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

[ZiprHead]

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.

This is a Florida thing, not federal.

I suspect the mom and child is on welfare and they are trying to get the welfare liability reduced.

 

[Toni]

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.

One group does not have to have absolute power and control to still have the majority of power and control.

 

[Toni]

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.

This is a Florida thing, not federal.

I suspect the mom and child is on welfare and they are trying to get the welfare liability reduced.

My suspicion, as well.

The other thing is looking at the emotional welfare of the child. How will that child feel if s/he finds out the person named on their birth certificate abandoned them? This is a genuine issue for a lot of children of divorce that persists into adulthood: feeling abandoned by a parent who did or appeared to do nothing to maintain contact or provide support.

 

[ZiprHead]

This is a Florida thing, not federal.

I suspect the mom and child is on welfare and they are trying to get the welfare liability reduced.

My suspicion, as well.

The other thing is looking at the emotional welfare of the child. How will that child feel if s/he finds out the person named on their birth certificate abandoned them? This is a genuine issue for a lot of children of divorce that persists into adulthood: feeling abandoned by a parent who did or appeared to do nothing to maintain contact or provide support.

Can the BC be amended?

 

[ZiprHead]

This is a Florida thing, not federal.

I suspect the mom and child is on welfare and they are trying to get the welfare liability reduced.

My suspicion, as well.

The other thing is looking at the emotional welfare of the child. How will that child feel if s/he finds out the person named on their birth certificate abandoned them? This is a genuine issue for a lot of children of divorce that persists into adulthood: feeling abandoned by a parent who did or appeared to do nothing to maintain contact or provide support.

Can the BC be amended?

Answering my own question. Yes, they can.

http://www.floridahealth.gov/certificates/certificates/amendments-corrections/index.html

 

[Metaphor]

This is a Florida thing, not federal.

I suspect the mom and child is on welfare and they are trying to get the welfare liability reduced.

My suspicion, as well.

The other thing is looking at the emotional welfare of the child. How will that child feel if s/he finds out the person named on their birth certificate abandoned them? This is a genuine issue for a lot of children of divorce that persists into adulthood: feeling abandoned by a parent who did or appeared to do nothing to maintain contact or provide support.

A person named on a birth certificate falsely cannot "abandon" a child that is not theirs.

 

[Politesse]

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.

If you're rich, your spouse can just pay you directly. But if you apply for federal assistance of any kind (such as TANF for instance) the government becomes the custodian of those checks, and uses a portion of it to "reimburse" the various assistance programs. Many poor families only see a portion of their child support payments.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a Florida thing, not federal.

I suspect the mom and child is on welfare and they are trying to get the welfare liability reduced.

My suspicion, as well.

The other thing is looking at the emotional welfare of the child. How will that child feel if s/he finds out the person named on their birth certificate abandoned them? This is a genuine issue for a lot of children of divorce that persists into adulthood: feeling abandoned by a parent who did or appeared to do nothing to maintain contact or provide support.

A person named on a birth certificate falsely cannot "abandon" a child that is not theirs.

Under the legal system, if you are the named the father on the birth certificate, until a judge rules otherwise, you most certainly can in the eyes if the law depending in the state law in the USA.

And, if you have helped raise the child and have established a loving relationship with that child, yiu most certainly csn abandon that child in a very traumatic fashion.

 

[Metaphor]

A person named on a birth certificate falsely cannot "abandon" a child that is not theirs.

Under the legal system, if you are the named the father on the birth certificate, until a judge rules otherwise, you most certainly can in the eyes if the law depending in the state law in the USA.

And, if you have helped raise the child and have established a loving relationship with that child, yiu most certainly csn abandon that child in a very traumatic fashion.

In the eyes of the law, certainly.

But if a man has been supporting a child because he has been deceived by the mother about his paternity, and the revelation of the paternity makes a difference to him, then any trauma from his severing of ties is the moral fault and failure of the mother.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A person named on a birth certificate falsely cannot "abandon" a child that is not theirs.

Under the legal system, if you are the named the father on the birth certificate, until a judge rules otherwise, you most certainly can in the eyes if the law depending in the state law in the USA.

And, if you have helped raise the child and have established a loving relationship with that child, yiu most certainly csn abandon that child in a very traumatic fashion.

In the eyes of the law, certainly.

But if a man has been supporting a child because he has been deceived by the mother about his paternity, and the revelation of the paternity makes a difference to him, then any trauma from his severing of ties is the moral fault and failure of the mother.

