Florida man ordered to pay child support even though DNA test proves he is not the father

[Metaphor]

Remember, we live in a patriarchy that privileges all men over all women.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...child-support-DNA-test-proves-not-father.html

A man has been ordered to pay child support despite a DNA test proving he isn't the biological father.


Joseph Sinawa, of Saint Johns County, Florida, signed the birth certificate of the child when it was born because he believed he was the father.

He said he planned to be there for the child financially, and was paying a third of his paycheck in support.

But when he went to a courthouse in St. Augustine last year to obtain visiting rights for the child, a judge ordered a DNA test that would determine paternity.

Sinawa says he was 'emotionally devastated' to learn he was not the father.

'At the time it had been taking $83 out of my paycheck, more than 1/3 of my pay,' he told First Coast News. 'When I thought I was the father I didn’t have a problem with it.'


But while the judge ordered the child support to end, the Florida Department of Revenue appealed the decision.
The appeal means Sinawa has been forced to continue paying child support until the situation is resolved in court - even though he says the mother is OK with him no longer paying.
'She told the judge she just wants this to be done and over with, and so do I.' he said.

St. Augustine Attorney Brandon Beardsley told First Coast News this is the first time he has seen this happen.
But he believes the state's appeal will ultimately fail.
He said: 'It was a waste of Florida taxpayer resources to appeal a decision when the end result is going to be the same.'

Sinawa is representing himself in court as he is tight on cash.
He added: 'I don't want to keep reliving what I've already had to go through.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The State has standing in the court for this case?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, well, we also live in a country where religiots are convinced the state is a subsidiary of the church and all sex must be punished.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is a nightmare of bureaucracy created by elites to take money from poor people, not a man vs woman thing since the man and woman are on the same side.

 

[Politesse]

Your read of the story is completely bizarre. No one involved is citing the evilness of men as a reason for their actions. Their point seems to be more procedural. Stupid, but it has nothing to do with feminism. Rather, the Department of Revenue likes child support payments because they get a huge cut of them, and therefore put a lot of bureacratic hoops in front of anyone who wants to end them.


And even if you were right (as indeed you are not) that this was somehow a feminist project by the Florida DOR (that well known hotbed of social justice activism?!?!) the fact that the appeal is expected to fail, and doesn't even have the support of the woman, indicates that the patriarchy will in fact triumph. What matters more, levying a challenge or winning it?

 

[laughing dog]

Remember, we live in a patriarchy that privileges all men over all women.

Such over-the-top straw men make your arguments appear ridiculously stupid.

Moreover, paying child support benefits the child, not the mother.

 

[RVonse]

Moreover, paying child support benefits the child, not the mother.

That is factually incorrect. The checks are written to the mother's name and not the child.

 

[RVonse]

Remember, we live in a patriarchy that privileges all men over all women.

Such over-the-top straw men make your arguments appear ridiculously stupid.

Maybe strawman, but it is certainly not over the top. Anyone paying 1/3 of their paycheck for someone else's child is nothing better than a slave to the state. Even if/when he wins the appeal, he won't be getting that money back. Such involuntary servitude is nothing other than tyranny, pure and simple. Put in more exact terms, the state has made this guy a slave to the woman under punishment of jail for at least a short duration of time. And that conveys a massive privilege of the woman over the man.

 

[Toni]

Moreover, paying child support benefits the child, not the mother.

That is factually incorrect. The checks are written to the mother's name and not the child.

The mother may be the recipient of the check due to the fact that an infant is unable to read, write, open a bank account or to make purchases. Nevertheless, the child is the intended beneficiary and the custodial parent acts and on behalf of the child and itilizes the funds for the benefit of the child.

 

[RVonse]

This is a nightmare of bureaucracy created by elites to take money from poor people, not a man vs woman thing since the man and woman are on the same side.

While certainly a massive bureaucracy this is still a man vs woman thing.

It was the woman who most likely knew what the truth was from the beginning. Or if she did not know, she certainly could have made her own ignorance evident before this fraud began in the first place. There is only one party having the kid who knew who they were having sex with. And that was NOT the man.

 

[RVonse]

Moreover, paying child support benefits the child, not the mother.

That is factually incorrect. The checks are written to the mother's name and not the child.

The mother may be the recipient of the check due to the fact that an infant is unable to read, write, open a bank account or to make purchases. Nevertheless, the child is the intended beneficiary and the custodial parent acts and on behalf of the child and itilizes the funds for the benefit of the child.

The check is written to the woman in her name. If what you say was really the case, a trust would be set up for the child and the man would pay funds to that trust, letting the woman be the trustee. But that is not the way it is done. And legally that money BECOMES the woman's money. She can spend it any way she see's fit with no absolutely recourse from the law.

