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

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow you're really unfamiliar with how the reproductive systems of women work, aren't you? What do you think? Women get a text reminder they are ovulating? Not to mention, nothing to stop the man from using, you know, a condom! Easy peasy.

<here's a hint. most women have no idea WHEN they are actually ovulating>

It's very unlikely for a woman to conceive based on sex not in her current cycle. Thus, barring good evidence as to when she ovulated she should consider anyone she had sex with during that cycle to be a possible father. Naming one as a father when she knows there are other options is lying.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is not a reason to make an innocent pay.

The only innocent person is the child.

The man who is supposedly being ‘duped’ into believing he is the father must have good reason to believe he is the father. It is likely only a twist of luck or fate that it wasn’t his sperm that fertilized the egg that grew into a child. It’s hard to see the duped man as innocent.

You have no idea what the facts of the matter are. Perhaps he did wrap it up but given her statement that he was the father he figured there was a failure anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do we KNOW she told him he was the father?

Maybe she just said, "I'm pregnant."
Maybe she said it to two guys.
Maybe she said, "I'm pregnant" and one guy disappeared.
Maybe she said, "I'm pregnant" and the other guy just asked, "Are you keeping it?" Maybe he made assumptions and never asked, "Are you sure it's mine?" If he just made assumptions, there is no actual need for her to have told a lie.

Apparently, if she did not know with certainty, she should have either not said anything or had an abortion.

DNA test. The cost of a DNA test is low enough that it should be a standard requirement in child support cases.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow you're really unfamiliar with how the reproductive systems of women work, aren't you? What do you think? Women get a text reminder they are ovulating? Not to mention, nothing to stop the man from using, you know, a condom! Easy peasy.

<here's a hint. most women have no idea WHEN they are actually ovulating>

It's very unlikely for a woman to conceive based on sex not in her current cycle. Thus, barring good evidence as to when she ovulated she should consider anyone she had sex with during that cycle to be a possible father. Naming one as a father when she knows there are other options is lying.

It is possible she had an inaccurate impression of when she ovulated, incorrect information from the doctor how many weeks ago the conception occurred after an ultrasound, or incorrect information from another possible father about whether he could father children.

Further, that she named a father is incorrect as the father signs a form himself. It is possible he knew there could be another.

We should not be trying people in the court of public opinion with such little information.

 

[laughing dog]

Wow you're really unfamiliar with how the reproductive systems of women work, aren't you? What do you think? Women get a text reminder they are ovulating? Not to mention, nothing to stop the man from using, you know, a condom! Easy peasy.

<here's a hint. most women have no idea WHEN they are actually ovulating>

It's very unlikely for a woman to conceive based on sex not in her current cycle. Thus, barring good evidence as to when she ovulated she should consider anyone she had sex with during that cycle to be a possible father. Naming one as a father when she knows there are other options is lying.

It is possible she had an inaccurate impression of when she ovulated, incorrect information from the doctor how many weeks ago the conception occurred after an ultrasound, or incorrect information from another possible father about whether he could father children.

Further, that she named a father is incorrect as the father signs a form himself. It is possible he knew there could be another.

We should not be trying people in the court of public opinion with such little information.

That consideration is for men accused of rape not women who give birth.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is possible she had an inaccurate impression of when she ovulated, incorrect information from the doctor how many weeks ago the conception occurred after an ultrasound, or incorrect information from another possible father about whether he could father children.

Further, that she named a father is incorrect as the father signs a form himself. It is possible he knew there could be another.

We should not be trying people in the court of public opinion with such little information.

That consideration is for men accused of rape not women who give birth.

It's even worse...

There's another thread where a white male convicted, not merely accused, of sex assault claims he was misunderstood, shy and awkward....and the usual suspects believe he's innocent. Yet here we have a woman, not even CHARGED of fraud, and she's being convicted in a court of public opinion by those same usual suspects. In both cases there are huge gaps of information but in the first, assumptions are made on behalf of the man without having reviewed a court opinion and in this case there is virtually no info but assumptions are made against the woman.

