Sometimes the law is just stupid

I find it very hard to believe though that he was never notified over the years about any court cases and/or garnishments. I process payroll garnishments in TX and it lists the mother's name AND the child(ren)'s names. Now, he may not have taken the time to review the CS order/garnishment paperwork, but if it is true that he got it and ignored it, that will hurt him in TX.
 
hrforme said:
I find it very hard to believe though that he was never notified over the years about any court cases and/or garnishments. I process payroll garnishments in TX and it lists the mother's name AND the child(ren)'s names. Now, he may not have taken the time to review the CS order/garnishment paperwork, but if it is true that he got it and ignored it, that will hurt him in TX.
Click to expand...

That's part of why it is stupid. Whether he ignored it then or not, it's been proven it isn't his child and he is still ordered to pay 65k.
I don't know the details enough to have an opinion whether he ignored it or not, but common sense indicates they are sticking it to the wrong man, and that the mother's initial declaration to obtain the order was false.
This process needs an undo button.
 
mightymoose said:
That's part of why it is stupid. Whether he ignored it then or not, it's been proven it isn't his child and he is still ordered to pay 65k.
I don't know the details enough to have an opinion whether he ignored it or not, but common sense indicates they are sticking it to the wrong man, and that the mother's initial declaration to obtain the order was false.
This process needs an undo button.
Click to expand...


DNA testing is useful in that regard.

However, it is archaic when a wife gets knocked up by a paramour, and the husband still is declared the putative pappy.

I've advocated that all babies, mammies, and pappies to be DNA tested on the babies birth.

That way SCIENCE will reveal the TRUTH.
 
mightymoose said:
Texas man ordered to pay $65G in child support for kid who isn't his

Click to expand...

Well...perhaps the most "stupid" thing about this is the headline.

The man's paternity was established 14 years ago based on the mother's testimony "that there was no way he wasn't the rightful dad." Either she lied or forgot about at least one of her who knows how many sexual partners at or around the time of the child's conception. Oops!

The article doesn't tell us what efforts, if any, the mother made to notify the father about the bundle of joy. It also doesn't affirmatively say that the father never received notice of the child support proceedings, so we don't know how he was served with notice of why that apparently didn't result in actual notice.

The article tells us that "several years ago" (however many years that is), money was taken out of the man's paycheck. Therefore, at least by that time, he had actual or constructive notice of the situation and apparently didn't take any steps to address it.

While I can understand why some might not like the law in play here, it is grounded in solid public policy and is similar to (and, in some ways, more relaxed than) laws in every other state.

hrforme said:
I find it very hard to believe though that he was never notified over the years about any court cases and/or garnishments.
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, the article states that he had his wages garnished "several years ago," so he obviously had notice at that time what was going on. And, while he may not have received actual notice of the original paternity determination and child support order, the court obviously found that proper service was made. Unfortunately, legally valid service doesn't always result in actual notice.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top