SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Texas man ordered to pay $65G in child support for kid that isn't his
Main Page The Lounge Texas man ordered to pay $65G in child support for kid that isn't hisGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Essayons |
So the courts are powerless to do the RIGHT thing, making it a necessity for them to do the WRONG thing? We gotta screw somebody, right? So we might as well screw this poor bastard that the woman is accusing, even if we don't know for sure he really is the daddy. That's just absurd. But if that's the reality of the situation, then how about a legislative solution, an act that addresses the following items: 1) it is unlawful for any court to declare paternity in the absence of DNA proof of paternity 2) when a paternity case is brought before a court the court is empowered to order the necessary DNA testing, whether or not the test subjects have responded to the summons. 3) failure to undergo the DNA testing timely is a criminal offense punished by a steep fine and jail time, and the court ordering the DNA test shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the offender -- he's an accused felon on the run until proven innocent by the DNA test. 4) false assertion of paternity by mommy is a criminal offense punished by a steep fine and jail time. Part of the problem is that there's no consequence for making a false accusation of paternity. If Jill says Johnny is the daddy, and it turns out that Johnny is NOT the daddy, then Jill should have to deal with harsh consequences of making that false assertion. If Jill says daddy could be any of Johnny, Bobby, or Billy (she isn't sure 'cause she's a beautiful flower that gets visited by a lot of bees) and it turns out that one of the listed possibles is in fact the daddy, then Jill hasn't made a false accusation. But if none of those listed are daddy, then we're back to the harsh consequences for Jill for making the false accusation. The injustice of hanging paternity on a man who simply isn't "daddy" is HUGE, and it's unforgivable for our justice system to do that to anybody. Period. Thanks, Sap | |||
|
| Non-Miscreant |
I like the way you think, Sap. The case that started this discussion, the only evidence submitted was by the baby mommy. She said the poor sucker was the only possibility. She left out her father, brothers, neighbors or whoever. Basically she picked out a victim and hung the thing on him. Regardless of what our learned legal experts say, the court acted with nothing but her say so. She turned out to be a liar. Perjury was allowed to stand to the poor suckers detriment. These are the situations that make men feel the deck is stacked against them. Unhappy ammo seeker | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
All he had to do was show up, appear in court, file a response within reasonable times after being served. Is that asking to much? How do you DNA test without the defendant pututive father? Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
Casuistic Thinker and Daoist |
You're mixing a Civil matter and a Criminal matter...I'm pretty sure even TX doesn't allow that No, Daoism isn't a religion | |||
|
| Essayons |
I suggested how -- one of many possible ways -- in the post you quoted above. You and jhe888 are trying to make it sound/feel like the courts are impotent, powerless, to get the information needed to make the right decision. I'm not buying it. The courts have damned near infinite power to fuck up the lives of citizens, INCLUDING THE POWER TO DECLARE PATERNITY WHEN DNA PROVES BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT THAT NO PATERNITY EXISTS. There could be a truckload of reasons/excuses why the poor bastard didn't show. Let your imagination run wild with this one. Here are just a few possibilities: -- Maybe he never got the summons. What proof have we seen that he knew he was supposed to be there? -- If he got the summons, maybe he was scared shitless about appearing in court; maybe every time he or anyone he knew appeared in court something bad happened; maybe he had zero faith in "the system" doing what was right -- Maybe he did have sex with baby momma and thought maybe he was in fact baby daddy and so he believed that no matter what he did he was going to be fucked by the system. If he did show up and did admit to screwing baby momma, would the court have required a DNA test to prove it, or would it just have assigned paternity based on the admission of sex having taken place between the two? I suggest that the court would've acted without compelling a DNA test, which means that WOW! he was right! the poor bastard was screwed from the instant that baby momma made the accusation. -- He had a bad head, his car didn't start, his dog bit the mail man that morning, and he got off the bus at the wrong stop. The Gods of Paternity were laughing at him all that day. . . So, the court's attitude is "How dare this swine fail to respond to Our (note the royal "We") summons! Well, fuck him!" And instead of exercising some responsible demands for proof of baby momma's accusations, the court went ahead and agreed with the proven liar baby momma and assigned paternity in the absence of the poor