If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Judge orders father to pay $7,645 in legal fees for mother trying to collect child support. Correction: ...orders prosecutors to pay $7,645 to father being extorted by the system   (miamiherald.com) divider line 187
    More: Florida, child support, legal fees, prosecutors, Department of Revenue, Florida Attorney General, freedom of movement, Miami, collects  
•       •       •

17183 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2013 at 4:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-06 10:13:54 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.


It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.
 
2013-07-06 10:17:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Willas Tyrell: jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?

Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father, or whoever had access to the mother within 200 days prior to the birth. (Access--a lovely term) It's very archaic. And the burden is on the father currently to ask for DNA testing or otherwise deny parentage if he's got reason to believe he's not the father--and there's a limited window to do it.

It might be time to start, or at least repealing the presumption of paternity.


Just imagine a potential father requesting a paternity test at birth.  Think how the mother would react.  Making it the law removes major biatch-fest the father is going to get.

Two outcomes if he makes the demand.

1. The mother knows there's a chance he isn't the father, so she will scream bloody murder in hopes that he'll change his mind.
2. The mother knows she hasn't cheated, so she's going to scream bloody murder for him daring to question her fidelity.

Either way, he's not getting any for a good long time.
 
2013-07-06 10:24:28 PM  

ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.


And we wonder why there are shiatloads of unemployed people around who can't get jobs.  Give everyone a criminal record and they'll have to go back to figuring out which person actually has merit to do a job instead of cutting the guy who pissed in an alleyway 25 years ago because misdemeanor.
 
2013-07-06 10:42:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Willas Tyrell: jst3p: jayphat: Didn't we read a story here a while back where DNA proved a guy wasn't the father, but since the mother fingered him as the dad, and the child would suffer without the money, they were going to force him to pay up anyway?

Texas seems pretty farked up in this regard. If I am reading this correctly you have 60 days after birth to challenge paternity I believe the case you are referring to happened in Texas, actually I remember more than one.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/ag_publications/txts/paternity.shtml

You're misreading it.

Texas, like most states, has a 60 day time limit to *rescind* a signed acknowledgment of paternity, the legal document that establishes paternity for children born outside a marriage.

In other words, if you sign the legal papers admitting paternity you only have 60 days to change your mind. If both parents don't don't sign the acknowledgment then someone would need to file a paternity proceeding to establish legal paternity.

/If you want a DNA test get it before you sign the document making you permanently the legal father.

Paternity tests should be given at birth. I wonder how much push back there would be on a proposal to make this the law?

Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father


But to get on the birth certificate there needs to be either a marriage, court order or the same document as required in Texas (an acknowledgment of paternity). This is a pretty unified national standard.

The point that any woman who just gave birth would be less than happy with any putative father asking for a DNA test is well taken.

BarkingUnicorn: R.A.Danny: One lady gets pregnant, frozen pop, twins. She hooks up with another very nice lady, they're a lovely couple. In Illinois they can't get married, but they cohabitated for five years, and the kids are now six. Now they are splitting up. it's very sad. I'm friends with both of them so I am not taking sides here, but I am kinda sickened by the traction that the birth mother is getting in getting child support for kids that are hers and hers alone.

I am all for marriage equality, but they were never married. There was no adoption. Whether you are male or female you shouldn't get nailed with child support because you temporarily cohabitated with a woman with children.

I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.


I bet they're making an equitable estoppel pitch - that the non custodial "parent" held herself out as they child's mother, and that in doing so committed themselves to a lifelong parent-child relationship.

This has been shot down pretty solidly with same gendered couples, usually in the sad context of the noncustodial non-parent losing out on any visitation with a child they've been essentially co-parenting for years.
 
2013-07-06 10:46:33 PM  
The comment from his new lawyer, Heller, at the bottom of the article implied to me that they were readying some kind of counter legal action against the state. I look forward to that followup.
 
2013-07-06 11:07:36 PM  

OgreMagi: Just imagine a potential father requesting a paternity test at birth. Think how the mother would react. Making it the law removes major biatch-fest the father is going to get.

Two outcomes if he makes the demand.

1. The mother knows there's a chance he isn't the father, so she will scream bloody murder in hopes that he'll change his mind.
2. The mother knows she hasn't cheated, so she's going to scream bloody murder for him daring to question her fidelity.

