Support NeoGAF

[Quixzlizx]

I get direct deposit, so I generally don't look at my individual electronic pay stubs unless there's a particular situation coming up where I think there's a good chance of a potential mistake.

Looks like I need to pore over each one from now on to make sure Russian botnets haven't taken out a mortgage in my name and defaulted on it.

 

[Prophaniti]

They would never see a dollar from me. Nope.

I really have no explanation why the idea of this sends me into such a rage, but it does.

 

[Keri]

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.

It's definitely possible. It's not uncommon for there to be mistakes in service, but typically those mistakes are discovered relatively quickly, when efforts commence to collect on the judgment. Then the defendant will come into court to dispute service and have judgment set aside. Sometimes its: "I didn't realize I needed to respond to this" and sometimes its: "I didn't live at that address and the person served wasn't me." If the defendant comes into court quickly enough, it's almost always set aside, in both instances (in my experience).

What's unusual about this case and makes it more questionable, is that 14 years went by after the judgment and collection efforts were occurring. So, there's more instances of service, that have to be explained away. But if he has explanations for the lengthy delay the court will almost certainly error towards setting it aside.

Sorry if this is a double post, I'm on mobile and couldn't edit into one post.

 

[badscooter]

Lawyer here who has handled many family law cases. That dude ducked service back in the day, or this was one of those fairly rare cases in which people move so frequently that no one could find him. MRA/TRP folks have so badly twisted and warped the idea of family law/child support that people who don't work in it can't analyze things clearly. Things are not as unfair as it seems - once you view child support from the lens of the child, not the parent. People only imagine themselves as the person paying - and not the child who is entitled to money.

(Also, I remind you that these "unjust" laws were written mostly by men, and adjudicated by mostly men. If you want things to be more fair, as mentioned by an earlier poster, start by making sure more women make more money).

I've chased people down successfully and unsuccessfully - it takes more than just a token attempt at service to get a court to enter a default judgment. There's also a ton of paperwork involved in getting wages garnished by the state. This dude knew or intentionally chose not to know.

In the rare circumstance that he was actually in the dark about this, all states, including Texas, have procedures in place to get relief from these types of default judgments. He might be able to use them.

TLDR: Not getting "notice" is unlikely to happen to you or anyone else, unless you're intentionally making it difficult. Court documents, no matter how seemingly frivolous, must be dealt with seriously.

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

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

[...]

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!

So we're criticizing Florida for doing what so many people in this thread want done?

 

[Zaphrynn]

I know this is only partially related but: People, check your paystubs and your bank statements. Having worked at a bank, shit happens and you need to catch that shit early or it's hell to fix. The system isn't always fair, and people are assholes. Shit happens. Keep track of your finances.

 

[Dynomutt]

They would never see a dollar from me. Nope.

I really have no explanation why the idea of this sends me into such a rage, but it does.

Yeah. If I were in this situation I would have planned a long time ago. 65K is no joke.

- Assuming my legitimate kids were young enough. I would have gotten a insurance policy with the two year suicide clause a long time ago with a healthy payout. I would not discuss my plans with anyone. I would not falsify the suicide to look like an accident so there are no repercussions for my family and not contested by the insurance company.

However, after those two years are up, the suicide clause no longer applies. If the policyholder commits suicide after the clause has expired, their life insurance claim typically can't be contested. Their beneficiaries will likely receive the full payout.

Since I'm dead:

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, a surviving relative usually has no legal obligation to pay the debts of a family member who has died. In fact, the rights of surviving relatives are covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors from using abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices to collect from you.

-This way my family is taken care of and the state has no one to come after. I'd die to setup my family in a heart beat.

Spoiler

Solution may be going overboard but my brain is wired differently.

 

[Z3M0G]

Thread title floored me... then I read

and who he met only once

Edit: Ok, I guess that wasn't a big deal, but the story didn't go the way I expected anyways.

 

[Clockwork]

Lawyer here who has handled many family law cases. That dude ducked service back in the day, or this was one of those fairly rare cases in which people move so frequently that no one could find him. MRA/TRP folks have so badly twisted and warped the idea of family law/child support that people who don't work in it can't analyze things clearly. Things are not as unfair as it seems - once you view child support from the lens of the child, not the parent. People only imagine themselves as the person paying - and not the child who is entitled to money.

(Also, I remind you that these "unjust" laws were written mostly by men, and adjudicated by mostly men. If you want things to be more fair, as mentioned by an earlier poster, start by making sure more women make more money).

