There is soooo much wrong with this

A Texas man is battling a court order that mandates he must pay tens of thousands in child support for a child that he did not biologically father and who he met only once.

In 2003, a child support court in Texas ruled that Gabriel Cornejo, 45, had to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend who had recently given birth because she vowed that there was no way he wasn’t the rightful dad.

Cornejo, who is currently raising three children of his own and two nephews, claimed that he was not made aware of this and only found out about the child support payments last year when a deputy served him court papers claiming that the state of Texas lists him as having another child. He soon met the minor for the first and only time – describing her as a “wonderful girl” – but after taking a DNA test, learned she was not his after all.

Only Cornejo’s ex-girlfriend and the state still want the $65,000 in back payments.

“I never thought in my whole life I would have to defend myself of something that I am innocent of,” he said.

Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proves otherwise. In Cornejo’s case, that amounts to some $65,000.

His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo's paycheck several years ago and he didn’t contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago.

“There can be consequences, even if you don’t do anything,” Stith told local news.

Cornejo and his attorney, Cheryl Coleman, must now persuade a judge to re-open the case – as the original court order cannot be amended. If that doesn’t happen, he must pay up or face time behind bars.

The case is due back in court next month.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...d-that-isnt-his.html

Comet. Now.

H&K-Guy

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!

That report is inaccurate, which will teach you to not trust what you read. We've talked a lot about this case around here, and I know the lawyer mentioned. The guy was served with notice of the original suit years ago - 16 years. He defaulted. Failed to respond. Like a forfeit. He failed to contest garnishments of his pay on at least one occasion. Again, a default. Just like any civil lawsuit. If you fail to respond when you get notice, you lose. If he had shown up and responded to this suit when he first knew of it, a DNA test would have cleared him. Easily. Instead, he sat on his hands and did nothing for 16 years. If he had first learned of this now, he'd be able to fight it with a DNA test, but this isn't his first notice. He knew of this a long time ago and ignored the problem and hoped it would go away. It didn't.

I haven't even played a lawyer on TV, but you would think this guy's employer would have some liability in this. Employers have to report new hires to the State. The State then is supposed to notify the employer that there is withholding/order for the child support. The woman's attorney is claiming that that worked at some point, but apparently not the full time they're looking to get paid for. So has this guy started working at some cash job where he's not been reported as hired or what? If he's working a legitimate job, the employer hasn't reported him as hired to the State or the State hasn't notified the employer of the order to withhold.

NEVER MIND. Jhe888 just answered my question.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
I haven't even played a lawyer on TV, but you would think this guy's employer would have some liability in this. Employers have to report new hires to the State. The State then is supposed to notify the employer that there is withholding/order for the child support. The woman's attorney is claiming that that worked at some point, but apparently not the full time they're looking to get paid for. So has this guy started working at some cash job where he's not been reported as hired or what? If he's working a legitimate job, the employer hasn't reported him as hired to the State or the State hasn't notified the employer of the order to withhold.

No. New employers don't report to the state for child support reasons. The party receiving child support keeps up with that. Actually, the paying party is supposed to report to the child support office, but they rarely do. So the payees end up doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
That report is inaccurate, which will teach you to not trust what you read. We've talked a lot about this case around here, and i know the lawyer mentitled. The guy was served with notice of the original suit years ago - 16 years. He defaulted. Failed to respond. Like a forfeit. He failed to contest garnishments of his pay on at least one occasion. Again, a default. Just like any civil lawsuit. If you fail to respend when you get notice, you lose. If he had shown up and responded to this suit when he first knew of it, a DNA test would have cleared him. Easily. Instead, he sat on his hands and did nothing for 16 years. If he had first learned of this now, he'd be able to fight it with a DNA test, but this isn't his first notice. He knew of this a long time ago and ignored the problem and hoped it would go away. It didn't.

But, but, but...... they are journalist-Americans, and must be believed when they write something, leaks, warts, misunderstandings and all!

This is more common than people think; if you're unsure, get a paternity test. I believe in France, "fathers" are blocked from getting paternity tests unless by a court order.

Maybe I missed something here. This broad 'accused' Cornejo of being the father, but the court didn't require proof? What sort of kangaroo court is that? So any woman who has difficulty keeping her clothes on and her legs crossed can simply accuse anyone of being the father of her most recent drunken mistake, and the accused has to prove they're not the sperm donor. Again, anybody else see this as a bit, shall we say, ridiculous?

Seems like the just and right action for the court to do now is simply throw out any paternity related judgement against him.

Wouldn't he be eligible to counter sue her at this point? At the very least she should be a perjury case for screwing this guy over.

Not much of a fan of "process crimes".

The man did not spill his baby batter, someone else did, and he has to deal with the aftermath? Where is the real father in all of this?

I feel sorry for the kid, buy I'm not paying for my woman's extra-curricular activities. That's on her and the man that's doing her.

Any man that doesn't take responsibility for siring a child, financially or otherwise, is not a man. You want to take a ride? Then deal with the consequences.