Either way, he's not getting any for a good long time.


That's why the laws haven't been touched, I'm guessing. Sounds like something a women's rights organization would challenge--"It puts the woman at too much risk if the baby isn't the putative father's." Which it might. But as you point out, if the father does ask for a test, it destroys things from his end, regardless.

Actually, it should be done anyway in case the hospital screws up--those cases of misplaced babies that happened a few years back that led to everyone getting wristbands on both wrists to make sure the right baby went home with the right mom. I could see a law where the hospital is required to do DNA testing, and keeps the results confidential unless they are requested by one or both parents; at least cut the wait time down.
 
2013-07-06 11:08:04 PM  

buzzcut73: Most recently, I've gotten a letter from KS saying that if I open an educational savings account in her name with the state, they'll knock two dollars off of my "arrears" for every dollar I put in it. I may just do that, because at least it will benefit my daughter and will finally get the BS debt off the books. So yeah, I'll probably just pay it that way cause it's in the long run less headache than going to Bumfark, KS for a family court hearing that I'd probably lose anyway.


I'd pay very, very careful attention to that.  Because you might find that it 'resets' the collection clock, they can seize it, it doesn't actually count for '2 to 1', etc...

Looking up Kansas law, they have 2 years after emancipation of the child, though it appears they can reset the clock 'with appropriate action'.  They might be attempting to do that.

Gyrfalcon: If he'd had a good job in March and a crappy job in September, why should that matter? It would still cost X dollars to feed and clothe Junior, right?


Except that if they were still married household expenses would be less as they'd be shared, and Junior would get to suck up the loss in living standards along with the rest of the family.  Indeed, depending on how far down the family goes, they'd become eligible for various amounts of welfare to ensure that Junior still gets a good diet WITHOUT trying to hit dad up for more money that he doesn't have because he lost his job when the factory shut down.

sharphead: Being a CEO is not "work".


It is when you're also the only employee.  Or only 1 of 3 people working in the business.  You still need a CEO/Owner, the company is actually a way to shield personal assets in case the business goes under.

But then, if you look at it another way, you ARE very much correct.  If you're the CEO of a company with no business(in this case because you can't travel internationally to do your thing because they shut down your passport), no employees, and no assets, you're still the CEO, but there's no income from being a CEO, so it's not 'work', in that it's not returning assets in exchange for time/labor.

Loren: Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore. She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.


Uh, incorrect.  I've known SEVERAL men who've managed to win custody due to the mother being incompetent/refusing visitation.  It's tough, but doable.

Of course, the deal today would be the judge cites her for contempt of court and puts her in jail until she fesses up where the kids are.  I mean, it's recognized today that in such a case she might not actually have possession of them anymore - or they might even be dead in her basement or something.
 
2013-07-06 11:10:46 PM  
farkers - only one page into this thread and wanted to chime in before sunday starts

TO those men who truly care about their children's welfare? thank you - sincerely

I am sorry that you are still fighting an uphill societal battle - the one that insists you may not be "as good as" your child's mother. I am sorry that, for some of you, your ex's lie out of anger and jealousy and fear you will "turn" your jointly-made children against them - or who try to turn the children you love against you.

There are men - lots of them - who adore their children - and (at least this one) women respect that

Those of you who may be dicks because "that stupid biatch did so and so"? your children don't care what YOUR reasons are - they only want a dad and - pssst - sexist anger isn't helping your fight - especially in court.

Dads are important - keep trying, even until your kids are grown
 
2013-07-06 11:17:29 PM  

AngryDragon: cryinoutloud: budrojr: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.
I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.
Glad it worked out for you bro.  You may be one of the only ones EVER that it has worked out for.
#exceptionnottherule

No shiat. My psycho ex kept me in court for 12 years, and I was farked over almost every single time I walked in there.

Oh wait--I'm a woman, therefore it couldn't have happened that way. Carry on, Fark.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but statistics, how do they work?

My ex was addicted to drugs without any means of support and she STILL got custody.  Apparently a father with a clean record and successful career who volunteers his time to both the community and his child's school was a less capable parent than someone who was so drugged out of her mind that she would spend days at a time in bed.  And she received spousal support for 3 years.

Seems legit.


What seems legit is that you, such an upstanding successful man of the community, were dumb enough to put your dick into and then a ring on the finger of an unemployed drug addict.
 
