Another NON Father forced to Pay

[Big Don]

This one is in New Jersey

An appeals court upheld a lower court which denied the man's request in 2006 after he said he discovered he was not the father of the 10-year-old girl.

The appeals panel found the judge put the best interest of the child first.

The interest of justice doesn't count anymore?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Fathers get short shaft in court. Those later found to not be the actual fathers, even more so.

 

[Big Don]

Fathers get short shaft in court. Those later found to not be the actual fathers, even more so.

Believe me, I know.
My son will be 12 in 2 months, last October marked 10 years since his mother had bothered her self to see him. She found, what I can only assume to be, a shyster doctor and got herself on disability. Since she hadn't worked enough quarters it is technically WELFARE disability and so the county wiped out the FIVE THOUSAND dollars in back child support she owed me, and will not pursue the case further. Nice, huh?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I heard from a reliable source that some counties when doing paternity testing just fake it, figuring it's easier to just pin it on some shmuck than run the actual tests. Usually poor guys who can't afford good legal reps. Illegal, unethical yeah, but what do you expect from a system that doesn't care about the truth?

 

[Empty Hands]

At least this guy was actually personally involved with the child in question. It doesn't always work out that way...
http://www.mississippifamilylawblog.com/2008/01/state_pursues_wrong_man_for_ch_1.html

I can't find the story, but I even heard about a "wrong guy" child support case where the guy is still being forced to pay because he didn't contest paternity within the allotted time span.

 

[arnisador]

These laws were well-intentioned hundreds of years ago...if a couple had a child and years later another man came by and claimed to be the father, he had no right to break up the family. It protected the husband and wife from having to prove the alleged adulterer wrong--if he didn't protest early on, the husband was deemed the legal father. Now it's being applied in a way that's backwards to the original pro-family intent. The law needs to catch up with the science.

 

[punisher73]

At least in Michigan. If you are named as the father it is up to YOU to prove that you are indeed NOT the father. Many men don't even know they have been named until they receive paperwork later and then have to try and spend thousands to get it changed.

I have also seen one person who was ordered to pay child support and tried to contest it and showed that he was the father, only to have the judge order him in contempt because he should have been paying up until that point.

I agree there are many "dead beat dads" out there, but I know many decent men that just want to see their kids and pay fairly. Why is it that if the dad doesn't abide by the child visitation his butt ends up back in court or worse yet slapped with a parental kidnapping charge when I see women use the children as leverage against them all the time to get their way and nothing is done by the courts?

I personally do not have children and have not been involved in that aspect, but I worked in court transport for about 4 yrs and spent alot of time with prisoners dealing with the FOC personal and sitting in the FOC court to see all of this happen.

 

[crushing]

This one is in New Jersey

The interest of justice doesn't count anymore?

It seems from this and many other relationship/family law issues and examples that the two parties, rights and responsibilty, have been divorced, especially when it comes to the father.

 

[Touch Of Death]

In my humble opinion the mother should have to start paying the Non-Father back once the kid turns 23. Its only fair considering she should go to prison for fraud.
Sean

 

[Big Don]

In my humble opinion the mother should have to start paying the Non-Father back once the kid turns 23. Its only fair considering she should go to prison for fraud.
Sean

But, the non-father should be forced, at great expense, no less, to provide for a child not his until adulthood? That can't be what you meant, can it?

 

[Touch Of Death]

But, the non-father should be forced, at great expense, no less, to provide for a child not his until adulthood? That can't be what you meant, can it?

It is. Once the child is set up with a supporter, the State refuses to take it away. Its a "You Play You Pay" Morality thing" just like you should check a girls ID before taking her home from a bar; because, the law doesn't recognize ,"I didn't know" as an excuse for having sex with a minor even if she had her older sisters ID. This is my solution to the unfairness of it all. Its not perfect but good luck making any of it fair.
Sean

 

[Bigshadow]

Fathers get short shaft in court. Those later found to not be the actual fathers, even more so.

Preach it! I have come to realize that the court system is designed to NOT favor fathers/husbands or even be fair. I could start a list right now as my divorce proceedings are quite fresh in my mind.

 

[CoryKS]

That poor girl. People do the worst **** to kids, I swear.

The appeals panel found the judge put the best interest of the child first.

I agree that the man should not be required to pay, and I agree that the best interest of the child should be first. The correct solution would be to locate the biological father of the child and make him pay.

 

[Bigshadow]

That poor girl. People do the worst **** to kids, I swear.

I agree. That is another whole aspect of the divorce process. I can sympathize with the man, but if he is the only father she knows, that presents a real issue for her and him. Hopefully she isn't aware of all of the proceedings.

 

[Touch Of Death]

That poor girl. People do the worst **** to kids, I swear.



I agree that the man should not be required to pay, and I agree that the best interest of the child should be first. The correct solution would be to locate the biological father of the child and make him pay.

The State Argues that that would upset the child; given, the real father could be: a rapist, in prison, a minister, or just a person that may upset the fantasy the mother was tring to create. Its the mother's right to privacy.
Sean

 

[CoryKS]

The State Argues that that would upset the child; given, the real father could be: a rapist, in prison, a minister, or just a person that may upset the fantasy the mother was tring to create. Its the mother's right to privacy.
Sean

The mother lost her right to that privacy when she made it known that the child was not the husband's. She upset whatever fantasy she may have been trying to create out of what appears to be sheer malice, and at the expense of her daughter's relationship with the only father she knew.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The mother lost her right to that privacy when she made it known that the child was not the husband's. She upset whatever fantasy she may have been trying to create out of what appears to be sheer malice, and at the expense of her daughter's relationship with the only father she knew.

This is anecdotal and does not represent the spirit of the general population. You cannot assume all women do this with malice as an intent. The State feels she did it for her child... so its OK.
Sean

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Google child support horror stories and read some wodnerful stories.

NYS says that 17% is what you pay for 1 child based on your potential earning ability.
Yeah, potential. Not actual. They do not care if you have money for rent, heat, electric or even food and medicine. Just pay them what they decided you should, otherwise they will steal (sorry, garnish) bank accounts, steal (I mean sieze) assets, and do their best to destroy you mentally, emotionally and physically. Accuracy in record keeping is a joke.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Google child support horror stories and read some wodnerful stories.

NYS says that 17% is what you pay for 1 child based on your potential earning ability.
Yeah, potential. Not actual. They do not care if you have money for rent, heat, electric or even food and medicine. Just pay them what they decided you should, otherwise they will steal (sorry, garnish) bank accounts, steal (I mean sieze) assets, and do their best to destroy you mentally, emotionally and physically. Accuracy in record keeping is a joke.

Ah, but they can't take my birthday!
Sean

 

[CoryKS]

This is anecdotal and does not represent the spirit of the general population. You cannot assume all women do this with malice as an intent. The State feels she did it for her child... so its OK.
Sean

Really? It's OK because the State "feels" that it's right?

Hear that, those of you who are opposed to government actions? No sense making a fuss. The government "feels" that it's making the right choice, so it's OK.