limitations and tried to report it, you would be told you are out of luck.

No problem then. Let the woman keep the three payments of $31 and release the person who isn't the father from the remaining debt.
You've made me realize this is more like "if you don't report me to the police for stealing $31 then I can steal your car without repercussions".

 

[Krappadizzle]

That's even worse. Imagine having sex with a woman, then 18 years later getting a bill for 65k for a kid you never even knew existed. Your name wasn't put on the birth certificate. Granted that's what this man is claiming that happened to him, but in that scenario we would know it's true.

Honestly I feel like the courts are to blame more than anybody. If this man is lying about not knowing, he is only able to do so because the courts left that open. The Mother isn't exactly innocent here either, she had to know another guy could be the father and she also has to know how damaging a 65k bill would be for any family but especially for a man that isn't even the father.

You can put things on a scale and probably rate who is more to blame.
Man did this.
Mother did this.
Courts did this.

In the end though it's a messed up situation and I can't help but feel bad for everybody involved.

So the woman is only partially to blame? Hows that work? When you have sex, you may possibly have children, plan for it. The woman is at fault here. Not the man who didn't father the child.

 

[ApharmdX]

If every case of child support is presumed to be a woman taking advantage of an unassuming man why believe a woman when they say anything? we cant start with the assumption they are lying.

Every case of child support should be backed with a positive paternity test. Full stop.

 

[H.Protagonist]

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?

? I'm not arguing that the ruling is fine. As I said multiple times, the law needs to be changed to address cases like this. You were just quite vehement that she must be a lying money grubber, so I was explaining how she may have legitimately thought she was correct. That doesn't change anything about how the paternity test should overturn the amount owed.

 

[Timeaisis]

There is actually a very good reason that the law is the way it is.

Think of it like this:

* Lady in good faith claims a man is father
* Father doesn't contest it, in fact, runs with it
* Father gets paternity test 20 years later
* Father then slaps mother with a suit for a couple million bucks.

The law is specifically in place to prevent a situation like this. You can't leave a time bomb in the law like this.

That's why as soon as the man accepted that he was the father without a paternity test he fucked himself. There's a reason why there's statute of limitations on civil cases and that's so that someone can't come along twenty years later can screw you over something that should have been long forgotten. His remedy was to take responsibility for his situation sooner.

Now, you may think that shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on the child support?
No because the guy here was technically evading child support until he got the paternity test. You don't get statute of limitations from a theoretically ongoing crime which is why he's still on the hook. It all comes down to irresponsible people being further irresponsible complaining about their irresponsibility coming back to bite them in the ass and turning into a "WTF FAMILY COURT FUCKING THE MAN/GREEDY WOMAN!" hatefest.

No, because, as it turns out, he wasn't the father after all. So if we are speaking on pure technicality, he actually wasn't ever evading anything, because there was nothing to evade.

 

[Keri]

No problem then. Let the woman keep the three payments of $31 and release the person who isn't the father from the remaining debt.
You've made me realize this is more like "if you don't report me to the police for stealing $31 then I can steal your car without repercussions".

Not exactly. In this case it's more like: "A judgment in the amount of $65,000 is going to be entered against you. You have a reasonable amount of time after notice, to contest this judgment. If you opt not to contest, you are agreeing to this amount and the judgment will legally be final."

So, the question becomes: "Did he contest it within a reasonable amount of time after notice?" If he really didn't have notice, the answer is obviously yes and the judgment will be set aside.

These have to be the rules, to force defendants to participate in legal actions against them. Otherwise, you could sue someone and they could just ignore it.

 

[KingV]

The papers he was served, would have told him that a failure to respond would result in a judgment against him. It would likely have been underlined and bolded. Typically, the court website offers resources for individuals with limited funds and self-help.

I understand why someone making very little would find the task of responding daunting, but IF you have notice, you MUST respond. If he appeared in pro per, the court probably would have made every effort to consider his position and give reasonable instructions.

And, to be clear, I'm not saying he definitely had notice. I do think it's unlikely he didn't know about this action for 14 years, but in the unlikely event he really had no idea, the judgment will certainly be voided.