I've chased people down successfully and unsuccessfully - it takes more than just a token attempt at service to get a court to enter a default judgment. There's also a ton of paperwork involved in getting wages garnished by the state. This dude knew or intentionally chose not to know.

In the rare circumstance that he was actually in the dark about this, all states, including Texas, have procedures in place to get relief from these types of default judgments. He might be able to use them.

TLDR: Not getting "notice" is unlikely to happen to you or anyone else, unless you're intentionally making it difficult. Court documents, no matter how seemingly frivolous, must be dealt with seriously.



So we're criticizing Florida for doing what so many people in this thread want done?

Or you have the opinion I do:

He isn't the father. He doesn't owe anything to anybody. I don't care what notice he did or didn't receive.

Sure it sucks as the kid should receive support from both parents, but that isn't this guy's problem.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Or you have the opinion I do:

He isn't the father. He doesn't owe anything to anybody. I don't care what notice he did or didn't receive.

Sure it sucks as the kid should receive support from both parents, but that isn't this guy's problem.

Seriously. Some posters are victim blaming him for basically doing nothing.

 

[KingV]

Lawyer here who has handled many family law cases. That dude ducked service back in the day, or this was one of those fairly rare cases in which people move so frequently that no one could find him. MRA/TRP folks have so badly twisted and warped the idea of family law/child support that people who don't work in it can't analyze things clearly. Things are not as unfair as it seems - once you view child support from the lens of the child, not the parent. People only imagine themselves as the person paying - and not the child who is entitled to money.

(Also, I remind you that these "unjust" laws were written mostly by men, and adjudicated by mostly men. If you want things to be more fair, as mentioned by an earlier poster, start by making sure more women make more money).

I've chased people down successfully and unsuccessfully - it takes more than just a token attempt at service to get a court to enter a default judgment. There's also a ton of paperwork involved in getting wages garnished by the state. This dude knew or intentionally chose not to know.

In the rare circumstance that he was actually in the dark about this, all states, including Texas, have procedures in place to get relief from these types of default judgments. He might be able to use them.

TLDR: Not getting "notice" is unlikely to happen to you or anyone else, unless you're intentionally making it difficult. Court documents, no matter how seemingly frivolous, must be dealt with seriously.



So we're criticizing Florida for doing what so many people in this thread want done?

So your position is that the child is owed money by some dude that's not his/her parent?

And also, you think that "oh his name is Joe Smith and he lives in South Carolina" is sufficient to identify someone? Shouldn't they at least, like find the dudes picture on Facebook and say "hey is this the dude you fucked?"

Now we know why the system is broken.

 

[snap0212]

TLDR: Not getting "notice" is unlikely to happen to you or anyone else, unless you're intentionally making it difficult. Court documents, no matter how seemingly frivolous, must be dealt with seriously.

Which is why it's always documented... which it isn't, magically, in this case.

And yes, it's supposed to be about the child. However, the child's rights end where the guy's rights start and this has nothing to do with MRA shit. If he's not the father then he has as much obligation to pay for the child as the lawyer representing the mother.

No man should ever be forced to pay child support for another man's child under any circumstance whatsoever. Would you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Prophaniti]

Yeah. If I were in this situation I would have planned a long time ago. 65K is no joke.

- Assuming my legitimate kids were young enough. I would have gotten a insurance policy with the two year suicide clause a long time ago with a healthy payout. I would not discuss my plans with anyone. I would not falsify the suicide to look like an accident so there are no repercussions for my family and not contested by the insurance company.



Since I'm dead:



-This way my family is taken care of and the state has no one to come after. I'd die to setup my family in a heart beat.

Spoiler

Solution may be going overboard but my brain is wired differently.

I was just going to burn everything and scorch earth it before hanging from the rafters but this makes so much more sense.

 

[Sunset Samurai]

The man isn't the father and shouldn't have to pay the $65k for a child not his whether he was served or not. Proving he's not the father should release him of all responsibilities

 

[YourMaster]

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.

Of course not, it's not up to the government to find the parent, it is up to the parents to stay in touch. If you don't plan on living together after the baby is born, you'd best decide together if and how you will share custody - so the advantages AND disadvantages of having a child. Decide this before the baby is born, and if neither party is happy to have full or partial custody, don't have the child. You shouldn't have a child be born and than have both parents decide to not take care of it, that should be penalized yes. And there you can expect the government to step in, to punish parents who neglect their child.

