- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Court rules Houston man must pay $65k in child support for kid that's not his
Posted on 7/23/17 at 9:58 am to Tiger Prawn
Posted on 7/23/17 at 9:58 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
But in this case, the article says it was his ex-girlfriend. So since he was never married to her, how the frick can a judge slap him with child support for a kid that is proven through DNA testing to not be his?
none of the articles go into detail but there was some sort of notice/service ALLEGED in 2003 and he never responded, so he was ruled to be liable for the support. he claims he never received this notice. Texas has retroactive support laws, so the judge ruled, essentially, that he DID get notice. if he got notice, this is like a default judgment
1
Posted on 7/23/17 at 9:59 am to Tiger Prawn
As time goes on, the boundary gets more and more nebulous.
First it was finding out the kid wasn't yours when they are 12, but still need child support, even though the same judge rules that you don't get custody rights due to not being the father.
Then it was because you willingly signed the BC/AOP.
Now it's "because you fricked one girl one time near when she fricked some other dude(s), you are now the father because you are the most well off. Well....kinda the father. You just need to pay for the kid, you don't get any other rights."
First it was finding out the kid wasn't yours when they are 12, but still need child support, even though the same judge rules that you don't get custody rights due to not being the father.
Then it was because you willingly signed the BC/AOP.
Now it's "because you fricked one girl one time near when she fricked some other dude(s), you are now the father because you are the most well off. Well....kinda the father. You just need to pay for the kid, you don't get any other rights."
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 10:17 am
Posted on 7/23/17 at 9:59 am to Tiger Prawn
I read in Reason years ago about a guy with three kids, paying child support to his ex-wife. Some of his friends told him she was screwing around while they were married, so he had DNA tests done.
Turns out two of the kids weren't his, so he goes back to court to get the support lowered. Judge says Nope, you signed the agreement, so STFU and pay up.
Turns out two of the kids weren't his, so he goes back to court to get the support lowered. Judge says Nope, you signed the agreement, so STFU and pay up.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 9:59 am to SPEEDY
So much for men and women being treated equal.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
People get taken out for less
Just saying
Just saying
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:05 am to Rouge
even if this guy pulled a rae carruth, the kid isn't his and would go to a family member of the mom's
and he'd still be liable for the award b/c it's related to the kid not the mom
and he'd still be liable for the award b/c it's related to the kid not the mom
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:08 am to ctiger69
quote:
So much for men and women being treated equal.
just so we're clear, pure equality in this area is not possible
it'd kind of like the Jewish law about being Jewish if your mother is Jewish
we KNOW who the mother is. that's why the system will always be slanted. until very recently, we weren't able to prove who the father is. the system hasn't really fully updated to this reality and not all potential fathers participate in the process properly. all we can do is try to update the system to protect lying mothers and non-fathers
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
even if this guy pulled a rae carruth, the kid isn't his and would go to a family member of the mom's
and he'd still be liable for the award b/c it's related to the kid not the mom
I get all of this
To quote Chris Rock, "I'm not saying he should've killed her, but I'd understand."
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:11 am to SPEEDY
Men have no reproductive rights.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:12 am to Volvagia
In light of this, this excerpt from the official state website regarding AOPs pisses me off:
Hurry hurry hurry, sign sign sign so we can know whom to stick it to when you break up with your girlfriend. Never mind it's legally binding, and next to impossible to remove even with third party scientific evidence. SIGGGGGGGHGNNNNNNNN.
ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!
quote:
Paternity means fatherhood. When both parents sign an Acknowledgment of Paternity, the father becomes the legal father. Once paternity has been established, he can be ordered to pay child support and the court can grant him the right to visit his child. Paternity should be acknowledged at the time of birth for two main reasons.
First, this is the most convenient time. Everything is together in one place. The necessary forms are available at the hospitals in Texas. The father is likely to be with the mother at the hospital after the baby is born. The parents don't have to worry about mailing the forms; the hospital will make sure that everything is sent to the right place. The father's name will be put on the birth certificate without having to pay a fee.
Second, it's the best time for the baby. The earlier in the baby's life paternity is established, the more secure his or her future will be.
Hurry hurry hurry, sign sign sign so we can know whom to stick it to when you break up with your girlfriend. Never mind it's legally binding, and next to impossible to remove even with third party scientific evidence. SIGGGGGGGHGNNNNNNNN.
ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:17 am to ctiger69
quote:
So much for men and women being treated equal
Women can abort their responsibilities to the child without even telling the father.
Men will go to jail if they avoid paying child support.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:26 am to member12
quote:
Women can abort their responsibilities to the child without even telling the father.
Men will go to jail if they avoid paying child support.
Don't forget the guy who gave his girlfriend a pill that would induce abortion when she was just six weeks along: among his charges was first degree murder, and he is serving a 14 year federal sentence.
I'm not even anti-abortion and I fail to see how the same exact act, with different actors, can range from "her body, her choice" to "murderer" with zero cognitive dissonance.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yeah see TX has retroactive stuff with child support. it's crazy
Sounds like the 14th amendment was trampled on by Texas in its application of this stupid law given the notice issues regarding service
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:28 am to member12
quote:
Women can abort their responsibilities to the child without even telling the father.
Men will go to jail if they avoid paying child support.
This is a major inequity in the system that has always pissed me off.
If I'm the baby daddy, I get absolutely no say as to whether my child lives or dies. But if she has the baby, I'm sure as hell on the financial hook for it.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:31 am to Godfather1
quote:
This is a major inequity in the system that has always pissed me off.
If I'm the baby daddy, I get absolutely no say as to whether my child lives or dies. But if she has the baby, I'm sure as hell on the financial hook for it.
you see this is why they craft the system in terms of the child and not the parents
Posted on 7/23/17 at 10:43 am to SPEEDY
Um...yeah. I'd immediately be planning a move to another country. frick that shite.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News