quote:

Originally posted by Monk:

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.

What do they do then? Put the claimant on hold until you decide to bother yourself to appear and defend?

Read my description of the process from yesterday. Even after defaulting, and in limited cases even after judgment is entered, a defaulting defendant can offer his justification for defaulting, and if there is a creditable defebse, get relief. But it isn't indefinite.

Good grief. It seems really strange that DNA is not required to determine custody. With modern science, what kind of kangaroo court would assign paternity without some kind of proof? The current system really beats the hell out of the poor and uneducated.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
Good grief. It seems really strange that DNA is not required to determine custody. With modern science, what kind of kangaroo court would assign paternity without some kind of proof? The current system really beats the hell out of the poor and uneducated.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:

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.

Then everyone will successfully defend every lawsuit by not showing up, and lots of deserving litigants will have good claims go without redress.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
Good grief. It seems really strange that DNA is not required to determine custody. With modern science, what kind of kangaroo court would assign paternity without some kind of proof? The current system really beats the hell out of the poor and uneducated.

+1

Riddle me this, Batman.

What about when the bio father does not show up and respond to a paternity lawsuit? If he doesn't show up, you can't take DNA. Under your system, he is then an automatic winner. Or you are left with proving paternity the old fashioned way - without DNA.

Requiring DNA would be another rule that would reward failing to answer the lawsuit. It would make defaulting an automatic winner.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:

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.

Then everyone will successfully defend every lawsuit by not showing up, and lots of deserving litigants will have good claims go without redress.

Thank you, jhe888, for your perspective on the court's processes. As a recent litigant in an eviction, I am grateful for the court when I received summary judgement after a tenant did everything in her power to prolong her unlawful tenancy, including asking for continuances and then not showing up. It's like tournament play: don't show up, forfeit the game.

And a slight thread drift....

Doesn't anyone get married any more? (Of course some do, but far fewer.)

I see it all the time through my work. Young, not married, no education, no skills, nothing, and cranking out kids like clockwork. Different daddies. Their future is bleak. So sad. You know the story.

The current system encourages and rewards a woman for lying about paternity. In this case, the woman obviously didn't know which man was the father. Require DNA. At the very least, once DNA establishes a person is not the father, the debt should be eliminated. Is the woman guilty of perjury and will she be charged?

We are still talking about this? I thought it was settled? Guy was properly served, he failed to show. He didn't appeal right away. He acknowledged the debt by allowing the garnishments without any protest/legal action. He waited 16 years then cried this isn't fair.

No he shouldn't be responsible for paying, but he failed to defend his position at every turn possible. He screwed up and now has to deal with the consequences. He had a responsibility to defend himself, he was to lazy.

Way earlier in the thread I asked jhe what it would cost to defend himself. $600-$1,000. He's a freaking moron, he needs to pay his stupid tax and move on.

Then there's the whole law thing. Judge followed law instead of making it up as he went. Don't you guys despise activist judges who write laws instead of following them?

The punishment for being lazy is a life changer.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
The current system encourages and rewards a woman for lying about paternity. In this case, the woman obviously didn't know which man was the father. Require DNA. At the very least, once DNA establishes a person is not the father, the debt should be eliminated. Is the woman guilty of perjury and will she be charged?

Read the response three (literally three) above your post about default and DNA.

And then read the rest of the thread in which all of your points were discussed at length.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
Good grief. It seems really strange that DNA is not required to determine custody. With modern science, what kind of kangaroo court would assign paternity without some kind of proof? The current system really beats the hell out of the poor and uneducated.

+1

Uh, it's not up to the judge to determine your best defense and then put it on for you. Really think that the judge's job is to defend against the plaintiff's case?

As absurd as it seems, only you as the defendant know the case better than a judge and the first burden of defending against it is to show up in court, mount some sort of defense and not just ignore the whole process.

Next time I'm in court I'm going to tell the judge to defend my case in the manner he best sees fit and I'm going home.

Lol...I have read the thread. I don't see the consensus you are describing.

An odd thought occurs to me. What if the reason that he never answered the lawsuit in the first place is because he thought that he was the dad? Maybe he thought there was no reason to fight it. Heck, maybe the mom honestly thought he was the dad. For all we know, he might have dropped a whole lot of "baby batter," but some other guy he didn't know about snuck a swimmer in there that got the job done.

What caused him to contest later I have no clue. That he is stuck with a big bill when it wasn't his kid certainly seems "unjust" whatever that means, but we do have a system of laws. Some of them we like, some of them we don't, but *all* of them apply. If we really don't like the laws, we should work to get them changed.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
We are still talking about this? I thought it was settled?

No. It's not settled. We prefer to argue ad nauseam like drunks at the corner bar even when we have Texas lawyers providing us with expert legal opinions.

