Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

[RVonse]

http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm confused. If the decree says he has visitation rights and he is not allowed to visit then there are ways the court can facilitate visits.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?

 

[Deepak]

Anybody who wants to appear in court pro se should be required to read Kafka's Before the Law first

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, that's a hot mess that the judicial system is clearly not configured to handle.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?

I have no idea. If it's the latter, that just seems like a needless expense and a poor way of handling things. Spending money on having a social worker of the like there to supervise the visit seems like the kind of thing which should only be done if there's some kind of potential danger to the child from the visiting parent. Giving the offending parent a fine or arresting them for contempt of court seems like an overly complex way of punishing them for violating the custody agreement when there's the much simpler solution of just cancelling the next month's child support payment to punish them instead.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.

Or you could join a marriage reform group in your state and lobby to have laws regarding marriage and children changed.

 

[Deepak]

Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?

I have no idea. If it's the latter, that just seems like a needless expense and a poor way of handling things. Spending money on having a social worker of the like there to supervise the visit seems like the kind of thing which should only be done if there's some kind of potential danger to the child from the visiting parent. Giving the offending parent a fine or arresting them for contempt of court seems like an overly complex way of punishing them for violating the custody agreement when there's the much simpler solution of just cancelling the next month's child support payment to punish them instead.

Does that really punish the parent preventing visitation, or instead does it punish the child?

 

[laughing dog]

This situation is pretty messed up. According to the article

Lonnquist said she would agree to stop collecting child support from Atkins if he would agree to terminate his parental rights.

. The current custodial father is not complaining about the past child support (at least in the cited article he is not). So it would seem that is a that is clearly a fair solution to this situation. I find it hard to believe that the legal system cannot find a method to make it so.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's all for the children, the situation of the adults shouldn't be considered. Do you want the children to starve? You're just an apologist for deadbeat dads.[/conservoprogressive]

 

[zorq]

I have no idea. If it's the latter, that just seems like a needless expense and a poor way of handling things. Spending money on having a social worker of the like there to supervise the visit seems like the kind of thing which should only be done if there's some kind of potential danger to the child from the visiting parent. Giving the offending parent a fine or arresting them for contempt of court seems like an overly complex way of punishing them for violating the custody agreement when there's the much simpler solution of just cancelling the next month's child support payment to punish them instead.

Does that really punish the parent preventing visitation, or instead does it punish the child?

I agree with this. Child support money isn't for the parent (theoretically) it's meant to be spent on the child. If you start taking away money from children because of the behavior of the parents the children may suffer even more.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And having the custodial parent fined or jailed for contempt of court doesn't do that?

Either the court orders matter or they don't. If there's no consequences enforced for not paying support or not allowing visitation, those things are going to be ignored ... well ... about as much as they are now.

 

[TSwizzle]

The biological father should be the one paying child support.

 

[Bronzeage]

http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.

It's actually quite simple. In most states, a minor child cannot be repudiated or disinherited, for any reason. The only qualification of this principle requires the father to deny paternity at birth, and afterward provide no care or affection for the child. Once a man accepts a child, it cannot be abandoned.

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.

 

[RVonse]

http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.

Or you could join a marriage reform group in your state and lobby to have laws regarding marriage and children changed.

Thank you Athena for being the first one to actually understand my OP. And your solution seems reasonable to me too, excepting that the people most affected would be least able to mount a campaign to change anything. And the other shortcoming I can see is that any legal changes would only affect laws in 1 state of the union.

 

[RVonse]

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

Everyone seems to be talking about the legal minutia of the example case I provided and the welfare of the kids.. but that is not what I intended my OP to be about. The example I provided is not the only time this has occurred anyway.

A marriage is supposed to be a contract between a man and woman or at least it used to be thought of that way. When a man and woman gets married, they are probably not considering the welfare of the children they might have that might not yet be born yet. They are probably considering what they want from the marriage..the woman wants financial security and the husband wants blood related children and a legacy. Or something like that. And they are supposed to both be exclusive to each other sexually or something like that.

Because if they aren't...and nobody cares....why even get married? I get that the kids are more important than anything else in the universe, but for the purpose of society functioning is it not also important for the adults to be motivated to do the right thing?

Paying child support on someone else's kid makes about as much sense as paying property taxes on someone else's house? Would you pay the property taxes for your neighbors house? And if not, why would you want to pay for someone else's kid?

 

[RVonse]

From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.

Other than this case represents an example of others that are similar, I could care less whether or not this man is attempting to repudiate his daughter. When all is said and done, he will pay a very large sum of money for kid that is not even his. If I broke into an ATM and took the same amount of money and then gave the bank the same amount of consideration his exwife gave to him, I would be going to jail. If we have laws to tell us not to break into ATM's why do we have laws to encourage women to have other men's kids in a marriage?

 

[laughing dog]

From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.

Other than this case represents an example of others that are similar, I could care less whether or not this man is attempting to repudiate his daughter. When all is said and done, he will pay a very large sum of money for kid that is not even his.

Since there is no indication that this bothers him one bit, why does it bother you?

If we have laws to tell us not to break into ATM's why do we have laws to encourage women to have other men's kids in a marriage?

What evidence do you have that the law ENCOURAGED this woman to have another man's child while in marriage to this fellow?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

He didn't submit it because he didn't know it. You are right about the time issue, though--the courts routinely take the position that once someone has accepted the kid as theirs for a substantial period of time that they can't contest paternity.

What they really should do is flip it over--no order of child support can be issued without either a DNA test or evidence he's the father anyway (his signature on adoption/artificial insemination etc paperwork.) This would nip such problems in the bud.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?

Realistically, they order compliance. When that's not followed they order compliance. Rarely is anything meaningful done.

- - - Updated - - -

This situation is pretty messed up. According to the article

Lonnquist said she would agree to stop collecting child support from Atkins if he would agree to terminate his parental rights.

. The current custodial father is not complaining about the past child support (at least in the cited article he is not). So it would seem that is a that is clearly a fair solution to this situation. I find it hard to believe that the legal system cannot find a method to make it so.

Apparently you did not note that the article said that the courts normally will not do this unless someone else is ready to step in.

Better to have a slave parent than no parent.

- - - Updated - - -

It's actually quite simple. In most states, a minor child cannot be repudiated or disinherited, for any reason. The only qualification of this principle requires the father to deny paternity at birth, and afterward provide no care or affection for the child. Once a man accepts a child, it cannot be abandoned.

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.

It made sense in the old days. It doesn't make sense now.