Lawyer here who has handled many family law cases. That dude ducked service back in the day, or this was one of those fairly rare cases in which people move so frequently that no one could find him. MRA/TRP folks have so badly twisted and warped the idea of family law/child support that people who don't work in it can't analyze things clearly. Things are not as unfair as it seems - once you view child support from the lens of the child, not the parent. People only imagine themselves as the person paying - and not the child who is entitled to money.

But that is complete rubbish. Child support isn't for the child, it's a luxury fund for the parent with custody.
Do you know how you can tell? By looking at the fact that it isn't based on how much it would cost to feed and educate a child, but by how much the parents make. If the parent who has lost the right to raise her child is making millions, she has to pay incredible amounts of money to the parent who gets to raise the child. Even if that parent has a new partner, and is living in a completely new family.

 

[shiyrley]

I'm not sweating $30 on a paycheck.

Could you please give me a montly 30$?

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

It's not his kid. He shouldn't have to pay anything. Go find the real father and dig into his bank account.

 

[badscooter]

I'll try to respond to everyone, but I'm on mobile:

1. I get where it sucks if this guy is telling the truth. And yes, paying support for a child who is not yours also might suck. But I believe he had multiple chances to say this to a court, and for whatever reason chose not to. His truth of not getting lawful notice is, in my experience, exceedingly rare and should be doubted heavily.

Its possible I'm being too harsh on the guy, but I doubt it. If a guy dodges notice or willfully ignores it, that's on him. He had his chance to get justice, and chose not to.

And like I mentioned, there is also, if he's right, a good chance of this all being undone, so I don't need to get up in arms over the system's "injustice". There are procedures in place to redress this stuff.

2. The FL paternity test - this thread is literally about one party, be it man or woman, lying to a court. Why should this Florida court believe either person? Isn't a neutral, scientific test what people want?

3. Misunderstanding of what child support is. It's not what it costs to raise a child. It's meant to somewhat approximate the level of finances the child would enjoy had both parents been together. So at each parent's household the child gets similar levels of treatment, so to speak.

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

The system should give justice. It's not his kid.

 

[Clockwork]

I'll try to respond to everyone, but I'm on mobile:

1. I get where it sucks if this guy is telling the truth. And yes, paying support for a child who is not yours also might suck. But I believe he had multiple chances to say this to a court, and for whatever reason chose not to. His truth of not getting lawful notice is, in my experience, exceedingly rare and should be doubted heavily.

Its possible I'm being too harsh on the guy, but I doubt it. If a guy dodges notice or willfully ignores it, that's on him. He had his chance to get justice, and chose not to.

And like I mentioned, there is also, if he's right, a good chance of this all being undone, so I don't need to get up in arms over the system's "injustice". There are procedures in place to redress this stuff.

Action or inaction does not change what will always be the simplest of facts:

He is not the father.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

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.

How is this a better solution than having take a paternity test before starting to pay someone money for someone else's kid? I'd say the US is so idiotic to these kinds of laws, but I wouldn't be surprised if Canada supplies similar laws :S

 

[Izayoi]

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

Solution: don't have children.

Alternatively: use birth control.

 

[IISANDERII]

Lawyer here who has handled many family law cases. That dude ducked service back in the day, or this was one of those fairly rare cases in which people move so frequently that no one could find him. MRA/TRP folks have so badly twisted and warped the idea of family law/child support that people who don't work in it can't analyze things clearly. Things are not as unfair as it seems - once you view child support from the lens of the child, not the parent. People only imagine themselves as the person paying - and not the child who is entitled to money.

(Also, I remind you that these "unjust" laws were written mostly by men, and adjudicated by mostly men. If you want things to be more fair, as mentioned by an earlier poster, start by making sure more women make more money).

I've chased people down successfully and unsuccessfully - it takes more than just a token attempt at service to get a court to enter a default judgment. There's also a ton of paperwork involved in getting wages garnished by the state. This dude knew or intentionally chose not to know.

In the rare circumstance that he was actually in the dark about this, all states, including Texas, have procedures in place to get relief from these types of default judgments. He might be able to use them.

TLDR: Not getting "notice" is unlikely to happen to you or anyone else, unless you're intentionally making it difficult. Court documents, no matter how seemingly frivolous, must be dealt with seriously.



So we're criticizing Florida for doing what so many people in this thread want done?

The system is working as intended? Wow

 

[badscooter]

Action or inaction does not change what will always be the simplest of facts:

He is not the father.

Sure. And if he had shown up to court, he could've told the court that. As it were, a court made a judgment based on what it had before it.

