Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. As always, your replies are thought out and well constructed.

Procedural rules give rise to substantive justice. I can promise that any change would result in some other unfair result. And we can't have an ad hoc system, where there are no predictable rules.

H&K, JAllen may be more polite than I, but your contention about "no explanation is needed" can be said equally about your position. You don't understand that the procedural rules are necessary to have a fair system and that any set of procedural rules will inevitably create some results that make us unhappy. If you correct those results on a one-off basis, then you don't have a system of rules, and a system that isn't based on rules is one that can be manipulated and applied as the decision maker wants. You can see where that leads.

Your claim that yours is a principled stance implies, of course, that any other is not principled. I think you can understand how claiming moral superiority in that way and in this context is insulting. I'd further argue that your position reflects the same lack of understanding on your part that you accuse JAllen and I of having.

On the one hand we have a group that says the court system should act well outside of the law. That's institutionaled chaos were it to happen.

Every case needs finality to it otherwise you'd be in court all the time. A statute of limitations is in place to protect the defendant from litigation beyond a certain time and it also puts the plaintiff on notice that he has to get off his duff if he's going to sue. All of this ensure a fair process to the litigants whiile protecting the interests of each under what the law allows.

One cannot ignore paperwork, summons and complaints, make the payments and file no appeal. He controlled the entire lawsuit against him. Not the woman or the judge but him alone. You cannot wrap yourself in a cloak of personal responsibility when you simply ignore a court case against you.

Easy illustrative examples are receiving a speeding ticket and simply not showing up on your court date. The court sees you're not present, issues a bench warrant and after this show (the law moves slow but it does move forward) the court eventually finds that you did not appear and now you have a failure to appear and the underlying citation. There's fines and all kinds of other things going on but you just choose to not engage the court system.

Eventually the DMV suspends your license and you get wind of it but ignore that too.

Soon enough you get popped on the bench warrant and you're hauled into to court and your defense of "I wasn't speeding years ago when they gave me that ticket and I have a witness with me who was in the car that night who will say so" is going to have how much sway with a judge? Zip.

And so the justice crowd wants the court to do what exactly? Just dismiss the ticket and call it a day?

It's not exactly on point but it shows how a lack of responsibility is not a cornerstone of principled positions. The two are not separable on these set of facts.

We understand the court system is a bitch if you don't play by it's rules. Doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean this woman should get away with her lie with no repercussions. But she will.

The only one who has to pay for their mistake is the man.

Was DNA testing even available 16 years ago?

flashguy

I had a co-worker that lived with this girl and married her when "they" found out "they" were pregnant. They had a baby boy and life was grand for 8-10 years (I don't remember the exact amount of years). THEN he found out she had been cheating on him. He did some detective work and simple math and realized he couldn't be the father. He divorced her and during the divorce had a DNA test that proved he was not the father of the baby boy. The judge ruled that he acted as the boys father for those 8-10 years, had financally supported him and was the only father the boy knew. Therefore it was in the best interest of the boy that he continue to pay for him.

Now keep in mind that the above is MY lame attempt at relaying the facts and those facts were provided by the very pissed off father at the time, I *DID* read the divorce decree and it seemed pretty unfair to me. He didn't contest the paternity at the time because he had no reason to believe his then wife was cheating on him. Once that was discovered he DID contest it and lost. It doesn't seem fair at all. AFAIK he continued paying and being involved in the boys life because quote "It's not his fault his mom is a slut that can't keep her legs closed". He's a good man.

The other example of the system actually working and being "fair" was my case. My high school sweetheart, in order to keep me from going in the Army at the time, stopped taking birth control and got pregnant. I was served when my daughter was born. I was in the Army and in training at the time. The paternity case was put on hold because of that. I sent money to my ex that she tore up and sent back to me telling me she wanted nothing to do with me. I kept those letters and money orders. I did NOT get extra pay thru the Army that soldiers with dependents are entitled to. This was out of pocket. I never recovered those funds. I quit sending money after 3.5 years of them being returned every time.

13 years later she files for back support. My attorney argued that since she refused payment at the time and had the ability to contact me or my Mom all those years that she gave up those years of support. The judge agreed and I was not responsible for 13 years of back support. It was some legal term called, IIRC, "Laches" or something like that.

Most times it definitely seems that the courts side with the female. Then other times, like my case, seem fair and just other times not so mucn. Fortunately, I learned a valuable lesson in not sleeping with crazy. It has served me well all these years.

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:
J,

I see what you are saying.

Ahh, not really.

quote:

As such, a man should never need be in fear of responsibility for behavior he had no part in.

H&K-Guy

The responsibility for the behavior he had no part in would not have been fearsome if he had been responsible for the behavior he did play the major, critical, role in.

Had he been responsible, he would not be liable, the attention could have concentrated on figuring out who was. As it is, this man now weeps and wails at the unfairness and wants society to let him off the hook to go back after all these years and straighten out the resulting mess. Who should pay for this child now?

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Was DNA testing even available 16 years ago?

flashguy

Sure. It played a big part in the Simpson trial of the century.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Was DNA testing even available 16 years ago?

flashguy

Yes.

