Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bureaucratic idiocy - Court says man owes child support for kid who isn't his

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jdthor
    replied
    Except except except. whatever.

    He was in the states custody.

    "Alexander says he wasn't even aware of the child support case and the summons and therefore was unable to sign it because he was in prison at the time. "

    Those who dont understand the system and how it works may / do believe that BS. The AG / CPS knew where he was in the system.

    CPS locates and paper work gets served.No where in that article does it say he wasnt where he was served.It says he didnt sign for it.That 2 different things. And again people in prison ignore Chils support because they cant pay while in prison.
    Last edited by jdthor; 11-02-2014, 03:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Loren Pechtel
    replied
    Originally posted by eaker995 View Post
    There is always more to the story than the news tells and it's never smart to try to guess what is missing. I've stayed out of the conversation for a it now since I said my piece and, like religion and politics, strong opinions can't discussed easily because people just can't see eye to eye.

    This guy was apparently served documents that his name was put as the father and he apparently lost, forgot, or didn't read them. He would have had his chance to challenge the documents but he didn't. Every state has its own laws and so it would be amiss to try to take your own state's laws and apply them to this case. Some people see it as the government going overboard, some see it as just the law that has to be followed. If you live in this state and don't like the law, or your own state law for that matter, well, this is an election year and laws can be changed. Until then, all any of us can do is know our state laws and challenge issues that arise that effect is and not just let years pass before calling the news to gripe about it.

    Anyway, I think I'm done on this topic now. I'll probably still lurk on it but I don't know if I'll post more.
    Except he wasn't served in the first place. He wasn't at the address he was supposedly served at.

    Leave a comment:


  • eaker995
    replied
    There is always more to the story than the news tells and it's never smart to try to guess what is missing. I've stayed out of the conversation for a it now since I said my piece and, like religion and politics, strong opinions can't discussed easily because people just can't see eye to eye.

    This guy was apparently served documents that his name was put as the father and he apparently lost, forgot, or didn't read them. He would have had his chance to challenge the documents but he didn't. Every state has its own laws and so it would be amiss to try to take your own state's laws and apply them to this case. Some people see it as the government going overboard, some see it as just the law that has to be followed. If you live in this state and don't like the law, or your own state law for that matter, well, this is an election year and laws can be changed. Until then, all any of us can do is know our state laws and challenge issues that arise that effect is and not just let years pass before calling the news to gripe about it.

    Anyway, I think I'm done on this topic now. I'll probably still lurk on it but I don't know if I'll post more.

    Leave a comment:


  • jdthor
    replied
    They didnt make her come up with anything. She could have said i do not know just as easy.Your the one making up things here now unless you were actually there.
    They get a piece of paper and a clipboard to fill out their info on.Then they turn it in when finished. Its not rocket science. Whether she lied or put the wrong guy down because she guessed no one knows including you.

    Whether he admits he was served papers is also on him.AG does send out the papers and if i remember he was in custody.They knew where he was . Alot of prisoners do ignore child custody papers because they know they dont have to pay while in prison.

    Leave a comment:


  • Loren Pechtel
    replied
    Originally posted by kermit315 View Post
    There needs to be consequences for mothers that name fathers that turn out to not be the fathers after years. If the mother cannot keep the guys she is banging straight enough to figure out which one is the dad, she needs to address that from the day that child is born. If she doesn't make sure that this happens (get the kid tested and serve the appropriate paperwork to those requiring testing on the other end), the onus falls on her. That would keep this from happening. It is time to put some personal responsibility back into society, and stop passing the buck. Her irresponsible actions (banging so many guys that she cannot figure out which one the father is) led to this quandary, it should be up to her to sort it out. Those same actions should not cause an 18 year financial obligation to somebody that apparently did not father that child, for no other reason that it was convenient to just keep that person paying. That is disgusting to me. And before somebody chimes in with "it takes two to tango", unless the guy is there shoving some other dudes junk in her, I am going to go with she controls this situation.

    As far as the governments interest in enforcing CS orders......that supposedly goes back to keeping people off of welfare. Sure don't see that happening, though. Also, the party paying CS is not supposed to be paying 100% of the childs needs. The mother is still supposed to provide a portion of the support. If the step dad doesn't like having to contribute, he shouldn't get involved with somebody with a child, or he should tell mom to get a job and start chipping in.
    I'm much more inclined to blame the welfare authorities than her in this case.

    They **MADE** her come up with a name--as far as I'm concerned that puts a lot of blame on them, not her. Take it further and they didn't actually verify the information they coerced out of her and I'll put basically all the blame on them.

    Leave a comment:


  • kermit315
    replied
    There needs to be consequences for mothers that name fathers that turn out to not be the fathers after years. If the mother cannot keep the guys she is banging straight enough to figure out which one is the dad, she needs to address that from the day that child is born. If she doesn't make sure that this happens (get the kid tested and serve the appropriate paperwork to those requiring testing on the other end), the onus falls on her. That would keep this from happening. It is time to put some personal responsibility back into society, and stop passing the buck. Her irresponsible actions (banging so many guys that she cannot figure out which one the father is) led to this quandary, it should be up to her to sort it out. Those same actions should not cause an 18 year financial obligation to somebody that apparently did not father that child, for no other reason that it was convenient to just keep that person paying. That is disgusting to me. And before somebody chimes in with "it takes two to tango", unless the guy is there shoving some other dudes junk in her, I am going to go with she controls this situation.