Look at what the poster's brother did in the FL case mentioned here - as ludicrous as the claim was, notice "magically" found him, he responded, a paternity test will be given, and he will walk. If this dude had played it similarly, he'd have the same result.

 

[Clockwork]

Sure. And if he had shown up to court, he could've told the court that. As it were, a court made a judgment based on what it had before it.

You're one of those "technically correct is the best kind of correct" kind of guys, aren't you?

What you said does not change the fact that he is not the father. The judgement should be tossed.

 

[MaximumSpider]

18 years
18 years
and on the 18th birthday
he find out it wasn't his

I was thinking the exact same thing

 

[snap0212]

Sure. And if he had shown up to court, he could've told the court that. As it were, a court made a judgment based on what it had before it.

Look at what the poster's brother did in the FL case mentioned here - as ludicrous as the claim was, notice "magically" found him, he responded, a paternity test will be given, and he will walk. If this dude had played it similarly, he'd have the same result.

And if MLK Junior would have just accepted and moved on, he'd probably not have been bullied by the F.B.I. How can it be that the US courts don't act immediately when new evidence shows that the first decision has been 100% wrong? Like it's black and white. If it turns our that he's not the father, any decision should be reversed.

It's ridiculous that you think there could be any case where someone should be forced to pay for a child he did not father. For any reason whatsoever.

With everything else, you have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened. You're supposedly a lawyer, you should know that. Somehow this doesn't apply here and is fair? Also lying in front of a judge is also okay now, apparently.

 

[hwalker84]

I've seen several stories where this happened because the man isn't able to make it to court. Stories where the woman moved to a different state and the court appointed father couldn't make it to that other state due to financial reasons.

Notice or no notice. If you're not the father you shouldn't have to pay period.

 

[Keri]

How is this a better solution than having take a paternity test before starting to pay someone money for someone else's kid? I'd say the US is so idiotic to these kinds of laws, but I wouldn't be surprised if Canada supplies similar laws :S

You can't get a paternity test done, unless he comes to court. If a paternity test was required before payments were ordered and there were no consequences for ignoring a summons, then child support could cease to exist - just throw the summons away and refuse to submit to a test.

 

[Clockwork]

You can't get a paternity test done, unless he comes to court. If a paternity test was required before payments were ordered and there were no consequences for ignoring a summons, then child support could cease to exist - just throw the summons away and refuse to submit to a test.

Who said there should be no consequences for ignoring a summons? Make such a refusal a criminal action. Arrest warrants could be issued. Force compliance.

Just don't force someone to pay child support when they are not the parent.

 

[Keri]

Who said there should be no consequences for ignoring a summons? Make such a refusal a criminal action. Arrest warrants could be issued. Force compliance.

Just don't force someone to pay child support when they are not the parent.

I'm surprised to see people suggesting imprisonment is more reasonable then a monetary judgment, but how do you enforce that? Do you force them to litigate, while in jail? That's putting them at a disadvantage in locating counsel and participating in proceedings. Do you let them out to litigate, in the hopes they'll participate again? And send sheriff after them to collect them for each hearing? This would be very expensive and a lot more complicated than: "If you want to contest this, come here. If not we'll enter judgment."

 

[Quixzlizx]

Sure. And if he had shown up to court, he could've told the court that. As it were, a court made a judgment based on what it had before it.

Look at what the poster's brother did in the FL case mentioned here - as ludicrous as the claim was, notice "magically" found him, he responded, a paternity test will be given, and he will walk. If this dude had played it similarly, he'd have the same result.

And he's the one who has to pay for the paternity test, which seems off to me.

 

[Ganhyun]

And he's the one who has to pay for the paternity test, which seems off to me.

That is the part I think most people have an issue with.

 

[Clockwork]

I'm surprised to see people suggesting imprisonment is more reasonable then a monetary judgment, but how do you enforce that? Do you force them to litigate, while in jail? That's putting them at a disadvantage in locating counsel and participating in proceedings. Do you let them out to litigate, in the hopes they'll participate again? And send sheriff after them to collect them for each hearing? This would be very expensive and a lot more complicated than: "If you want to contest this, come here. If not we'll enter judgment."

Participate in what? Payment? I'm saying force a paternity test.

If you come back as the father...guess what? You get to pay child support. If the test is negative? Sorry for your time. Be on your merry way.

What we should not have is a situation like the one in the OP.

 

[Keri]

Participate in what? Payment? I'm saying force a paternity test.

