General Discussion

Yupster

(14,308 posts)

23. So a woman cheats on her you,

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:52 AM

Oct 2014

defrauds you by lying on government documents, then moves in with the biological dad and then turns around and wants you to send her and the biological dad money so you can pay for their kids, and you see this as the guy being a shallow shit?

Isn't the guy the victim here? He had an awful lot of wrong done to him.

Yes he agreed to act as dad, because he thought he was the dad. People agree to a lot of things and then back out when they find they've been defrauded. We don't enforce contracts that were purposely dishonest. Except in these cases that is.

But your thinking is that this should be enforced because he agreed to it, even admitting he was lied to when he signed the contract? Would you feel the same on any other issue? One person knowingly lies about a contract, the lie is important and proven, and it should be enforced anyway? You don't really think that, do you?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

126 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Man fights $30k child support, says kid not his [View all] scarystuffyo Oct 2014 OP

This case is a very bad case of the government overstepping it's boundaries... Kalidurga Oct 2014 #1

Yes it is misleading as the court is going after payback of the welfare benefits and has already seaglass Oct 2014 #9

The presumption by the courts is Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #12

Nice.. so this is a common scam that fleeces the welfare system True Earthling Oct 2014 #71

I can't speak for everywhere Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #83

Yep, a law that isn't enforced customerserviceguy Oct 2014 #103

Welfare is paid to the Mom FOR the kids dixiegrrrrl Oct 2014 #69

This is new info to me, did not know that welfare was paid back. I thought it was similar to seaglass Oct 2014 #72

How much gets paid back is pretty variable I should think. dixiegrrrrl Oct 2014 #78

They go after the non-custodial parent liberalhistorian Oct 2014 #86

they become the child support collection agency Voice for Peace Oct 2014 #101

Lots of cases similar to this Yupster Oct 2014 #2

My ex did pro bono family law and lobbied for father's rights Sen. Walter Sobchak Oct 2014 #3

The laws need to be updated to the DNA age Yupster Oct 2014 #4

Count me among those who think DNA is irrelevant to the arguments. hunter Oct 2014 #104

If each kid is of us all, then Yupster Oct 2014 #106

he should have paid child support TorchTheWitch Oct 2014 #8

Completely agree Dorian Gray Oct 2014 #10

actually the house being taken from them is my secret hope TorchTheWitch Oct 2014 #13

If it's any consolation, I believe they will liberalhistorian Oct 2014 #85

From your lips to God's ears TorchTheWitch Oct 2014 #94

I agree with you for the most part davidpdx Oct 2014 #14

she would not have gotten welfare benefits if she didn't name a father TorchTheWitch Oct 2014 #17

I don't think it's woman-shaming to require that the father be named. Sheldon Cooper Oct 2014 #19

"When a man accepts a child as theirs and takes care of them as their father biology or not..." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #16

baloney TorchTheWitch Oct 2014 #36

"Child support is for the welfare of the child not as a weapon to be used against the child's mother Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #38

Yes, the mother is a horrible person and liberalhistorian Oct 2014 #87

Who is taking what out on the child? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #91

First of all, by taking it out on the child, I meant the liberalhistorian Oct 2014 #92

"Parenthood is a lot more than blood.' Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #96

The woman created the relationship between those kids and her ex TexasMommaWithAHat Oct 2014 #105

This message was self-deleted by its author Drayden Oct 2014 #75

Honest question- Were you addressing me or TorchTheWitch? Your post sounds more towards the latter. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #79

This message was self-deleted by its author Drayden Oct 2014 #82

No worries ... and you brought up a fair point. nt Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #84

There's a huge difference. The difference liberalhistorian Oct 2014 #88

This message was self-deleted by its author Drayden Oct 2014 #90

So a woman cheats on her you, Yupster Oct 2014 #23

but this fraud is about people hfojvt Oct 2014 #34

any man that loved a child when they thought it was theirs biologically TorchTheWitch Oct 2014 #40

You don't think it FUCKS WITH SOMEONE'S HEAD.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2014 #62

The man can keep loving that child as an ex-step father. But the child also has a real father StevieM Oct 2014 #70

Fine and dandy if that is the way these fine gentleman feel but I don't support the force of law for TheKentuckian Oct 2014 #107

That's very fine and admirable of them Crunchy Frog Oct 2014 #111

Doesn't work that way jberryhill Oct 2014 #60

The rule used to make sense sinmce there was no way of telling for sure Yupster Oct 2014 #100

that's not the only issue jberryhill Oct 2014 #114

She picked the father, not him. What is "fair" about it? It is a fact he isn't the father no TheKentuckian Oct 2014 #108

It's a very old rule which is now an anachronism Crunchy Frog Oct 2014 #113

A neighbor raised and supported a now grown man from the time he was born, but the mother rightfully went after... Tikki Oct 2014 #28

In my day when AFDC was new a man who was not the father was not expected to pay for the children jwirr Oct 2014 #30

He shouldn't have to pay child support Major Nikon Oct 2014 #39

Because both parents have a legal obligation WolverineDG Oct 2014 #73

There's a fundamental difference in your scenario, namely that the man had accepted paternity Gormy Cuss Oct 2014 #47

It is in the best interest of the child to have Bill Gates acknowledged as their father AngryAmish Oct 2014 #81

