General Discussion

closeupready

(29,503 posts)

25. Judge Judy is probably presiding over this one. That would explain it.

Reply to Takket (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:55 AM

Oct 2014

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