2013-07-06 11:22:44 PM  

R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.

It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.


Well, the non-mother's lawyer should stop pumping up his bill and tell the mother's lawyer to go fark himself on this child support nonsense.

They bought a house together without a contract specifying what happens if they split?  Brilliant!
 
2013-07-06 11:39:03 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.

It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.

Well, the non-mother's lawyer should stop pumping up his bill and tell the mother's lawyer to go fark himself on this child support nonsense.

They bought a house together without a contract specifying what happens if they split?  Brilliant!


Yeah, two women with advanced degrees, both making well into six figures and they know nothing about money. They're both wonderful people, but I don't get it either.
 
2013-07-06 11:51:40 PM  

GORDON: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Yes. Failed marriage and kids with a broken home. You win parent of the year, congrats.


Yeah, I should have chosen a wife who wouldn't cheat on me with her WoW guild leader. I accept responsibility for that poor choice. That being said they are much better off in this "broken" home, trust me.
 
2013-07-07 12:07:04 AM  

R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: I would love to  see the State's arguments.  The entire notion is preposterous even if the couple was of opposite sexes.  Illinois banned common law marriage in 1905.  There is no such thing as common law adoption; English common law did not allow it.

It isn't in the state's hands yet, and as far as a divorce it really never will be. It's the women's lawyers going at it. I think the mother wants the ex to walk away from the house and the equity  therein.

Well, the non-mother's lawyer should stop pumping up his bill and tell the mother's lawyer to go fark himself on this child support nonsense.

They bought a house together without a contract specifying what happens if they split?  Brilliant!

Yeah, two women with advanced degrees, both making well into six figures and they know nothing about money. They're both wonderful people, but I don't get it either.


OK, now I feel a tugging on my leg.
 
2013-07-07 12:09:57 AM  

jst3p: GORDON: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Yes. Failed marriage and kids with a broken home. You win parent of the year, congrats.

Yeah, I should have chosen a wife who wouldn't cheat on me with her WoW guild leader. I accept responsibility for that poor choice. That being said they are much better off in this "broken" home, trust me.


Should never have married a gamer girl.  They're all trouble.
 
2013-07-07 12:17:35 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: jst3p: GORDON: jst3p: Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.

I have 50/50 custody, shared parental rights and pay reasonable child support considering our disparity in income. You are doing it wrong.

Yes. Failed marriage and kids with a broken home. You win parent of the year, congrats.

Yeah, I should have chosen a wife who wouldn't cheat on me with her WoW guild leader. I accept responsibility for that poor choice. That being said they are much better off in this "broken" home, trust me.

Should never have married a gamer girl.  They're all trouble.


In the end, it was worth the ride.
 
2013-07-07 01:14:00 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: ongbok: BarkingUnicorn: ongbok: Have a friend that worked as an assistant D.A for a while. He said what he quickly learned in the prosecutors office is that it isn't about justice, it is about winning. He said that there were plenty of cases that they either knew flat out that a person was innocent or they had enough doubt to point to innocence, but they still went after the person because they knew they could get them to take a plea.

Your friend worked for a DA who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense "plenty of times?"  Or was he just talking about opinions flying around the office?

They didn't hold anything back, they just go after people who they know they can get to take a plea. For example there are many people that can't afford a lawyer, but make too much to get a public defender, or can't afford to have to keep going to court to fight a charge. They know that if they pile charges on a person like this, regardless of whether or not they are guilty or innocent, the person will likely take a plea to lesser charges that doesn't involve jail time.

Hm.  The one time I was charged with a crime, I argued that I could not afford a lawyer.  Public defender's office didn't want to rep me because I earned more than the poverty level.  I argued that being able to survive and being able to afford an attorney were not the same thing.  The judge told me, "Hire a lawyer or proceed pro se."  I told him that I had tried but could not find a lawyer who would take what I could afford as a retainer.  I said I was incompetent to defend myself and that if I was forced to do so under these circumstances, a conviction would likely be overturned on appeal. (Never mind where I'd get the money for an appeal.)

Lo and behold!  He found a slush fund from which to pay for a private attorney.  It only took six hearings over nine months.

/ Charge was dropped the day the trial was to begin.
// Cost me only the bail bondsman's fee & 8 hours in jail
/// I plead the Fifth


The Public Pretenders are just expediters for the prosecution anyway. They rarely help anyone.
 