I think it's both. If you were fooled into thinking this child is yours biologically and form a relationship from there, I do think you abandon the child if you later leave them because it becomes known that the mother fooled you. It is a seriously dishonest act of the mother if she did it on purpose and age should be held accountable, but the guy who formed the relationship with the child did form that bond and to sever it is abandonment.

 

[Metaphor]

In the eyes of the law, certainly.

But if a man has been supporting a child because he has been deceived by the mother about his paternity, and the revelation of the paternity makes a difference to him, then any trauma from his severing of ties is the moral fault and failure of the mother.

I think it's both. If you were fooled into thinking this child is yours biologically and form a relationship from there, I do think you abandon the child if you later leave them because it becomes known that the mother fooled you. It is a seriously dishonest act of the mother if she did it on purpose and age should be held accountable, but the guy who formed the relationship with the child did form that bond and to sever it is abandonment.

But should the law force him to pay child support for that child? Obviously the law cannot meaningfully ask him to continue to parent.

 

[Derec]

One group does not have to have absolute power and control to still have the majority of power and control.

In cases of domestic law at least, the overwhelming majority of the power and control is with women. In this case, the woman has committed fraud and instead of getting punished for it, she gets financially rewarded.

 

[Derec]

But should the law force him to pay child support for that child?

Definitely not. I would even go as far as saying that if he paid any child support to the woman, she should reimburse him, with interest, as restitution for her fraud.

 

[Derec]

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

Doesn't change the fact that the state is forcing the man (who is not the father, by the way) to pay the woman as a result of the FRAUD she committed. In this case, the state is aiding and abetting the woman's fraud in a way that they would never do for a man perpetrating fraud upon a woman.

That people like you defend this is sure sign of how out of kilter the feminist moral compass truly is.

 

[Patooka]

This thread was started with the words, "Florida man".

Whatever happens next, I'm not surprised.

*read four pages of posts*

Nope, not surprised.

 

[Derec]

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.

Intended beneficiary perhaps, but not the de facto beneficiary, or at least not the sole de facto beneficiary. Don't tell me that women don't use child support payment for their own lifestyle, especially when the (supposed) father makes much more than she does.

And note that this woman knew who she had sex with when she was ovulating and thus knew that the guy she claimed was the father was not or might not be the father. She obtained money from the man under false pretenses. That is fraud, plain and simple, and feminists should not be excusing or defending such sleazy behavior. She should have to pay back restitution to her victim with interest.

 

[Derec]

This thread was started with the words, "Florida man".

In this case Florida Man is the victim. It's Florida Woman who is the antisocial perpetrator here.

 

[Derec]

Stupid, but it has nothing to do with feminism.

Of course it has to do with feminism. A woman defrauded a man and was not only not punished for it, but got financially rewarded for it, and feminists like Toni keep defending it.
Just like they defend women who murder their boyfriends or husbands or falsely accuse men of rape. It's all part of the matriarchy and toxic femininity.

The real moral of this story is: if a woman tells you her child is yours, DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING before you get a DNA test. Better safe than sorry, and even if you think you can trust her, make like Reagan and VERIFY.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In the eyes of the law, certainly.

But if a man has been supporting a child because he has been deceived by the mother about his paternity, and the revelation of the paternity makes a difference to him, then any trauma from his severing of ties is the moral fault and failure of the mother.

I think it's both. If you were fooled into thinking this child is yours biologically and form a relationship from there, I do think you abandon the child if you later leave them because it becomes known that the mother fooled you. It is a seriously dishonest act of the mother if she did it on purpose and age should be held accountable, but the guy who formed the relationship with the child did form that bond and to sever it is abandonment.

But should the law force him to pay child support for that child? Obviously the law cannot meaningfully ask him to continue to parent.

I am not a proponent of biological lineage creating obligations to parent in the first place. But I do believe that if you have shown a settled intention to provide for a child and have made them dependant on you that you have some responsibility to care for them going forward unless and until you can find somebody else to take your place. You should also be allowed to surrender them to the state if you want.

 

[Politesse]

Stupid, but it has nothing to do with feminism.

Of course it has to do with feminism. A woman defrauded a man and was not only not punished for it, but got financially rewarded for it, and feminists like Toni keep defending it.
Just like they defend women who murder their boyfriends or husbands or falsely accuse men of rape. It's all part of the matriarchy and toxic femininity.

The real moral of this story is: if a woman tells you her child is yours, DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING before you get a DNA test. Better safe than sorry, and even if you think you can trust her, make like Reagan and VERIFY.

You being super misogynist does not equal everyone else being super-feminist.