    As far as the governments interest in enforcing CS orders......that supposedly goes back to keeping people off of welfare. Sure don't see that happening, though. Also, the party paying CS is not supposed to be paying 100% of the childs needs. The mother is still supposed to provide a portion of the support. If the step dad doesn't like having to contribute, he shouldn't get involved with somebody with a child, or he should tell mom to get a job and start chipping in.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtownVAMike
    replied
    Let me see if I can clarify my earlier post:

    I understand that it's been established that the child isn't his. What I was referring to, is that perhaps the court's reasoning is that even though this man is not the father, it is still his responsibility to support the child financially. Even though the ex-girlfriend has been helping him, it is because of her that he is now on the hook for child support (because she had to list somebody in order to receive assistance).

    As far as the financial incentives the states get for enforcing CS orders and collecting, I realize that that is a separate issue from whether a man is morally and financially responsible for any children that are in his life. Regardless of what the government does, it doesn't change the fact that the children would still need to be supported somehow.

    I wasn't trying to derail the thread; I really thought I was following along.

    Leave a comment:


  • Loren Pechtel
    replied
    Originally posted by yorkshire ripoff
    I know it can be a hard thing to do when your a young man gentlemen but teach your son's to be responsible with their penises.There are just too many gold diggers and honey traps out there to be shooting first and asking questions later.
    Have you not read the thread? There's no question he is *NOT* the father. We have no idea if he was responsible or not, don't assume he's not.

    Leave a comment:


  • eaker995
    replied
    Had to get to work so I couldn't finish my prior thought. It's ok cause it's almost separate from the rest.

    A step-father, who's wife has primary custody of a child, raises that child. Anyone with a step-child in this type of situation knows that child supposed does not always take care of all financial requirements for that child. The step-father has to pay for multiple "extra" needs that arise. Not to mention the emotional, educational, and physical care that a step-father must provide for the child. Even in this case, you are "raising" some else's child. You can't just lock them in a room and use purely the child support to feed, cloth, and shelter the child. There is always more of an investment.

    I guess it's just my upbringing. I can't just toss a child to the side, refused less of their genes. My son, whom I adopted away from my wife's ex, doesn't have my genes but he is definitely my son. He talks like me, acts like me, has my mannerisms, thinks like me, and the worst part, is a sarcastic like me. There is no denying who the father is even if DNA doesn't match.

    Leave a comment:


  • eaker995
    replied
    At lest use your own words for the last statement. I'm calling plagiarism.

    That's all well and good but the laws state differently. If you have been the "father" of a child and do not challenge your paternity in x-years (varies by state) then you are the father at least till they are 18. You don't have to agree with laws but we have to live by them, paying money and all. But hey, if you are going to be stuck paying for the child based on the laws, it's then your choice how involved you are in that child's life.

    By the way, you speak of biology. Raising a child that "isn't yours" doesn't prevent you from having one with your genes. You only have to be more creative of where and when you attempt to pass them. My wife would agree with this one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chomp
    replied
    Originally posted by eaker995 View Post
    There are always different circumstances and each case has its own merits. But the point I'm trying to make is that DNA itself isn't what defines if you are responsible or "the father". It's your own actions that determine it. Too many men out there drop off and try to run if it's not "theirs" because of some DNA test. Shameful and puts a bad light on those of us who do step up to take care of our family, whether or not they are "ours".
    That is your opinion, which you appear to have confused with fact. My own opinion is that I have my own genes to pass on, and that I'm not going to spend my time and resources supporting some other man's kids. That is not "shameful", that is biology. Someone else's children are not my responsibility, beyond my status as a taxpayer.

    This is something I believe strongly in and I'm sure my feelings are apparent in my replies. Sorry if you don't agree. You don't have to and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I'm only stating my thoughts on the subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • Loren Pechtel
    replied
    Originally posted by Shush View Post
    If the woman was going to fake a dad, seems like she could have aimed a little higher.......
    I don't think she faked a dad. Rather, she named someone she considered might be the father. The state had someone to go after, they didn't care if it was the right person.

    Leave a comment:


  • eaker995
    replied
    Again, yes, the story is a different circumstance. But by government imposed, do you mean someone who never knew like the story, or someone who took a DNA test and waited too long to challenge their paternity and he government held them to the child and financially responsible due to the fact they waited too long or just want to get away from their responsibilities?

    There are always different circumstances and each case has its own merits. But the point I'm trying to make is that DNA itself isn't what defines if you are responsible or "the father". It's your own actions that determine it. Too many men out there drop off and try to run if it's not "theirs" because of some DNA test. Shameful and puts a bad light on those of us who do step up to take care of our family, whether or not they are "ours".

    My first response was in relation to the story. My responses after that have been in response to comments from others. This is something I believe strongly in and I'm sure my feelings are apparent in my replies. Sorry if you don't agree. You don't have to and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I'm only stating my thoughts on the subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carbonfiberfoot
    replied
    Originally posted by eaker995 View Post
    Love that auto correct again. I really need to put that thing in check. The "Bertie" is supposed to be "vertue".

    Came back to this with another point. This is a 2 edge sword but not for the man.

    A woman has you paying child support for a child you raised but is not biologically yours. You still have just as much rights as if you were the biological father. How many stories have you heard about a mother who basically wants to get paid but doesn't want the man in the child's life? Guess what? Too bad. If a court decides you are the father and has you paying, you have the right to be involved in that child's life. Only then, it's up to you if you will step up to that challenge or back down and crawl away and complain about how you are paying for someone else's child when you could be a part of it, watch this child grow, love it and it loves you and enjoy the life you and the child has. THAT is being a man and THAT is what being a father is.
    Lacking the desire to 'adopt' a government imposed foster child does not make someone any less of a man. Many good folks have the time, resources, and desire to raise a child. That is a wonderful thing, but it should occur on their terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • eaker995
    replied
    Very true. I was commenting more on the comments others were starting to make. The story is a different case.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3408 users online. 197 members and 3211 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X