Man ordered to pay $65K in child support for kid who isn’t his

[faustian]

Just lol. Normally the logic here is "best interest of the kid", but in this case there's more than just the bastard kid involved. This dude is raising 5 other kids, surely a $65k lump sum hit + monthly child support is gonna adversely affect the best interest of them

 

[Zer]

Interesting idea

 

[mb23100]

I wonder how this all turned out

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proves otherwise. In Cornejo’s case, that amounts to some $65,000.

Jeez... That's rough.

 

[gmr7494]

So the ex is rewarded for not knowing who the hell the father of her kid is. Makes sense to me, Texas.

 

[ithinktheymad]

Don't cohabitate unless you really think you may put a ring on it. Always lawyer up boys!

 

[Philo-Publius]

A Texas man is battling a court order that mandates he must pay tens of thousands in child support for a child that he did not biologically father and who he met only once.

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.

Cornejo, who is currently raising three children of his own and two nephews, claimed that he was not made aware of this and only found out about the child support payments last year when a deputy served him court papers claiming that the state of Texas lists him as having another child. He soon met the minor for the first and only time – describing her as a “wonderful girl” – but after taking a DNA test, learned she was not his after all.

Only Cornejo’s ex-girlfriend and the state still want the $65,000 in back payments.

“I never thought in my whole life I would have to defend myself of something that I am innocent of,” he said.

Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proves otherwise. In Cornejo’s case, that amounts to some $65,000.

His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo’s paycheck several years ago and he didn’t contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago.

“There can be consequences, even if you don’t do anything,” Stith told local news.

Cornejo and his attorney, Cheryl Coleman, must now persuade a judge to re-open the case – as the original court order cannot be amended. If that doesn’t happen, he must pay up or face time behind bars.

The case is due back in court next month.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/

I thought better of Texas. What kind of legislators are putting laws like that on the books? She lied about who the father of the child was and gets rewarded for it?

 

[Cardio]

A Texas man is battling a court order that mandates he must pay tens of thousands in child support for a child that he did not biologically father and who he met only once.

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.

Cornejo, who is currently raising three children of his own and two nephews, claimed that he was not made aware of this and only found out about the child support payments last year when a deputy served him court papers claiming that the state of Texas lists him as having another child. He soon met the minor for the first and only time – describing her as a “wonderful girl” – but after taking a DNA test, learned she was not his after all.

Only Cornejo’s ex-girlfriend and the state still want the $65,000 in back payments.

“I never thought in my whole life I would have to defend myself of something that I am innocent of,” he said.

Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proves otherwise. In Cornejo’s case, that amounts to some $65,000.

His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo’s paycheck several years ago and he didn’t contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago.

“There can be consequences, even if you don’t do anything,” Stith told local news.

Cornejo and his attorney, Cheryl Coleman, must now persuade a judge to re-open the case – as the original court order cannot be amended. If that doesn’t happen, he must pay up or face time behind bars.

The case is due back in court next month.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/

 

[ralphc1]

So the ex is rewarded for not knowing who the hell the father of her kid is. Makes sense to me, Texas.

Women always swear that they only had sex with one man.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Somebody has to pay for the kid.

 

[TidWell]

Just lol. Normally the logic here is "best interest of the kid", but in this case there's more than just the bastard kid involved. This dude is raising 5 other kids, surely a $65k lump sum hit + monthly child support is gonna adversely affect the best interest of them

Yup, and the lying cheating whore isnt held accountable this aint the 1950s anymore, yet these feminists want their cake and eat it too.

 

[GSP_37]

If true, that's one of the stupidest laws ever likely made by inbred hillbillies.

 

[Nesk]

Can't he countersue her for lying.

 

[closequarters]

Shady ass women out there. I understand they have blinders on and want what's best for their kids at all cost but tricking men like this should be crime in itself. That law in Texas needs to be changed. I was going to say he should be able to sue her for not being forthcoming about the possibility he's not the father from the beginning but that would involve lawyers and stuff, just more costs. Sucks for him. No win situation with a law like that in place.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Jeez... That's rough.

And again it is fundamentally wrong based on prior precedent in law.

Any demand of support from a non biological father simply because he was duped or deceived by a willfully ignorant partner (who had every ability to know but refused) should be considered akin to 'fruit of a poisonous tree' doctrine in law.

Again the law should DEMAND that any woman who knows due to timing that there are multiple potential fathers should be required to get a paternity test at birth. If she chooses not to then she relinquishes all claim of support on the non paternal father.

Lets call this what it is which is her perpetrating a fraud. She is able to keep two potential men on the hook. Stay with the non paternal father and therefore he now owes support but she can always then still seek support from the paternal. She can get paid by both for a deception.

 

[Oblivian]

I would assume he would have been notified of the child support order several years ago. And then if they claim money was taken from his paycheck, it's pretty clear that he should have known. I would hope his attorney can argue that she, or the state, is at fault as well for not going after the support for years.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

And again it is fundamentally wrong based on prior precedent in law.

Any demand of support from a non biological father simply because he was duped or deceived by a willfully ignorant partner (who had every ability to know but refused) should be considered akin to 'fruit of a poisonous tree' doctrine in law.

Again the law should DEMAND that any woman who knows due to timing that there are multiple potential fathers should be required to get a paternity test at birth. If she chooses not to then she relinquishes all claim of support on the non paternal father.

Lets call this what it is which is her perpetrating a fraud. She is able to keep two potential men on the hook. Stay with the non paternal father and therefore he now owes support but she can always then still seek support from the paternal. She can get paid by both for a deception.

So basically the argument for the plaintiff would be that the defendant was willfully ignorant and therefore lied by omission, which is a violation. That sounds exactly right, but do we know if she concealed that from the court? And if the plaintiff already knew about the affair, wouldn't that screw him?

 

[Mr Mojo Lane]

Shady ass women out there. I understand they have blinders on and want what's best for their kids at all cost but tricking men like this should be crime in itself. That law in Texas needs to be changed. I was going to say he should be able to sue her for not being forthcoming about the possibility he's not the father from the beginning but that would involve lawyers and stuff, just more costs. Sucks for him. No win situation with a law like that in place.

The majority of that money is going to her lawyers and on her beauty regimen. The kids might get a new pair of shoes.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So basically the argument for the plaintiff would be that the defendant was willfully ignorant and therefore lied by omission, which is a violation. That sounds exactly right, but do we know if she concealed that from the court? And if the plaintiff already knew about the affair, wouldn't that screw him?

Yes that is the argument.

And the law should REQUIRE a paternity test when she knows, due to timing, that multiple men are possibly the father. That requirement and test should actually be done on behalf of the unborn child (regardless of what either parent wants) as the child should have a right to proper identification of biological parents on the birth certificate.

Based on every thing else in law regarding children they always put 'the best interest of the child' first. What argument could anyone make that the child should not have a right to know its proper parentage? And therefore if the mother, who will always know there is a chance of multiple men being the father, chooses to remain willfully blind, she has not just done the biological father a disservice but also the child.

The mother should never profit from such a situation and certainly should never be paid twice for it.

 

[RollSonnenRoll]

Isn't Florida the best state for civil forfeitures? Time to take his $65K to South Beach.