H&K-Guy

I'd be goin' to jail.

quote:

posted July 23, 2017 03:34 PM Hide Post
That report is inaccurate, which will teach you to not trust what you read. We've talked a lot about this case around here, and I know the lawyer mentioned. The guy was served with notice of the original suit years ago - 16 years. He defaulted. Failed to respond. Like a forfeit. He failed to contest garnishments of his pay on at least one occasion. Again, a default. Just like any civil lawsuit. If you fail to respond when you get notice, you lose. If he had shown up and responded to this suit when he first knew of it, a DNA test would have cleared him. Easily. Instead, he sat on his hands and did nothing for 16 years. If he had first learned of this now, he'd be able to fight it with a DNA test, but this isn't his first notice. He knew of this a long time ago and ignored the problem and hoped it would go away. It didn't

Thank you.

And people complain about California.

If the child isn't his, none of the rest should matter. That is does is a YUGE problem.

It's bullshit technicalities like this that make people hate and mistrust the system.

If it's not my child, I shouldn't be required to do shit, much less by a technicality.

It's morally and ethically wrong, no matter how it currently works, and needs to change.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
If the child isn't his, none of the rest should matter. That is does is a YUGE problem.

It's bullshit technicalities like this that make people hate and mistrust the system.

If it's not my child, I shouldn't be required to do shit, much less by a technicality.

It's morally and ethically wrong, no matter how it currently works, and needs to change.

Sure, everything that you say is true, but for the system to have any kind of chance at all it needs to have a lot of black and white in it, even if reality is more grey.

In this case, the reality is that if you don't show up to contest a court case you lose. I didn't complain about that when it got me out of a traffic ticket when I was in high school, and I understand it well enough that if I had a legal of any kind today, I'd be getting in front of it, not "hoping it would go away if I ignored it."

So he screwed up and lost by not playing. The court ruled that he owed support (based on his default or failure to respond) and that support has been accruing since. He has run up a substantial bill and now he wants to contest it. A little late at this point.

Now if this statement is correct, "Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proves otherwise." then I wouldn't argue with the contention that this is a screwed up law and should be changed. That is a job for the legislature. And I certainly would not argue that the woman in question is not of seriously questionable morals for trying to steal this money from this man even if the law does allow for it. All that doesn't have a lot to do with the black and white of the law though.

I wish the guy luck, even if he is in a cruddy situation of his own making.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
If the child isn't his, none of the rest should matter. That is does is a YUGE problem.

It's bullshit technicalities like this that make people hate and mistrust the system.

If it's not my child, I shouldn't be required to do shit, much less by a technicality.

It's morally and ethically wrong, no matter how it currently works, and needs to change.

It pisses me off that my pawns can't make the same moves as my queen can, in the end I still have to follow the rules. If as jhe has said he was served 16 years ago and has failed to appear or defend himself it's his fault for not bothering to learn the rules of the game, not the games fault. No matter how stupid the rules may be.

Jhe, since you are familiar with the case. Had he appeared originally, or tried to appeal at some point is it likely he would have been able to take a paternity test and if so how much would it have cost between the lawyer and test 16 years ago to make this go away?

Edit, guess me and slosig were typing at the same time.

This isn't unique to paternity nor to Texas.

Courts give you the right to answer and be heard. There are time limits for bringing claims against others, called Statutes of Limitations. If you don't file your case, you are barred from relief. The claim is gone. Very, very rarely can a Statute of Limitations be overriden. I can't think of an instance for that.

By the same token, when a claim is brought, you have to respond within certain limits. Usually you must file responsive pleadings within 30 days.

If not, a default is entered, and ultimately judgment will be entered against you, assuming there is proof. You are not allowed to contest it in default. If you miss that date, you can often have your default excused and you can file your response and proceed to defend as if nothing had happened.

In Whackyland, even after default judgment is entered against you, you can in some very limited situations still have your default judgment set aside, your default excused, and answer, even some years later, but the circumstances for your delay must be extraordinary and supported by a showing that it wasn't your fault. The longer it goes, the more difficult it becomes to get the judgment set aside and be allowed to present your case.

As the time gets longer, evidence evaporates, memories fade, courts are busy, and being diligent its own reward.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
If the child isn't his, none of the rest should matter. That is does is a YUGE problem.

It's bullshit technicalities like this that make people hate and mistrust the system.

If it's not my child, I shouldn't be required to do shit, much less by a technicality.

It's morally and ethically wrong, no matter how it currently works, and needs to change.

It pisses me off that my pawns can't make the same moves as my queen can, in the end I still have to follow the rules. If as jhe has said he was served 16 years ago and has failed to appear or defend himself it's his fault for not bothering to learn the rules of the game, not the games fault. No matter how stupid the rules may be.

Jhe, since you are familiar with the case. Had he appeared originally, or tried to appeal at some point is it likely he would have been able to take a paternity test and if so how much would it have cost between the lawyer and test 16 years ago to make this go away?

Edit, guess me and slosig were typing at the same time.

If he had answered when originally cited and served with notice, the defense to her claims would have cost under $1000. Maybe more like $600 as most litigants won't pursue claims against men whose DNA shows that they cannot be the father.

If he didn't get notice at first (although everything I know indicates he got service at the begining), it would have been more difficult, at least as to the amounts already due. But he could have cut it off at that time. The statute has changed in the last five years and it is now easier to use a DNA test to cut off previously determined liability after the fact.

JAllen's summary of why default is a poor strategy is excellent. It also addresses why the courts (and society) needs finality. After 16 years, things need to be over. He had his chance, at least twice, and he missed it. His fault. Had the default been not of his own making, he might have had an avenue for redress.

So a woman who lied gets rewarded by the courts and it's the guys fault. Typical.