Having been served papers before and having been in a court without legal representation I don't think it's as simple as you make it sound for the average Joe. I consider myself to be relatively savvy, and l'm well-educated by a traditional standard... and I think the average person is at a huge disadvantage when dealing with legal issues. Almost completely so if they don't have a lawyer.

I have seen those court online resources in my state (not Texas) and if you are relying on them to defend yourself... good luck. My experience leads me to believe that if this dude showed up in court with no lawyer, it's highly likely he would still get issued the child support, because he would be railroaded by the chicks lawyer, and when he got an opportunity to respond would have no idea what to do, since he has no experience as a lawyer, and the judge would just tell him to take his seat. And he would just be sitting there with his head spinning unsure what happened.

It's another the way the system is stacked against the non-wealthy in general. The state is more interested in finding someone, anyone to foot the bill for this kid than determining whether or not that person SHOULD be paying.

 

[KingV]

Not exactly. In this case it's more like: "A judgment in the amount of $65,000 is going to be entered against you. You have a reasonable amount of time after notice, to contest this judgment. If you opt not to contest, you are agreeing to this amount and the judgment will legally be final."

So, the question becomes: "Did he contest it within a reasonable amount of time after notice?" If he really didn't have notice, the answer is obviously yes and the judgment will be set aside.

These have to be the rules, to force defendants to participate in legal actions against them. Otherwise, you could sue someone and they could just ignore it.

They don't have to be, you could make it a crime to avoid the summons.

 

[foxdvd]

Child support issues are so messy...and at times it can destroy people. There are a lot more deadbeat dads who avoid paying child support than situations like this that basically screw over the dad. It is funny how a story like this draws so much attention when there are so many more issues where dads legitimately owe 65000 or more to the mom. I agree though that the guy in this situation is being screwed big time. It sucks...

I have a friend who works at DHS (department of human services) and it is insane how far some dads will got to avoid paying. Quitting good jobs and taking cash only jobs...living with friends so they can hide their residence...

I do have one child support story though that screwed over a dad. I have worked for a cola company for the last 22 years. I met a worker in one of the stores that worked for Pepsi. This would have been around 2002 I think. He previously worked the prior 10 years for the airport making near 6 figures. After 9/11, airport jobs were gutted, and he lost his job. He could not find another job doing the same thing. His wife left him. Child support was set on his previous jobs 90,000 a year rate. He was making 10 bucks an hour with Pepsi. When he told the judge that, the judge said he believed they guy could find a better paying job.

His child support was more than his entire check. There is some sort of law that limits the max rate, but because the judge had set it on the old pay he kept having to borrow money to make the payment. He was trying to get back into court to fix this, but each time there was a date set, the ex would not show up and her lawyer had an excuse. The judge kept extending the court date each time. The guy's lawyer told him it was a tactic, because the longer they extended it, the longer she got the larger check.

One day in frustration he told me he was not paying that weeks child support. (it might have been a biweekly payment) He said that this would force a court date and finally get it resolved. Two days later he did not show up to work, and the replacement told me he had been arrested. Arrested because he could not make a payment that he did not have the money for. He also hated his Pepsi job and spent every free moment looking for better work. He was not in any way a deadbeat dad but he still went to jail.

 

[snap0212]

Most people are telling the truth and are in good faith. Screwing the many for the few isnt just.

She didn't and she knew that she lied when she had sex with another guy and said it was impossible for him to not be the father.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

The polar opposite you posted is based on the assumption this woman is automatically telling a lie, for no reason, other then her being a woman. We know she was lying now but the system still works better if we assume most people are in good faith and telling the truth with dealing with the courts and the law.

Dude I'm not talking about her, I'm talking about hypothetical women that could use this law to their advantage. He's saying the law exists to prevent men from gaming women, and I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is and that women could game men with this law as easily as men could if it didn't exist.

Hence, it's an unfair law because instead of protecting both parties, it only protects one.

 

[BackLogJoe]

There's a big line item on your paycheck that says "WE'RE TAKING YOUR MONEY DEADBEAT".

Does he want a written invitation from the governor?!?