bastard that baby momma felt was her best bet of making into her personal cash cow that she could milk for the next eighteen years. And why did the court do this? Well, because apparently the whole damned civil court system would just fall apart, explode at the seams, come tumbling down if the court didn't act in the absence of any real proof! Can't be having these scofflaws failing to respond to our summonses, now, can we? Now there's some confidence inspiring JUSTICE for you right there! So, explain: -- Rather than punishing the no-show by issuing a HUGELY life-changing ruling on Paternity in the absence of any real proof of paternity, why wouldn't it be more appropriate for the court to treat the accused baby daddy's failure to appear as a misdemeanor punishable with a fine and a ride in a cop car to the next appointed summons date? -- WHY WOULD ANY RATIONAL JUDGE ASSIGN PATERNITY IN THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF other than baby momma's pointed finger? Do you seriously assert that "because he failed to show up when I told him to" is adequate reason to fuck over the guy who, it turns out, really truly is NOT baby daddy? Really? If so then dear God your Karma deficit must be HUGE! -- Why can't the court compel a DNA test? The assertion that the judge in a paternity suite cannot compel a DNA test just boggles my mind! It's asinine on its face! If true, then a legislative solution is needed ASAP! -- Why can't the court issue a warrant to bring in the accused for the DNA test? -- What is the State's compelling interest in assigning paternity in the absence of DNA proof? Does the state not have an equally compelling interest in being CORRECT in the assignment of paternity, in not destroying the life of an innocent citizen merely because some vindictive witch wants to milk him for all the money she can? -- Why isn't truth and fairness the core of this issue? Why do you insist that procedure and bureaucracy are preeminent in this? Why can't the procedure be altered to guarantee truth and fairness -- in other words why can't a DNA test be mandated in each and every paternity case? Thanks, Sap | |||
|
| Tequila with lime |
I'm still stumped how he owes $65k if his wage was being garnished. Thank you President Trump. | |||
|
| Essayons |
You may be right that Texas, and other states, too, don't allow civil courts to undertake criminal matters. Thus my suggestion for a legislated solution. A law that demands DNA confirmation of paternity and empowers the court to obtain the necessary DNA evidence. Thanks, Sap | |||
|
Irksome Whirling Dervish |
That's an interesting compilation of things you've said but your scenarios, nearly all of them, are flawed. Early on you offered that perhaps the defendant didn't receive service and then later you thought it possible for the court to compel him to undergo a DNA test. Do you see the problem with that scenario? You're way, way overthinking this. There are many ways to serve someone and each of them meets court muster and you have to believe he was served, either in person or by publication. Remember, it's against the law to refuse service of process plus he received notices that his wages were being garnished under court order. There is no possible or conceivable way this man didn't know his wages were being garnished. Copies of the order showing how much and where to send the payment by the employer is plastered all over the document and the paystub will reflect why the deduction was made. Don't get sucked into thinking he had no idea what was going on. His defense was simple - Just show up to court and tell the judge you disagree with the claim that you're the father, explain that you don't have the money for a test but would willingly take one if the court has low cost testing available. We don't wait 16 years and then plead ignorance. And you don't really know if the woman is lying about the father. Perhaps, as slutty as you want her to be, she genuinely thought he was the father. Expressing that honest belief, even if ultimately otherwise, is not a lie. Maybe that's what she thought or maybe she's a scammer but the rememdy is for him to show up with a little fire in his belly and he did nothing. The court will not excuse you from doing nothing when it's easy to do something to get to the truth. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
If there is no proof of service on all defendants, the case does not go forward. Service is jurisdictional. The court has no power without jurisdiction over the defendant. No judgment, no wage garnishment, no decisions, nothing.
I can't help that. It is no excuse. Every person is required to participate or suffer the consequences. You hire a lawyer to take care of it.
A defendant is served with the complaint. Within the time limit, he files a response. If you are satisfied you are the father, maybe you admit it. If you aren't, you deny it which sets in motion all that follows. DNA testing has been accessible and not prohibitively expensive for a long time. That will clear him, or not.
I hope you aren't as dumb as that sounds.
I repeat my last comment. To whom should the court address its demand for testing if this defendant doesn't trouble himself to appear?