2013-07-07 01:14:38 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: I said I was incompetent to defend myself and that if I was forced to do so under these circumstances, a conviction would likely be overturned on appeal.


Nice. This made me laugh. If I were a judge the sophistication of this statement would make me raise my eyebrows as to your incompetence to proceed pro se, but they're not the same thing.

Your story is interesting. I work on the civil side (well, I did in school, I'm studying for the bar now), and we have to turn away many grey-area clients who I know don't make enough to pay for their own representation, but who still don't make our stringent income cut-off. I'd never really thought much about the obvious fact that a similar grey area exists in the criminal sphere.
 
2013-07-07 01:21:15 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Aigoo: BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: The judge had no mercy, and said unless this douche got a job, he'd impute his new wife's wages to him and start attaching HER wages to pay HIS child support.

LOL! wut?

Depending on the state (is FL community property?), it can be done.

I almost had my tax return attached to my ex-husband's (in a community property state) to pay his ex wife's tax debt of over $10k, until I took the paperwork to the IRS office and showed his divorce decree, my marriage license, my bank statements showing that my income was VA disability (non-reportable and non-taxable) and that the bulk of the money they were trying to take was from monies I had paid on the mortgage from my account (we'd kept separate bank accounts) on a VA loan. Got my money back very quickly. They can and will do that in a community property state (dunno if FL is one), and the burden of proof in on you to prove it's your spouse's debt and not yours.

That's not the same at all.   Gyrfalcom seems to be talking about taking money from Mom's paycheck to pay back to her as child support!


The guy's NEW wife's income. Not the one owed....
 
2013-07-07 03:42:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Be an interesting idea. Currently in California, it actually says in the laws that whoever is named on the birth certificate is the legal father, or whoever had access to the mother within 200 days prior to the birth. (Access--a lovely term) It's very archaic. And the burden is on the father currently to ask for DNA testing or otherwise deny parentage if he's got reason to believe he's not the father--and there's a limited window to do it.


Just curious, do you know the actual legal code for that? I'm looking through the Family Code, and the only thing I can find that comes close is a man cohabitating with a woman who gives birth is automatically presumed to be the father (California Family Code 7540).
 
2013-07-07 03:44:54 AM  
I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a female prosecutor would take the case to such an extreme against a working father.

Shocked, I tell you.
 
2013-07-07 03:53:30 AM  

Ranger Rover: Nice. This made me laugh. If I were a judge the sophistication of this statement would make me raise my eyebrows as to your incompetence to proceed pro se, but they're not the same thing.


I took it as he's competent enough to stand trial, also competent enough to realize that he's not a lawyer, thus can't mount an effective defense.  HOWEVER, he is thus competent enough to make a right royal pain of himself while in prison for whatever during the appeals process.

The results of which is likely to be 'give him a new trial' as the right to representation is set in stone at this point.  The cost of 2 trials, one without representation, one with, plus the appeals court's time, plus the slap to the judge for having held an arguably flawed trial, etc...

Personally, I hate how the very trial itself is used today as a form of punishment.  Even a misdemeanor trial can easily cost 10X as much as the maximum penalty.  Where's the justice in that?

Personally, I'd pass a requirement that public defenders are appointed to EVERYONE, and that the PD office must be funded at least equally to the prosecutor's.  Every dollar the prosecution spends trying to convict you is a dollar your defense can spend fighting it.
 
2013-07-07 03:58:59 AM  

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Oh, is this the weekly "Men's Rights" angry Fark Misogyny circlejerk?

I see we've already started in on how white men are the most oppressed members of society and are afforded no justice in the courts. How long before the usual suspects show up and start in with the "All women are unfeeling whores' discussion? Or is that all the time here?


Don't you have a penis to go suck?
 
2013-07-07 04:59:58 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a female prosecutor would take the case to such an extreme against a working father.

Shocked, I tell you.


Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are really your parents.
 
2013-07-07 06:18:15 AM  
You know, none of this "child support" crap would even exist if we all just pitched in and gave all children a government stipend, because all children deserve equitable support from society. Then there wouldn't be any need to argue about who owes what for which children -- those arguments would all be reduced to the same arguments we already have about how taxes should be levied.

