Posted on 07/22/2017 12:41:29 PM PDT by AbolishCSEU
A Houston man is on the hook for $65,000 in child support for a child that's not his.
Gabriel Cornejo, 45, took a DNA test proving a child his ex-girlfriend had 16 years ago was not his.
The test was too late. In 2003, a child support court in Houston ruled that Cornejo owed his ex-girlfriend child support because, she claims, there was no way he wasn't the father.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Do you also believes that people convicted of crimes who are later found innocent should stay in jail? Your willingness too abuse the individuals rights are disgusting.
>If he had chosen to actually just have sex with a woman he was married to, he wouldn’t even be in this predicament.
Men don’t have a moral obligation to raise another man’s off spring and most men would rather kill than be forced to do so. There is derogatory term for men who willing support another man’s child: Cuckold. Only suckers, degenerates, and loser cuck.
Nor is there a biblical requirement to support a child from a mother that you’re not married to. Children born out wedlock belong to their mothers not their fathers. If women want support for their children they need to get married before they have them.
“Can you understand that you DON’T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN TO BE NAMED THE FATHER??!!”
We are getting way out there, but ok, I’ll play.
Today DNA tests can address that easily.
As far as this case, he no longer has to pay child support because he finally took a DNA test to show he is not the father.
He never objected prior to this. If he had done it 15 years ago he would have been off the hook then.
I’ve been talking broadly about living a biblically based life and this won’t happen.
But addressing the actual case in pure legal and secular terms, he is the one who screwed up.
His defense is he didn’t know, but he accepted child support garnished from his paycheck for child support.
That happened to me in the late 80’s in Nevada. If you sign the birf certificate, you “own” the child. I tested after the fact, and learned the hard way. The law in Tejas is what is in the “best interests of the child”. Screw the father, in so many ways, although I thought Texas had changed that.
“Men don’t have a moral obligation to raise another man’s off spring and most men would rather kill than be forced to do so. There is derogatory term for men who willing support another man’s child: Cuckold. Only suckers, degenerates, and loser cuck.”
You’re all over the place here, and a bit insane.
In civilization, any child born to a man’s wife is legally his child and he has a moral and legal obligation to such children.
Your other comment is psycho, but you seem to have experience, so we can let it pass as frustration and emotion.
“Nor is there a biblical requirement to support a child from a mother that you’re not married to.”
I didn’t say there was.
“Children born out wedlock belong to their mothers not their fathers.”
I agree.
“If women want support for their children they need to get married before they have them.”
I agree. Most don’t agree with us, though, even here.
So, interestingly, I agree with you in large part, except the psycho killer stuff. You need to maybe think about that.
Don’t belong here eh? Big talk from a newbie.
First off, just because a man demands a woman get an abortion, does not mean she is going to be strapped down on a gurney against her will. That will never happen.
All that will happen is that the child support system will be evened out, that is both sides can opt out, just that the baby does not have to die, with the mans decision. Is that too hard for you to get?
If the father decides to have a relationship with the child, he will know that the child will know the truth. Now I ask you, if I’m talking about the future of the child, am I really asking for it to be aborted? If you can’t get that, try again.
As a matter of fact, if you think you are the judge of who belongs here, you should think about how it makes you look.
I see? So, you would punsih and impoverish him because some skme girl hears ago and no baby life ensued from bjs actions? screwwing the neighbor?
Wouldn’t the onus attach to the actual father?
Oh, but they *will* go after an non-custodial mom if there’s any money to be had there.
“Do you also believes that people convicted of crimes who are later found innocent should stay in jail?”
No.
I don’t think there’s an analogy here, either.
“Your willingness too abuse the individuals rights are disgusting.”
Did you read the article? It’s sketchy on details, but his problem is he did not claim non-paternity until recently after the child is all ready 16 years old.
If he had asked for a paternity test earlier he would have settled the matter then.
As it is, he no longer needs to pay child support. He is supposed to pay what he agreed to, but does not need to pay more.
The whole thing is a mess but not representative of anything.
He messed up. He had his defense as to why he didn’t ask earlier, but he lost in court.
Your sick and a bitter woman! Sex desnt equate to jail for failur to pay child support. Your posting this shit of a site for constitutional purists. Absolutely pitiful! GTH!
men, keep it in your trousers....or get a vasectomy if you don't want babies...better yet, find a nice loving woman with your same faith and values and get married and stay married....same goes for women....
“I see? So, you would punsih and impoverish him because some skme girl hears ago and no baby life ensued from bjs actions? screwwing the neighbor?
Wouldn’t the onus attach to the actual father?”
To this latter, yes. I agree.
But, I was talking more broadly in terms of how one chooses to live one’s life and how making the right choices keeps one from such a situation.
Now I will talk only about the secular law and this specific case. It does seem weird, but when actually learning the details it makes sense.
When the child was born he did not contest paternity. He did not contest child support, nor did he contest wage garnishment for child support.
Now that the child is 16, he contested paternity. And it was shown he is not the father.
Therefore he does not need to pay any more child support from here on.
But, for 15 years (or so) he had agreed to pay, and did in fact pay some.
It’s not a paternity case anymore with respect to that, it’s simple adherence to a prior agreement he made.
If he had contested paternity earlier, he would have been off the hook earlier.
He messed up. He argued he in court it wasn’t his fault - essentially that he didn’t know - but he lost.
I suppose he could sue her now. That’s his recourse.
And as for the actual father, I’d assume he could be made to pay for the next year or two or however long it goes. Nobody ever tried to put the onus on him. I think both he and the mother did think this guy was the father. When this guy got clued in, I don’t know.
And, maybe he could sue the actual father for damages.
It’s all a big mess.
This is why the old fashioned way is better.
“Your sick and a bitter woman! Sex desnt equate to jail for failur to pay child support. Your posting this shit of a site for constitutional purists. Absolutely pitiful! GTH!”
I’m a married man who takes responsibility for my actions.
Wow, you are really messed up. He used her for sex? You really hate men, maybe you should go to counseling or something.
Why are men more responsible for birth control ? There are 11 methods of birth control available to women, one for men excluding operations. So how is it that men are more responsible? A woman agrees to have sex with a man, they do, and she opts out of 11 ways to stop an unwanted pregnancy and he opts out of one way, and in your mind, and the minds of one or two others (probably women) on this board, the MAN is more responsible? Wow. Hell one of the women on this thread is saying that the man is responsible even if the kid isn’t his! So the woman passes on 10 additional methods of birth control and a man who isn’t even the Father is responsible? No wonder men are making a run for it...
Any man having sex with a woman not his wife, or whom he does not plan to wed, is indeed using the woman for sex.
I say that as a man and therefore one who knows.
So innocence in America is no longer meaningful.
Good to know.
You are messed up.
She gave the milk away. And he didn’t father the child. Someone else fathered the child and is getting off scott-free.
“You are messed up.”
Because I think it’s best for a man and a woman to be in love and committed to each prior to having sex?
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.