News story says court records "suggest but do not prove" that he received the subpoena years ago. The mother and state of Texas still want him to pay. The mother is a complete scumbag, and her lawyer in the interview is a complete scumbag. The claim that he was having money taken out of his paycheck but didnt object is weak and disingenuous. It was $31 from 3 paychecks, not a lot of money and not a long period of time.

Harris County Family Court could care less about justice but look with prejudice against males 95% of the time.

Been there done that!

Imagine the principle this establishes. An individual can be forced to pay for a child not his own if a legal case can be made. Once this has been done, other legal minds can look to it a precedent. Still other perverse legal minds can warp the precedent to fit their case which further establishes precedent and loosens the definitions and parameters. Before long all are vulnerable. If it can happen to one, it can happen to all. Is this what we want?

It's Kafkaesque in its absurd adherence to process over rational thought and truth.

Here's a black and white principle that ought to drive it all: an innocent person should never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be held responsible for something they aren't guilty of.

That principle is 1000 fold more important and related to a just system and society than any and all procedural nuances and minutiae, and this case is all about that degree of crap.

If we as a society can't figure out how to be just without unjustly fucking over the innocent, then the system has failed, and in this case it has failed spectacularly, and remains broken.

We're smarter than this, and better than this, but the momentum of the system is not, and it needs to be fixed so that such cases are all but impossible and otherwise easy to remedy.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Imagine the principle this establishes. An individual can be forced to pay for a child not his own if a legal case can be made. Once this has been done, other legal minds can look to it a precedent. Still other perverse legal minds can warp the precedent to fit their case which further establishes precedent and loosens the definitions and parameters. Before long all are vulnerable. If it can happen to one, it can happen to all. Is this what we want?

This is a district court. District courts in Texas rarely make their rulings in writing, except for the bare terms of the order. There is virtually never any written opinion. And there is no service collecting the few written opinions that are released. So precedential value is close to nil.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Imagine the principle this establishes. An individual can be forced to pay for a child not his own if a legal case can be made. Once this has been done, other legal minds can look to it a precedent. Still other perverse legal minds can warp the precedent to fit their case which further establishes precedent and loosens the definitions and parameters. Before long all are vulnerable. If it can happen to one, it can happen to all. Is this what we want?

This is a district court. District courts in Texas rarely make their rulings in writing, except for the bare terms of the order. There is virtually never any written opinion. And there is no service collecting the few written opinions that are released. So precedential value is close to nil.

I think a resourceful lawyer could refer to this case and in a sympathetic court could render a preferred ruling based on the prinicple established. Perhaps that ruling would be written then. This is how we waltz into oppression. One benign step at a time in bad principle.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Imagine the principle this establishes. An individual can be forced to pay for a child not his own if a legal case can be made. Once this has been done, other legal minds can look to it a precedent. Still other perverse legal minds can warp the precedent to fit their case which further establishes precedent and loosens the definitions and parameters. Before long all are vulnerable. If it can happen to one, it can happen to all. Is this what we want?

This is a district court. District courts in Texas rarely make their rulings in writing, except for the bare terms of the order. There is virtually never any written opinion. And there is no service collecting the few written opinions that are released. So precedential value is close to nil.

Because he did not appear in the case, there was almost nothing to decide. The allegations are accepted as true, subject to some bare evidentiary prove up.

Ignoring a summons is a bad idea.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:


I think a resourceful lawyer could refer to this case and in a sympathetic court could render a preferred ruling based on the prinicple established. Perhaps that ruling would be written then. This is how we waltz into oppression. One benign step at a time in bad principle.

No. This ruling has no precedential or persuasive value or importance whatsoever. It becomes a file of yellowing documents in the basement along with tens of thousands of other files, forgotten by all but the parties.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

No. This ruling has no precedential or persuasive value or importance whatsoever. It becomes a file of yellowing documents in the basement along with tens of thousands of other files, forgotten by all but the parties.

Harris County stopped keeping paper records several years ago. (The assistant district clerks in the courtrooms are the happiest - no more filing for hours, or pulling and carting files in and out of the courtrooms for hearings. The judges just pull up the relevant documents on their screens. It really is an improvement as everything is readily at hand.) They are now just bits, living only in the ether. But you are right that they are forgotten by all but the parties.

If it never gets used as precedence, then I am relieved.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
If the defendant, after being served with the notice of a claim of paternity, chooses - and let's be clear that he did not contest it - to default and let the petitioner win based on her pleadings, no court will step in and excuse or condone the defendants failure to respond.

For those of you who think a terrible justice is being done, change the facts. Suppose you're sued for $1m and don't respond to the Summons and Complaint and the plaintiff takes your default.

You simply owe the money because you didn't contest the allegations against you. The fact the you decide to contest it with later discovered evidence that you could have produced at the inception of the case is a fault that lands squarely on you.

The simple and compelled result is that he tucked up by not answering and he agreed that he was the father by paying the judgment against him. He owes and a court won't excuse his purposeful ignorance to defend himself.

Perhaps the law should be changed so that one does not automatically lose if one does not show up.