You could fund such a system by taxing whoever it is you want to hold responsible for the costs of raising children -- you can tax people for producing children, or fund it from general revenue to hold us all accountable, or whatever methodology you think is relevant to produce the economic outcomes you want -- but it's insane that we force some children to suffer just because their parents are poor/separated/non-citizens/etc.

It would also help unravel this ridiculous conflation of divorce and child support. Children are not a party to any divorce and their care should not be subject to such proceedings; removing the financial support of children from the equation would go a long way toward more just outcomes for everyone -- men, women, children, and the rest of society would all benefit from reducing divorce to the inverse of marriage.
 
2013-07-07 06:26:00 AM  

OgreMagi: rzrwiresunrise: I'm shocked, SHOCKED that a female prosecutor would take the case to such an extreme against a working father.

Shocked, I tell you.

Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are really your parents.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-07 09:53:12 AM  

Gyrfalcon: That's why the laws haven't been touched, I'm guessing. Sounds like something a women's rights organization would challenge--"It puts the woman at too much risk if the baby isn't the putative father's." Which it might. But as you point out, if the father does ask for a test, it destroys things from his end, regardless.

Actually, it should be done anyway in case the hospital screws up--those cases of misplaced babies that happened a few years back that led to everyone getting wristbands on both wrists to make sure the right baby went home with the right mom. I could see a law where the hospital is required to do DNA testing, and keeps the results confidential unless they are requested by one or both parents; at least cut the wait time down.


I'd simply make it that he doesn't sign the birth certificate at all.  The only way to get his name on it is a DNA test or his signature on paperwork that makes it his kid even though he knows it's not (sperm donor, adoption etc.)

Firethorn: Loren: Judges don't do that sort of thing anymore. She can withhold visitation all she wants and child support is unaffected.

Uh, incorrect. I've known SEVERAL men who've managed to win custody due to the mother being incompetent/refusing visitation. It's tough, but doable.


I said child support is unaffected.  Once in a while custody is, though.
 
2013-07-07 10:47:08 AM  

parasol: farkers - only one page into this thread and wanted to chime in before sunday starts

TO those men who truly care about their children's welfare? thank you - sincerely

I am sorry that you are still fighting an uphill societal battle - the one that insists you may not be "as good as" your child's mother. I am sorry that, for some of you, your ex's lie out of anger and jealousy and fear you will "turn" your jointly-made children against them - or who try to turn the children you love against you.

There are men - lots of them - who adore their children - and (at least this one) women respect that

Those of you who may be dicks because "that stupid biatch did so and so"? your children don't care what YOUR reasons are - they only want a dad and - pssst - sexist anger isn't helping your fight - especially in court.

Dads are important - keep trying, even until your kids are grown


I have no kids, but this is why I have you favorited.
 
2013-07-07 10:59:01 AM  

parasol: farkers - only one page into this thread and wanted to chime in before sunday starts

TO those men who truly care about their children's welfare? thank you - sincerely

I am sorry that you are still fighting an uphill societal battle - the one that insists you may not be "as good as" your child's mother. I am sorry that, for some of you, your ex's lie out of anger and jealousy and fear you will "turn" your jointly-made children against them - or who try to turn the children you love against you.

There are men - lots of them - who adore their children - and (at least this one) women respect that

Those of you who may be dicks because "that stupid biatch did so and so"? your children don't care what YOUR reasons are - they only want a dad and - pssst - sexist anger isn't helping your fight - especially in court.

Dads are important - keep trying, even until your kids are grown


except that in some cases the father isn't the biological father of the child, yet is still being forced by the courts to pay for the child as if he is.
 
2013-07-07 01:16:41 PM  

Thisbymaster: Yeah, nothing in the legal system with less rights than a father.



A white father.

/thats racist
 
2013-07-07 03:43:29 PM  

OgreMagi: Just imagine a potential father requesting a paternity test at birth. Think how the mother would react. Making it the law removes major biatch-fest the father is going to get.

Two outcomes if he makes the demand.

1. The mother knows there's a chance he isn't the father, so she will scream bloody murder in hopes that he'll change his mind.
2. The mother knows she hasn't cheated, so she's going to scream bloody murder for him daring to question her fidelity.

Either way, he's not getting any for a good long time.