It's in the best interest of a child to have adults accept responsibility for their actions. Gormy Cuss Oct 2014 #120

The state has no business policing emotional attachments, immature or not. AngryAmish Oct 2014 #124

No, but the state can define adult responsibilities to minor children Gormy Cuss Oct 2014 #126

Children born during a marriage are presumed to be legitimate treestar Oct 2014 #5

How long before DNA sequencing becomes part of the birth certificate issuance process, I wonder? MADem Oct 2014 #6

prenatal prenup. ;) nt Javaman Oct 2014 #18

That will lead to a lot of surprises exboyfil Oct 2014 #26

That range is attributed to people who have questioned paternity Major Nikon Oct 2014 #41

You are right exboyfil Oct 2014 #43

What were the expected results? Isn't that test something like seventy percent or less? MADem Oct 2014 #122

Neither my wife or I had the gene exboyfil Oct 2014 #123

Lots of variation, there! MADem Oct 2014 #125

On all welfare applications it asks who the parents of the children are. If this was not answered jwirr Oct 2014 #32

True. Unless there is a statute of limitations, the state should JimDandy Oct 2014 #48

Lots of times, people (men, in this case) THINK they are, but they're not. MADem Oct 2014 #119

This is what needs to be caught up with DNA technology Yupster Oct 2014 #21

+1000. Or the law can be rewritten to "presume pending DNA testing completion." closeupready Oct 2014 #24

Every newborn has blood drawn.. SoCalDem Oct 2014 #93

They were not married. She was an ex girlfriend who knowingly and purposefully lied JimDandy Oct 2014 #45

Falsification of documents, miscarriage of justice... DetlefK Oct 2014 #7

Is there evidence that the process server even visited the residence? Orsino Oct 2014 #20

Even if the process server did, the guy was in jail at the time Major Nikon Oct 2014 #56

The Process Server lied, the mom lied, and the bio father lied. JimDandy Oct 2014 #31

If that's true, the process server belongs in prison Mariana Oct 2014 #33

A couple years ago I caught a Process Server lying on a neighbor's JimDandy Oct 2014 #54

Something seems missing here Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #11

I don't think that's what happened... Whiskeytide Oct 2014 #27

Unless they do things very different there Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #29

There was no paternity hearing. jeff47 Oct 2014 #53

That's a big No on your first sentence. Le Taz Hot Oct 2014 #44

You kind of made my point Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #49

Actually, I didn't. Le Taz Hot Oct 2014 #51

The notices were all sent to an old address of his. JimDandy Oct 2014 #63

I hope he eventually prevails davidpdx Oct 2014 #15

what's incredible about this is.... Takket Oct 2014 #22

Judge Judy is probably presiding over this one. That would explain it. closeupready Oct 2014 #25

He's known for 23 years he was named as father and owed support and NOW he's fighting? Shrike47 Oct 2014 #35

The article in The Root says he's been fighting it ever since he heard about the charge... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #42

My problem with him 'fighting' it, I bet all he did was appear on the contempt charge and deny. Shrike47 Oct 2014 #57

He's facing jail for a $30k debt he received for no reason... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #61

Dumb ass parents. It's about the kids, not about these so-called adults. hunter Oct 2014 #37

Not sure I agree with this stance... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #46

According to the story exboyfil Oct 2014 #50

The story states he was in prison at the time they attempted to serve him... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #55

Dumb ass prosecutors and judges? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2014 #52

It's been going on since 1991? hunter Oct 2014 #64

It's not about the kids... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #68

Focus. The system is the way it is because we reject a generous welfare system... hunter Oct 2014 #74

Somehow, I don't think this guy really cares about the big picture... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #89

And that's probably how he pissed of the judge. hunter Oct 2014 #98

Or maybe the judge is just an ass... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #99

Call me back when he's behind bars or they are taking money from his pay check. hunter Oct 2014 #102

Because he's fighting a bs decision? BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #112

Did I say that? hunter Oct 2014 #116

Sleeping with a woman and not producing Codeine Oct 2014 #58

It's about the kids, not about you. hunter Oct 2014 #65

It's about the kids! Mojo Electro Oct 2014 #67

And those kids shouldn't be my personal responsibility Codeine Oct 2014 #76

Want a check from me? hunter Oct 2014 #95

No. "Think of the children" is an emotional appeal that shouldn't trump justice and fairness. stevenleser Oct 2014 #117

Not in this case it isn't dsc Oct 2014 #66

People need to read the article before judging this man Beaverhausen Oct 2014 #59

Think about this: since he didn't 't properly contest the judgment in 1991, the State had no Shrike47 Oct 2014 #77

The state is responsible for keeping all parties informed... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #80

But in 1991, he discovered the judgment. As the judge told him in court, he should have brought Shrike47 Oct 2014 #109

The judge is referring to the original appearance... BklnDem75 Oct 2014 #110

I was referring to a judge's comment I read about this case in another article with more info. Shrike47 Oct 2014 #115

I think anything the state intends to do to you, taking money or imprisonment wise, the state has an stevenleser Oct 2014 #118

Yes, law is awesome. joshcryer Oct 2014 #121

My ex-wife and her mom, SomethingFishy Oct 2014 #97