If you come back as the father...guess what? You get to pay child support. If the test is negative? Sorry for your time. Be on your merry way.

What we should not have is a situation like the one in the OP.

So, you think the better result is to jail men who are alleged to have fathered children and force them to provide DNA samples for paternity testing? I feel like that is more extreme than the system we have now and almost certainly unconstitutional...

I mean, I guess it would avoid the particular problem identified in this case, but still...

 

[KingV]

I'll try to respond to everyone, but I'm on mobile:
2. The FL paternity test - this thread is literally about one party, be it man or woman, lying to a court. Why should this Florida court believe either person? Isn't a neutral, scientific test what people want.

He says he's not the dad, she says he's not the dad. Literally nobody who has any skin in the game thinks there is more than 0% chance that he's the dad.

Doesn't the lawyer/police/system have some responsibility to double check to see that they have the correct David Johnson before they go serve the guy and force him to go through a bunch of bullshit?

Like, as soon as the chick says "yeah, I've never seen this dude before", then tell him he can take his ass back to SC.

Better yet, show him some pictures from the Facebook profile first and verify before upending this guy's life. It's completely fucked, and I can't believe anybody would defend it.

 

[KingV]

I'm surprised to see people suggesting imprisonment is more reasonable then a monetary judgment, but how do you enforce that? Do you force them to litigate, while in jail? That's putting them at a disadvantage in locating counsel and participating in proceedings. Do you let them out to litigate, in the hopes they'll participate again? And send sheriff after them to collect them for each hearing? This would be very expensive and a lot more complicated than: "If you want to contest this, come here. If not we'll enter judgment."

Because a reasonable person would much rather do 10 days in jail than get hit with $65K bill for a kid that wasn't his.

 

[FStubbs]

It's nuts.

A woman who knows she won't get much support from a kid's father has every incentive to just name a guy and steal money. No risk of you going to jail and you might just get it.

Maybe they should name a Republican. I bet that will get the laws changed quick.

 

[.....]

Wow thats pretty fucking brutal. Such an injustice.

 

[Sunster]

"She's smart for using the current system to her advantage!" She should run for president.

 

[Cipherr]

So, you think the better result is to jail men who are alleged to have fathered children and force them to provide DNA samples for paternity testing? I feel like that is more extreme than the system we have now

18 years of child support payments for a child that's not yours versus 3 hours after being booked and a blood test? Yeah, you are the only person alive that thinks those two are even remotely close. Especially since it should be able to be set up where you don't get a hard criminal strike for it.

 

[Sohter.Nura]

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?!?

Do you know how often people look at their paycheck deductions?
I haven't checked mine in years with direct deposit.

 

[grumble]

Wow this post went from 0 to 100 real quick with that last sentence. Just FYI - you are defending what's happening to this man because of both the letter and spirit of an unjust law.

It appears that the law has been misapplied due to their method of attempting to determine consent.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

It's definitely possible. It's not uncommon for there to be mistakes in service, but typically those mistakes are discovered relatively quickly, when efforts commence to collect on the judgment. Then the defendant will come into court to dispute service and have judgment set aside. Sometimes its: "I didn't realize I needed to respond to this" and sometimes its: "I didn't live at that address and the person served wasn't me." If the defendant comes into court quickly enough, it's almost always set aside, in both instances (in my experience).

What's unusual about this case and makes it more questionable, is that 14 years went by after the judgment and collection efforts were occurring. So, there's more instances of service, that have to be explained away. But if he has explanations for the lengthy delay the court will almost certainly error towards setting it aside.

Sorry if this is a double post, I'm on mobile and couldn't edit into one post.

If the notices were being delivered to the wrong address with the defendant in question having no knowledge of it, then how would the mistake ever be rectified? As far as the court records are concerned, they delivered the notices, and as far as the defendant is concerned, he's entirely oblivious to that.

So I could see the garnishing of his wages for a mere three payments being the only indication that something was going on.

In which case, I think it all starts to sound rather plausible actually.

 

[Linkura]

I get direct deposit, so I generally don't look at my individual electronic pay stubs unless there's a particular situation coming up where I think there's a good chance of a potential mistake.

Looks like I need to pore over each one from now on to make sure Russian botnets haven't taken out a mortgage in my name and defaulted on it.

I'm glad I'm the one who does payroll at my job. They'd never get past me!

 

[hwalker84]

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?!?

Who the hell looks at their paycheck?

I've been Salary with direct deposit for 11 years. I haven't looked at my paystub in that time. I can easily go the next 7 without seeing it.