I intend to insist on paternity testing, myself, much like the way the best car companies ask professional drivers to test them or the people who make that really nice paint send some to home-improvement shows for the pros to try. I consider it proof of quality workmanship. Even if there's no question, it's still nice to know for dead sure.

That, and a paternity test reveals blood type and a number of other cool genetic things, which could be helpful for one or another of Future Kid's science-fair projects.
 
2013-07-07 04:24:56 PM  
Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.
 
2013-07-07 05:34:25 PM  

OgreMagi: Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.


9.  Dating a woman who has a child that's not yours,  You bet you are responsible for child support.
 
2013-07-07 05:49:43 PM  

Warlordtrooper: OgreMagi: Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.

9.  Dating a woman who has a child that's not yours,  You bet you are responsible for child support.


10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.

That really happened to some guy.  He had never met the woman and suddenly his salary was being garnished.  Because he didn't object to his name on the birth certificate in a timely manner, the law makes him the father.  There is no legal requirement to inform anyone they are being named on the birth certificate.  He was forced to mount an expensive legal fight. I never did learn of the outcome.
 
2013-07-07 09:43:31 PM  

OgreMagi: Warlordtrooper: OgreMagi: Here are the rules, guys.  Remember this whenever you have sex.

1. If she gets knocked up, even if you took precautions, you are responsible for child support.
2. If she lies about birth control and gets knocked up, you are responsible for child support.
3. If she turkey basts herself with the condom contents that she fished out of the garbage, you are responsible for child support.
4. If you aren't the father, you are responsible for child support.
5. If she rapes you, you are responsible for child support.
6. You have no say at any time in the decision about abortion, but you are still responsible for child support.
7. If you don't want to be responsible for child support, keep your dick in your pants, and you are still responsible for child support.
8. Saying a woman should keep her legs closed is misogynistic, and you are responsible for child support.

9.  Dating a woman who has a child that's not yours,  You bet you are responsible for child support.

10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.

That really happened to some guy.  He had never met the woman and suddenly his salary was being garnished.  Because he didn't object to his name on the birth certificate in a timely manner, the law makes him the father.  There is no legal requirement to inform anyone they are being named on the birth certificate.  He was forced to mount an expensive legal fight. I never did learn of the outcome.


holy titty farking christ.
 
2013-07-07 10:23:01 PM  

OgreMagi: 10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.


If she jots down a random half-remembered name and yours sounds somewhat similar, you are responsible for child support.

Happened to an Asian guy down in California; he didn't know until his income started being garnished.  They told him they'd notified him; they mailed the letter first class to where he was 3 addresses and 3 years before and considered that 'good enough'.  They said 'your time to protest was past', etc...

It ended up taking quite a bit of lawyer work to demand a blood test(hint:  Baby quite obviously fully black, he was asian), and prove that he wasn't the father and that no, they hadn't legally notified him.  He still never got the garnished wages back, which had gone to the state, not the mother, in compensation for benefits paid.
 
2013-07-07 10:38:51 PM  

Firethorn: OgreMagi: 10. If a woman pulls your name out of the phone book and puts it down as the father of the child on the birth certificate, you are responsible for child support.

If she jots down a random half-remembered name and yours sounds somewhat similar, you are responsible for child support.

Happened to an Asian guy down in California; he didn't know until his income started being garnished.  They told him they'd notified him; they mailed the letter first class to where he was 3 addresses and 3 years before and considered that 'good enough'.  They said 'your time to protest was past', etc...

It ended up taking quite a bit of lawyer work to demand a blood test(hint:  Baby quite obviously fully black, he was asian), and prove that he wasn't the father and that no, they hadn't legally notified him.  He still never got the garnished wages back, which had gone to the state, not the mother, in compensation for benefits paid.


It's cases like this that convinced me that the family courts will fark men in the ass without lube.  Not the tendency to give custody to women.  Not the lack of enforcement of visitation for the father.  It's when it's so completely obvious to a blind moron with severe brain trauma that they screwed up, and they still refuse to back down without an expensive court battle that we learn exactly where we stand.
 
2013-07-08 12:20:58 AM  
As a former CSEA attorney who has had multiple run ins with Florida on interstate cases, I applaud the decision. One of the reasons for the existence of CSEAs is that someone needs to track the payments.  If FL is still relying on the Mom's "information" as opposed to THEIR OWN farkING COMPUTERS, they were plainly asking for this outcome.
 
Displayed 37 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report