Posted on 03/04/2008 9:05:13 AM PST by MotleyGirl70
Good on ya judge.
$14,000 over 11 years
$106.06 per month
I did the math because I was curious.
That seems odd.
Damn. A judge that gives a hoot about the law, and justice. A rarity these days.
This happened in a Georgia court? This reversal is truly a miracle of God. Now if we could only get the mother jailed for fraud. Until then, if she is late on a payment, a warrant for her arrest should be issued just as easily as it was for the plaintiff all those years.
Poor kid. Too bad he has to be involved with all these skumbags.
Wha?
That’s what happens when you boink the same chick that everyone else is boinking.
unfortunatly every state is different.
In some states child support only starts once paternaty is established and support is first ordered.
Of course california has serious paternity fraud issues.
I suspect this is unusual. I remember reading about a judge’s order of child support when it was KNOWN from the start that the child was not that of the ex-husband who was forced to pay.
But I don’t know which of these two sorts of decision is more prevalent.
“My baby’s daddy” ping.
Yes, it’s good BUT I don’t think the outcome would have been the same if not for the fact of another man coming forward to claim paternity and take responsibility. The state’s interest is to have somebody - anybody - on the hook for support of the child rather than have to be the one to provide it. If not for the other guy coming forward, the state likely would have forced the other guy to keep paying, even if he proved he wasn’t the biological father. JMO.
> Thats what happens when you boink the same chick that everyone else is boinking.
Chick? Don’t you mean “Cow”.
The states interest is to have somebody - anybody - on the hook for support of the child rather than have to be the one to provide it.
::::::
Exactly. A government for and by the government....
"We have seen it happen before," said Sandra Jarrett of the state's Child Support Recovery Unit.
Usually there is no intent to defraud, Ms. Jarrett said. Mothers who have had relationships with more than one man might not know who the biological father is without a DNA test.
We have seen it happen before?
Usually there is not intent to defraud?
Any guy in this situation that is forced to pay without a paternity test is being defrauded. He is being made to pay without due process. Courts are a party to it if they don't foce the test.
How many times have they seen this before? Once? Twice?
I agree 110%! A premise on one of my papers in college. That if a woman has the right to terminate her motherhood and by de facto his fatherhood then a man should have the same choice as to whether or not he provide support for his offspring. I definitly don’t condone abortion at all but it really worked up all those females in my class to think that they might have to think about exercising their choice or not receiving a payment for their “services” until the aftermath was 18 years old. “I ain’t sayin she a gold digga, but she ain’t messin with no broke fellas!” Kanye West.
“Usually there is no intent to defraud, Ms. Jarrett said. Mothers who have had relationships with more than one man might not know who the biological father is without a DNA test.”
My son is in this position. He has asked for a DNA test several times but has been told to get lost. State is Utah. They don’t care, just want somebody to pay just as long as it is not the state.
Bookmarking for when I get home from work.
That’s my take as well. I’ll add that most men I know would be very happy to have their children without having to spend $50k to get them, and could care less if the mother provided a dimes worth of support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.