Don't date the single mom

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/detroit/detroit-man-fights-30k-child-support-bill-for-kid-that-is-not-his?hpt=ju_bn2


Detroit man fights $30k child support bill for kid that is not his
Kim Russell


DETROIT (WXYZ) - The State of Michigan is ordering a Detroit man to pay tens of thousands of dollars, or go to prison. The reason? He owes back child support for a child that everyone agrees is not his.

"I feel like I’m standing in front of a brick wall with nowhere to go," said Carnell Alexander.

He says he learned about the paternity case against him during a traffic stop in Detroit in the early 90s. The officer told him he is a deadbeat dad, there was a warrant out for his arrest.

“I knew I didn’t have a child, so I was kind of blown back,” said Alexander.

The state said he fathered a child in 1987, and ignored a court order to pay up. It was the first Carnell had heard of the court order. He'd never even met the child.

“And when you were telling them in court – that it was not my child?" "They told me it was too late to get a DNA test," said Alexander.

It also was not easy to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help.

He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.

Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right.

Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his.

The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved.

“Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby,” said Alexander.


rest at link

_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”

This reminds me of an episode of Judge Judy in which a man was suing his ex-wife for property damage. It was obvious the two had a bad relationship and shouldn't have been together. At one point in the trial she accused him of being a deadbeat dad for trying to get out of paying child support. It turned out he was paying on a teenaged son born a few years into the marriage but during an argument, she told him the kid wasn't his so he got a paternity test and proved it wasn't. When he took this to family court, they ruled the order stands because he recognized the child as his son for a reasonable amount of time so the court ruled he was the father regardless of DNA, so he had to keep paying for a child that wasn't his according to California law.

That judge should be thrown from his bench.mob They must be fair and non-partial. Should not be allowed to destroy someone's life on a whim.:smn

Quote
barren4ever
That judge should be thrown from his bench.mob They must be fair and non-partial. Should not be allowed to destroy someone's life on a whim.:smn

I agree. The judge is a schmuck. The process server lied, the baby's mom lied. This guy should pay zero and sue all three idiots who screwed up his life. No wonder Detroit is bankrupt with idiots like these people living there and part of the system.

happens more often then the public really knows...
google this..

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Unless he has legally adopted the child, he should not be on the hook for paying for a child that is not his. Especially if the bio father is in the picture. I'm sure if cases like these were reported more often, single moms would find it even harder to find a date.

So the court refused to inform him of his rights, to give him legal aid to let him know the steps he needed to take to defend himself, and when he managed to do so through pure happenstance, the court still wanted to label him a deadbeat and uphold the $30K back child support or the threat of prison.

At this point, I really wouldn't look down upon him if he set up a Kickstarter or a GoFundMe and appealed to the MRAs because he'll find himself flush with money to sue and fight against being forced to pony up for a kid that's not his.

------------------------------------------------------------
"Why children take so long to grow? They eat and drink like pig and give nothing back. Must find way to accelerate process..."
- Dr. Yi Suchong, Bioshock

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born."
- Garrett Hardin

"I feel like there's a message involved here somehow, but then I couldn't stop laughing at all the plotholes, like the part when North Korea has food."
- Youtube commentor referring to a North Korean cartoon.

"Reality is a bitch when it slowly crawls out of your vagina and shits in your lap."
- Reddit comment

"Bitch wants a baby, so we're gonna fuck now. #bareback"
- Cambion

Oh whatever. Abortion doctors are crimestoppers."
- Miss Hannigan

If this guy was getting paperwork from courts but he refused to respond or he simply was not aware enough due to lack of education to be able to respond, it is possible that court will force him to pay.

Here is the way the courts see it. If is easier and cheaper to make some dude on the street pay child support than to have a single mother live off the system.

That's disgraceful and it just encourages lying cows to pin the fatherhood on any guy who happens to be around.

Yeah, this is actually pretty common...Bernard Goldberg devoted a whole chapter of his book Bias to men unjustly forced to pay CS for someone else's kid.In one case, the guy never got the summons because his live-in GF destroyed it in a fit of jealous rage : He only found out about the case when the courts started garnishing his wages! Currently, not getting the summons-for whatever reason-makes a person a no-show who automatically loses the case, and even DNA results will usually NOT get that ruling quashed. :-(

Another way this happens is if some guy moves in with a single mawm, and "accepts a parental; role" in the life of her children. If that relationship goes south, he can be FORCED to continue paying maintenance for those kids, even though everyone involved KNOWS he is not and cannot be the biological father as he never met the mawm till years after the children were born! It's easier than tracking down biodad, who might be unemployed or in prison or dead.

