Posted on 10/14/2008 4:39:29 AM PDT by RogerFGay
I’m looking for the Freepers to show up here saying it’s this man responsiblity because he missed his trial date, even after he was exonerated of any parental involvement.
See comments by wtc911. He’s probably typing out the email message to bring the gang in as I write this.
Most states do that with extreme limits - time constraints on filing - just like OK. My guess is that if you check closer, you may find that Arkansas is the same way. It may only be 30 days from the birth of the child.
I hope the guy manages to somehow get out of this mess. What is just as ironic is that there are so many men out there who have kids that are not biologically theirs, but they have no idea. As someone once told me, unless you have very 'unique' features, or you do a DNA test, the only person who can be sure they are the parent is the mother.
This isn’t traffic court - this is well beyond reasonable, even if the guy tore up the court papers and refused to appear at first, the fact is he’s being prosecuted without basis - how do we know that the real father isn’t still with the child and standing to enjoy the fruits of the scam?
The mother should be sued and locked in debtors prison to rot - alongside anyone in the courts that let this continue well past the point of common sense.
Over 18 years, mine would have been well over 5 times that. A half a frickin million bucks. Not too shabby, eh?
He said he is not that person, why do you continue the attacks?
LOL. So true. I concur with Reagan ...trust but verify. The only women I completely trust are my grandma, my mom, my sister, my cat and my dog. End of story.
“In child support cases, the burden of proof is on the alleged father — the accused — according to Oklahoma statutes.
An alleged father must appear at a child support hearing to request a paternity test. If he does not appear, he is legally designated as the father and child support is established in most cases.”
If this is the case, then what prevents the mother from just picking a name out of the phone book?
only in America where you present undisputed proof that you are not the legal father can this happen. the courts just want to wash their hands of it so the state doesn’t have to pay the woman to raise her child. just let some poor sucker pay the lyin woman and give her a free ride.
LA County prosecutor Gil Garcetti is famous for making non-parental fathers pay child support. Just having the wrong name is sufficient.
This is a gross miscarriage of justice, and people,starting with the person receiving child support, should be thoroughly punished for these crimes against innocent victims.
What Pierce didn't realize, and what nearly 10 million American men have discovered to their chagrin since the welfare reform legislation of 1996, is that when the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. sourceMy response just to correct a factual error
“how do we know that the real father isn’t still with the child and standing to enjoy the fruits of the scam?”
Good question. My point is that once the mother has told a man that he is the father, then later found out not to be, some here think he ought to keep paying.
The primary motivation is the federal funding that rewards states for pushing more people into the system. You can thank the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals (P.O.P.S. v Gardner) for decommissioning the Bill of Rights to allow the practice to continue.
Yep ... the practice has been reported in California more than any other state ... and LA County most of all in California. But this is a national problem driven by federal pork-barrel funding.
I would like to know that as well.
That is truly frightening and most of all even if a guy is “behaving” then they could still get caught up in the trap.
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.