- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 63,534
- Reaction score
- 11
Man ordered to pay $65K in child support for kid who isn’t his
- Thread starter TidWell
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 3,562
- Reaction score
- 0
Women are devils. So are the male buffoons who make (and enforce) laws like these that allow them to be so.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 52,178
- Reaction score
- 9,592
Did @bigbangspiritbomb catch the banhammer?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 8,315
- Reaction score
- 5
This type of law isn't unique to Texas, coast to coast you can find similar cases like this.
Legally recognized as the child's father if at birth you are married to the child's mother --- so, if your wife is fucking some other guy(s) and later it turns out you aren't the father, it doesn't matter.
If unmarried and you sign the birth certificate, because well you think you are the father ---- you are now on the hook legally whether or not future DNA testing proves you aren't the father.
There is also "equitable paternity" -
you & the child's mother are in a close "family" relationship, such as living together.
You have been living as the kid is your own - such as claiming him as yours, financial support.
Varies from state to state, in some states this assumption of parenthood kicks in right away, other states have a specific time period in which you could still challenge the child's paternity and not be legally responsible for the child.
In some states involving married couples, paternity tests showing the husband is not the child's father have been blocked from being used in paternity tests - the husband assuming he was the father and acting as such overrides the subsequent dna testing showing he actually isn't the father.
Basically, the suspected father has to demand a DNA test at birth (or whenever he finds out he is the father) otherwise it will most likely be a legal nightmare. And I'm sure that will do wonders for many relationships - "Oh, honey what a cute baby. Now, let's test him to make sure he is mine."
Legally recognized as the child's father if at birth you are married to the child's mother --- so, if your wife is fucking some other guy(s) and later it turns out you aren't the father, it doesn't matter.
If unmarried and you sign the birth certificate, because well you think you are the father ---- you are now on the hook legally whether or not future DNA testing proves you aren't the father.
There is also "equitable paternity" -
you & the child's mother are in a close "family" relationship, such as living together.
You have been living as the kid is your own - such as claiming him as yours, financial support.
Varies from state to state, in some states this assumption of parenthood kicks in right away, other states have a specific time period in which you could still challenge the child's paternity and not be legally responsible for the child.
In some states involving married couples, paternity tests showing the husband is not the child's father have been blocked from being used in paternity tests - the husband assuming he was the father and acting as such overrides the subsequent dna testing showing he actually isn't the father.
Basically, the suspected father has to demand a DNA test at birth (or whenever he finds out he is the father) otherwise it will most likely be a legal nightmare. And I'm sure that will do wonders for many relationships - "Oh, honey what a cute baby. Now, let's test him to make sure he is mine."
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 8,315
- Reaction score
- 5
Here is a Pennsylvania man, Mike L., that is paying child support for a child that he proved isn't his, the mother ended up marrying the biological father of the child in question AND Mike L is still required by the courts to pay child support.
"Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”
Article is from 2009, case from 2007. Fucked up all the way around, Mike thought he was the father, raised as his own, 4 years later DNA proves he isn't the father, wife knew all along.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all
"Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”
Article is from 2009, case from 2007. Fucked up all the way around, Mike thought he was the father, raised as his own, 4 years later DNA proves he isn't the father, wife knew all along.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 8,315
- Reaction score
- 5
How about a statutory rape victim being liable for child support
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
"State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. Olivas didn't press charges and says he didn't realize at the time that it was even something to consider."
and
"The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support."
""The Kansas court determined that the rape was irrelevant and that the child support was not owed to the rapist but rather to the child,""
and
"California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.
In both cases, it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance."
------
The court ruled a rape irrelevant, imagine if this was applied to other rape cases - allowing a rapist to sue for custody and then child support.
To make this even worse, as of the time of the article the Arizona guy didn't have any visitation rights.
And sending unemployed fathers to jail for unpaid child support. Yeah, because putting a man in jail is going to get that child support paid.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/...t-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/#.WXdowemQzIU
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
"State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. Olivas didn't press charges and says he didn't realize at the time that it was even something to consider."
and
"The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support."
""The Kansas court determined that the rape was irrelevant and that the child support was not owed to the rapist but rather to the child,""
and
"California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.
In both cases, it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance."
------
The court ruled a rape irrelevant, imagine if this was applied to other rape cases - allowing a rapist to sue for custody and then child support.
To make this even worse, as of the time of the article the Arizona guy didn't have any visitation rights.
And sending unemployed fathers to jail for unpaid child support. Yeah, because putting a man in jail is going to get that child support paid.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/...t-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/#.WXdowemQzIU
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 26,525
- Reaction score
- 5,764
The males who do this are the enablers, its why women can get away with murder lr gold digging many times, because the power of pussy, it can consume a sorry sap and sucker to do stupid kiss as things like this
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 4,632
- Reaction score
- 2,360
The media wouldn't touch this case, because the woman is in the wrong here.