 

[Gun Nut]

the Department of Revenue likes child support payments because they get a huge cut of them, and therefore put a lot of bureacratic hoops in front of anyone who wants to end them.

This is the first I heard of the government getting a "cut" of payments. If anything, there are dependant and child care credits to income tax... not fees.
Can you substantiate this claim? I am interested to learn more about that, if true.

 

[ronburgundy]

People are saying the Florida DoR are appealing b/c they want the tax revenue. However, it appears that child support is not taxable (only alimony is).

So what is in this for the Florida DoR that would make them pursue it against the mother's wishes?

 

[laughing dog]

Remember, we live in a patriarchy that privileges all men over all women.

Such over-the-top straw men make your arguments appear ridiculously stupid.

Maybe strawman, but it is certainly not over the top.

"All me" and "all women" make it over the top.

Anyone paying 1/3 of their paycheck for someone else's child is nothing better than a slave to the state.

More over the top rhetoric

Even if/when he wins the appeal, he won't be getting that money back. Such involuntary servitude is nothing other than tyranny, pure and simple. Put in more exact terms, the state has made this guy a slave to the woman under punishment of jail for at least a short duration of time. And that conveys a massive privilege of the woman over the man.

More over the top rhetoric.

Child support is for helping defray the expenses of raising the child.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Child support is for helping defray the expenses of raising the child.

Is it? Even if there is no requirement for her to spend that money on childcare?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Child support is for helping defray the expenses of raising the child.

Is it? Even if there is no requirement for her to spend that money on childcare?

Curious, how in the heck are you planning to regulate that? It sounds like a good idea until you think about it for 5 seconds.

 

[Metaphor]

Your read of the story is completely bizarre. No one involved is citing the evilness of men as a reason for their actions. Their point seems to be more procedural. Stupid, but it has nothing to do with feminism. Rather, the Department of Revenue likes child support payments because they get a huge cut of them, and therefore put a lot of bureacratic hoops in front of anyone who wants to end them.


And even if you were right (as indeed you are not) that this was somehow a feminist project by the Florida DOR (that well known hotbed of social justice activism?!?!) the fact that the appeal is expected to fail, and doesn't even have the support of the woman, indicates that the patriarchy will in fact triumph. What matters more, levying a challenge or winning it?

I was taking a jab at the idea that the patriarchy exists at all. So, I disagree that if the appeal fails that patriarchy has triumphed. If there were a patriarchy there'd have been no appeal and no court case in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

Child support is for helping defray the expenses of raising the child.

Is it?

Yes, it is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People are saying the Florida DoR are appealing b/c they want the tax revenue. However, it appears that child support is not taxable (only alimony is).

So what is in this for the Florida DoR that would make them pursue it against the mother's wishes?

Federal money for child support enforcement.

 

[Toni]

The mother may be the recipient of the check due to the fact that an infant is unable to read, write, open a bank account or to make purchases. Nevertheless, the child is the intended beneficiary and the custodial parent acts and on behalf of the child and itilizes the funds for the benefit of the child.

The check is written to the woman in her name. If what you say was really the case, a trust would be set up for the child and the man would pay funds to that trust, letting the woman be the trustee. But that is not the way it is done. And legally that money BECOMES the woman's money. She can spend it any way she see's fit with no absolutely recourse from the law.

That's not true or at least it's not true in every state. I know of cases where the custodial parent was ordered to account for how child support funds were spent. There is wide latitude, of course. If the custodial parent can only afford a one bedroom apartment, then it is reasonable that child support payments could help pay for a larger apartment or a place to live in a nicer neighborhood or to help pay for child care, help pay for groceries, and other things that benefit the child--and may also benefit the custodial parent. I've listened to male friends! complain that their kids outgrew their clothes too fast or put holes in the knees, scuffed up shoes--all obviously the mother's fault. I've listened to female friends complain about the way the mother of their step child spent support money --on things that she described that I knew were perfectly reasonable because I had raised children and my friend had not yet raised any.

Of course child support payments are sometimes misspent. The non-custodial parent DOES have recourse and can ask for an accounting. Of course, that takes lawyers and court costs, etc.

Most often (as in the cases I described above) child support is used as an attempt to control and/or punish the custodial parent for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the care the child is receiving.

And I know a number of cases where the non-custodial parent refused to pay child support and threatened to take the custodial parent to court (which the custodial parent couldn't afford and was afraid to risk losing even partial custody of the child) and at least one case where the non-custodial parent quit their job to avoid having to pay support. In every case there was no doubt that the noncustodial parent was indeed the biological parent of the child/children.

People do stupid things and when relationships end, they don't stop doing stupid things and magically decide to put the needs/interests of the children first. It's much more fun to continue the drama and to be as nasty and punitive as possible. Again: the welfare of the child is not at the forefront of these people's minds.