I get tons of overtime. I don't read my paystubs. I would never know.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Not exactly. In this case it's more like: "A judgment in the amount of $65,000 is going to be entered against you. You have a reasonable amount of time after notice, to contest this judgment. If you opt not to contest, you are agreeing to this amount and the judgment will legally be final."

So, the question becomes: "Did he contest it within a reasonable amount of time after notice?" If he really didn't have notice, the answer is obviously yes and the judgment will be set aside.

These have to be the rules, to force defendants to participate in legal actions against them. Otherwise, you could sue someone and they could just ignore it.

Assuming the man in this story is telling the truth, is it not possible that all these notices of summons were being delivered to the wrong address?

If so, would the court records still go down as having "delivered the notices" even though no verification of the identity of the recipient was made?

It's a real possibility that he didn't receive any of this paperwork and wasn't just ignoring it for 18 years. If he was aware, I would argue that it's far more likely that when he received the notice of summons about the $65k amount it would have made him do something about it... but it seems he didn't then. On that basis, I'd argue it more likely that he wasn't aware.

 

[F34R]

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't believe people should have to closely observe their pay statements each month to ensure that the state isn't inappropriately garnishing their wages. Wage garnishment should undergo numerous layers of checks/approvals and numerous, auditable communication channels (Such as verified mail) to ensure that the subject is both aware of the action and has had an opportunity to dispute it.

I don't think they should have to at all. I agree with you for sure on that. I also think the departments should be getting things right, and that's their responsibility. However, I still think it is our responsibility to check to make sure it is getting done right. Sometimes things fall through the cracks, or there is a computer glitch, and things are wrong on someones pay, garnishments, etc.

With so much of payroll being automated, you definitely want to keep an eye on things. you have human resource people stretched thin, and taking too long to get problems fixed, and it takes longer if you don't stay on top of things.

I can't count how many times we found errors in my wife's pay.

 

[E92 M3]

Child support issues are so messy...and at times it can destroy people. There are a lot more deadbeat dads who avoid paying child support than situations like this that basically screw over the dad. It is funny how a story like this draws so much attention when there are so many more issues where dads legitimately owe 65000 or more to the mom. I agree though that the guy in this situation is being screwed big time. It sucks...

I have a friend who works at DHS (department of human services) and it is insane how far some dads will got to avoid paying. Quitting good jobs and taking cash only jobs...living with friends so they can hide their residence...

I do have one child support story though that screwed over a dad. I have worked for a cola company for the last 22 years. I met a worker in one of the stores that worked for Pepsi. This would have been around 2002 I think. He previously worked the prior 10 years for the airport making near 6 figures. After 9/11, airport jobs were gutted, and he lost his job. He could not find another job doing the same thing. His wife left him. Child support was set on his previous jobs 90,000 a year rate. He was making 10 bucks an hour with Pepsi. When he told the judge that, the judge said he believed they guy could find a better paying job.

His child support was more than his entire check. There is some sort of law that limits the max rate, but because the judge had set it on the old pay he kept having to borrow money to make the payment. He was trying to get back into court to fix this, but each time there was a date set, the ex would not show up and her lawyer had an excuse. The judge kept extending the court date each time. The guy's lawyer told him it was a tactic, because the longer they extended it, the longer she got the larger check.

One day in frustration he told me he was not paying that weeks child support. (it might have been a biweekly payment) He said that this would force a court date and finally get it resolved. Two days later he did not show up to work, and the replacement told me he had been arrested. Arrested because he could not make a payment that he did not have the money for. He also hated his Pepsi job and spent every free moment looking for better work. He was not in any way a deadbeat dad but he still went to jail.

The system is broken, unfortunately. Having children with the wrong person can be an extremely costly situation.

 

[Keri]

They don't have to be, you could make it a crime to avoid the summons.

Is that better? I'm not sure jail time is better than a monetary judgment.

Also, to your last point, I have no doubt the legal system is difficult for people without representation. Honestly, in the vast majority of civil actions it's going to be insurmountable, for a pro per. But paternity actions are much more straightforward than most civil actions, so I think there's a chance he could have navigated it and requested a DNA test. Just showing up in court and asking for one, would have been better than ignoring it (if that's what happened here).