I glanced briefly at the replies and noticed that we're missing a perspective. I apologize if someone covered it previously and I missed it:

There's a child involved.

There's a public policy interest in establishing a child's paternity, in order to hold more than one person responsible for that child. Responsibility in the sense of someone actually raising the child, to legally make decisions for the child, and to financially provide for the child.

Paternity, in many jurisdictions, has a bit of finality to it. You typically can't undo paternity, especially if time has passed. There's reasons for this:

1) You don't want someone undoing your paternity from underneath you. Imagine you raise a kid for many years, believing him to be your own. You love him. Then the biological father comes along, and wants custody. Who wins? Paternity is final, the Dad on the birth certificate or paternity suit will typically have the highest claim against all others.

2) Estate Planning rules are also affected by the meaning of "father". Imagine you raise a kid for many years well into adulthood. You die, leaving a sizable estate to your children. Someone can't come along and dispute paternity after the fact to change the distribution of your estate.

3) After the child is a certain age, paternity usually isn't open to dispute. You can be a dick to the kid because he's not yours, but you'll still be legally responsible for him. The court says that the well being for the child rises above the rights of the parent. If the parent can't be bothered to dispute paternity within the early months of the child's birth, then the child wins.

4) Child support belongs to the child. It is paid to the custodial parent, but the right to that money belongs to the child. The court, in many jurisdictions, reserves the right to modify, collect, and enforce child support orders on the child's behalf. You can't undo paternity because it would leave the child, who had nothing to do with his situation, without any recourse. The court says that the well being for the child rises above the rights of the parent. If the parent can't be bothered to dispute paternity within the early months of the child's birth, when the Mother still might be able to enforce a claim against a different father, then the child wins against the presumed-father's claim.

Aeteocles, I like your reasoning.

But here's the thing: If a court is going to designate the "father" (as opposed to mom & dad assuming the responsibility in the traditional way) then the court damned well better get it right with a court-ordered DNA test at the outset. No arbitrary assignment of paternity allowed. No "she said so so it must be true" bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:
Aeteocles, I like your reasoning.

But here's the thing: If a court is going to designate the "father" (as opposed to mom & dad assuming the responsibility in the traditional way) then the court damned well better get it right with a court-ordered DNA test at the outset. No arbitrary assignment of paternity allowed. No "she said so so it must be true" bullshit.

I understand where you are coming from, and I understand that there's an internal sense of fairness that's screaming for resolution. But consider this: if a DNA test is required to establish paternity, then what happens if the presumed father doesn't submit to a DNA test?

From a policy perspective, this outcome is better than the alternative:

A) Mom makes best guess at who Dad is. Dad has an opportunity to contest it. Dad doesn't contest it, paternity is final, and the State has another pocket to reach into to help with this dysfunctional family. Kid's life is already going to suck, but having two pockets will improve his chances.

-versus-

B) Mom makes a best guess at who Dad is. Dad doesn't show up to the hearing, doesn't submit to a DNA test. Then what? Kid has nothing. In a policy framework that is supposed to protect the innocent kid above all else, then the logical choice is to make default rulings that favor the kid. In this case, don't show up to your DNA test, then the court assumes you are the father. Paternity final.

REMEMBER: This case is about what happens when you don't show up to the hearing. He had *every opportunity to present DNA evidence.* This is simply what happens when you don't show up. If you could avoid responsibility by not showing up to your hearing, why would anyone ever show up to their hearing? Million dollar lawsuit? Don't show up. Get in a car accident and kill someone? Don't show up. Might have gotten someone pregnant? Don't show up.

So lets step back and stop saying this is about the guy not showing up. It wouldn't have made a bit of difference had he been there. The lying mother would have still won. He wasn't smart or sophisticated enough to contest her lie. And the judge would have still found him to be the father. He still would have been wronged. And the truth wouldn't have made a bit of difference. No one would have listened. And our lawyers would have still worshiped at the alter of the system, right or wrong.

Besides, the "mother" wasn't the one getting the $65k, it was the state. They demand their money back from welfare. The lying bitch already got her money from the state (mostly).

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
So lets step back and stop saying this is about the guy not showing up. It wouldn't have made a bit of difference had he been there. The lying mother would have still won. He wasn't smart or sophisticated enough to contest her lie. And the judge would have still found him to be the father. He still would have been wronged. And the truth wouldn't have made a bit of difference. No one would have listened. And our lawyers would have still worshiped at the alter of the system, right or wrong.

Besides, the "mother" wasn't the one getting the $65k, it was the state. They demand their money back from welfare. The lying bitch already got her money from the state (mostly).

Really? How could you possibly know that? In past decades, it might have been more nearly true, but the last few decades it need not be, now that DNA testing is ubiquitous and affordable.