The state already affords every man who is a defendant the opportunity to appear and submit all the relevant proof he cares to. All the innocent citizen had to do is do it. Truth and fairness are at his disposal. If he doesn't care to be bothered, why should anyone else worry about him? I believe jhe888 claims that DNA is routinely tested if there is any dispute. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| JOIN, or DIE |
Paul got killed. Paul's girlfriend said John did it. Cops may or may not have mentioned to John to show up to court for his trial. Trial goes on without him, he's found guilty, 25 year sentence. 16 years later, the cops found out that Paul's girlfriend lied and the DNA prove that someone else killed Paul. They found John and said he still has to do the 25 year sentence even though they have DNA proof he's innocent. Sounds fair right? Only to a lawyer. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
Only to an ignoramus dreamer. We don't do criminal trials in absentia here. John was arrested and held, or posted bail to guarantee his appearance. You know that. You guys have some crazy ideas about how the court system works. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Irksome Whirling Dervish |
You are the hardest working person I know because no one could actually believe that BS without really working at it. Cops are charged with telling John to come to court for his trial? Really? No, really? Cops might tell him he's on trial for murder? Or maybe they might not. Where do you live? Do the cops normally drive around and tell people, "Hey John. Don't forget to come to court for your murder trial." That's damn funny. | |||
|
Ammoholic |
I'm just going to quote myself here. Because it needs to be said again. Could one of the lawyers please answer one question? If the defendant was a space alien, how would this affect the case? Does Texas even have jurisdiction over persons from Rigel 7? What if there was a temporal distortion that affected his response? Maybe the service happened on earth years, but his response got delayed because of said temporal rift? In his view he responded immediately, but because of time dilation it was received 16 years later. Jesse Sic Semper Tyrannis | |||
|
| JOIN, or DIE |
The point that went sailing over your head is that regular people know that you shouldn't punish innocent people. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
There is a lot of that going around, but I am out of patience to explain the same things over and over again. Your last long response was exactly correct, but I didn't have it in me to say that stuff again. One thing that is perfectly clear is that many people don't feel that profound ignorance is any reason not to have strong opinions. And are not willing to have the gaps in their knowledge filled in. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Irksome Whirling Dervish |
Well, the solar flares and solar winds might have a different polar shift in TX but in CA under your scenario we'd call on the ozone gods to create a reverse vortex where the service and proof of service ride to Rigel 7 on ultraviolet rays and back again. If that is unlikely in the current Chinese New Year, we'd go to the Stargate mountain tunnel entrance and go that way. We're required to bring back nachos or loaded potato skins from that star or planet to give to the judge. And in the offside chance that none of that is feasible we simply obtain a cup of mare's sweat and then look for a green one eyed newt who drinks the sweat and make his decision that's forever binding. | |||
|
| Member |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I have enjoyed the entertainment, and am now out of popcorn. Next topic please. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
If the space alien probed a human and the resulting child lives in Texas, then the court has jurisdiction over the matter, called subject matter jurisdiction. Venue would be in the county where the alien baby is located. The court can get personal jurisdiction over the alien parent IF AND ONLY IF the alien gets served with citation to appear. Matters involving temporal rifts would be cases of first (or, depending on how the time shifts went, maybe second) impression. Hard to know how it would come out. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Essayons |
Thanks, JALLEN, for calling me dumb. The fact that you are reduced to argumentum ad hominem both confirms how weak your position and argument are and publicly acknowledges that fact.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe to THE SAME PERSON THAT THEY SENT THE SUMMONS TO? After all, that's the person that the court fucked over with a declaration of paternity in the absence of any proof of paternity (excepting the "proof" of baby mama's accusation). Would that be "dumb"?
OK, so you waive aside my questions regarding the nature of this "justice" because they're just "dumb" and not worthy of an actual answer? Or do you ignore them because they highlight the nonsensical nature of your position on the issue? In answer to your question: BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH DOES EXIST AND CAN BE OBTAINED BY THE COURT, regardless of what accusations are made or positions are assumed by any party associated with the paternity suite. BECAUSE THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO GET TO THE TRUTH of the matter. That's why. It is repugnant that the power of the state should be exercised to impose injustice on any citizen when an absolute truth is so readily and easily obtained. Yet, for reasons founded purely in convenience for the court (and hurt pride that the citizen snubbed the court by refusing to respond to the summons), the court chooses to simply assign paternity based on nothing more than accusation and failure to respond instead of insisting on basing its ruling on that readily obtainable, irrefutable, absolute truth. Do you really not understand how repugnant that is? Do you really not understand how deeply that offends the sensibility of the common citizen? Do you really not see the danger in undermining the citizens' confidence in the judicial system? And you call me dumb? Climb down off your high horse and get real. Thanks, Sap | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
I didn't say you were dumb. I expressed the hope that you weren't. It's your statement that is dumb. All of them. I and others have explained how things are suppose to work and almost always do work. Some of us actually know, from years of experience working in and around the courts, how they work, as opposed to some creative imagination you torture yourself dreaming up. There are good reasons for things working as they do, and have for decades, evolving some now and then to take advantage if better more secure procedures, like DNA testing. Maybe you should take your concerns to the Legislature. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Texas man ordered to pay $65G in child support for kid that isn't his
Main Page The Lounge Texas man ordered to pay $65G in child support for kid that isn't his© SIGforum 2024