Over on the MRA sites, they've convinced themselves that a "male pill" will somehow magically roll back every gain feminism has made since 1964, or at the very least least make oopsing impossible...But unless the laws allowing for these situations are changed , the male pill will not help men as much as is imagined.

Quote
bell_flower
That's disgraceful and it just encourages lying cows to pin the fatherhood on any guy who happens to be around.

Child support is a very touchy issue in the US. There is usually an appeal window, usually around 2 years. If the guy does not appeal it in that time frame, he is on a hook for life. Problem is that some people deliberately list a wrong address just so the guy cannot get served and will not have an opportunity to appeal. As we here all know that our society, courts included, favor breeders.

I have heard about men who pay child support for kids that are not theirs and that happens relatively often. Our society has an outdated logic that see this as:"You are a man, so step up and pay and be a man". Having "wage gap" studies does not help - it makes men look like we get paid way more for the same amount of work, so taking from a man's income, as of today, it seems to be ok by most judges. Having a breeder judge does not help.

This is one kind of situation in which I fully support the MRAs. It is outrageous and it is double victimizing, it is criminal, it is theft.

I would imagine there are plenty of moos who try this and guys able to thwart it by spending a lot of money to appeal it and get their own DNA tests. These are the lucky ones who never lived with the moo or took part in raising the loaf. Those who did better look out, just never do that - never help a moo with her kyd, guys have to understand the risk in this. Even if the moos are not looking for money the man will be shamed, like that nutter Jenny Mccarthy did to Jim Carey, if they don't remain in Duh role even after a breakup at least until a replacement faux-duh is found.

Forcing an unrelated man to be a father, WTF????

There should be no limit on appeal time, if DNA proves no relation, no money, and moo should have to pay back all expenses the man paid to defend himself.

If she can get a support order against him, can she get one against the real dad too? Can she collect 2 checks from two guys who may or may not be the father? Or does she get to pick which one she can collect from, the real one of someone else?

After reading the article, I found out that this guy wasn't properly served the court order, because he was incarcerated at the time. The process server attempted to serve him at his father's house, but LIED to the court and said he refused to sign the order. Last time I checked, PERJURY is a big no-no.

You can't "ignore" a court order that you NEVER GOT -- so it would only follow that he didn't miss the window to file an appeal.

paragon_schnitzophonic's idea of a crowdfunding campaign is perfect -- many people will be sympathetic to his plight, because he is clearly being fucked over by the court. If I were this guy, I'd notify every media outlet in the nation about the ongoing fuckery. And if I were a lawyer, I'd be falling all over myself to represent him.

Quote
JohnDrake
If she can get a support order against him, can she get one against the real dad too? Can she collect 2 checks from two guys who may or may not be the father? Or does she get to pick which one she can collect from, the real one of someone else?

Generally she can only collect support from one guy. Women usually pick a man that makes the most money to try to collect support from.

Techie said, "Generally she can only collect support from one guy."

But look at this Massachusetts case from 10 years ago.

Also, divorced stepfathers in Canada are routinely ordered to pay child support in addition to the natural father. See comments by Canadian lawyer Karen Selick in http://www.karenselick.com/CL0507.html .

Here's the Massachusetts case:

Department of Revenue vs. Ryan R., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 380, November 2004

[Old story, link no longer valid, got from another site]

One Child, Two "Fathers" Paying Child Support

Posted on December 8, 2004 by Brian Carnell

Some men's activists were rightly pointing to the outcome of Department of Revenue v. Ryan R. in Massachusetts as an example of just how out-of-whack the child support system is. In this case, separate courts ruled that two men declared the father of her child and required to pay child support.

Susan (no last names are given in court proceedings) cheated on her husband, Sheldon, and conceived a child by her lover. Three years later, Susan initiated divorce proceedings against her husband. Despite the fact that Sheldon was not the biological father of the child, he was nonetheless ordered to pay child support, with the court in that case ruling that,

. . . the husband is the only "father" that the child has known during his life, and as the husband has cared throughout the marriage for the child and there is a bond that exists between the child and the husband . . . the husband is the de facto father of the child.

The problem for Susan, however, was that Sheldon was also de facto bankrupt. So she also initiated child custody efforts against the biological father of the child, Ryan. Ryan resisted such efforts, saying that the divorce proceedings in Susan and Sheldon's marriage had already established Sheldon as the de facto father of the child and, as such, Ryan shouldn't be liable for child support.

A Massachusetts Appeals court rejected that argument and ordered Ryan to pay child support.

Presumably Susan is kicking herself for not figuring out a way to have the state force additional "de facto" fathers and any number of other unrelated men to contribute to caring for her child.