 

[Toni]

Wow you're really unfamiliar with how the reproductive systems of women work, aren't you? What do you think? Women get a text reminder they are ovulating? Not to mention, nothing to stop the man from using, you know, a condom! Easy peasy.

<here's a hint. most women have no idea WHEN they are actually ovulating>

It's very unlikely for a woman to conceive based on sex not in her current cycle. Thus, barring good evidence as to when she ovulated she should consider anyone she had sex with during that cycle to be a possible father. Naming one as a father when she knows there are other options is lying.

Women often have irregular cycles. Some women experience some bleeding that is very similar to their period during early pregnancy which accuses them to not experience or recognize this early sign of pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow you're really unfamiliar with how the reproductive systems of women work, aren't you? What do you think? Women get a text reminder they are ovulating? Not to mention, nothing to stop the man from using, you know, a condom! Easy peasy.

<here's a hint. most women have no idea WHEN they are actually ovulating>

It's very unlikely for a woman to conceive based on sex not in her current cycle. Thus, barring good evidence as to when she ovulated she should consider anyone she had sex with during that cycle to be a possible father. Naming one as a father when she knows there are other options is lying.

It is possible she had an inaccurate impression of when she ovulated, incorrect information from the doctor how many weeks ago the conception occurred after an ultrasound, or incorrect information from another possible father about whether he could father children.

Further, that she named a father is incorrect as the father signs a form himself. It is possible he knew there could be another.

We should not be trying people in the court of public opinion with such little information.

When she ovulated isn't really relevant, it's a matter of her cycle. Anyone she had sex with during that cycle should be considered a possible father. Being off by one month based on ultrasound is within the realm of possibility but it should be apparent at birth.

I can believe magical thinking, but that's basically lying.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is possible she had an inaccurate impression of when she ovulated, incorrect information from the doctor how many weeks ago the conception occurred after an ultrasound, or incorrect information from another possible father about whether he could father children.

Further, that she named a father is incorrect as the father signs a form himself. It is possible he knew there could be another.

We should not be trying people in the court of public opinion with such little information.

When she ovulated isn't really relevant, it's a matter of her cycle. Anyone she had sex with during that cycle should be considered a possible father. Being off by one month based on ultrasound is within the realm of possibility but it should be apparent at birth.

I can believe magical thinking, but that's basically lying.

It is not uncommon for babies to arrive up to 2 weeks early or up to two weeks late.* So, no, it terribly confuses the issue of when conception happened. But I notice you did not completely address what I wrote...

Any other possible father could have been asked and given false information. They could have claimed to have had a vasectomy or used protection. We don't know that either.

Besides that, for all we know the poor guy in the op could have known there was another possible father but mistakenly eliminated him in the same ways as the mother had. We don't know this either.

Any one of these factors means the mother is innocent of lying. Yet some people around here are saying she definitely 100% lied.

*

Dr. Jill Rabin, chief of ambulatory care, obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., noted that a baby's due date is an estimate, and it's normal for babies to arrive two weeks before or after that day. Therefore, although parents may perceive a baby to be "late" if it arrives two weeks after the due date, this is not really the case.

https://www.livescience.com/38179-royal-baby-firstborns-late.html

 

[Toni]

Which is not a reason to make an innocent pay.

The only innocent person is the child.

The man who is supposedly being ‘duped’ into believing he is the father must have good reason to believe he is the father. It is likely only a twist of luck or fate that it wasn’t his sperm that fertilized the egg that grew into a child. It’s hard to see the duped man as innocent.

You have no idea what the facts of the matter are. Perhaps he did wrap it up but given her statement that he was the father he figured there was a failure anyway.

You're actually the one who is making assumptions. You are assuming that she told him that he was the father and that only he could be the father. My own statement was simply that he knew he could have been the father and that given that fact, it is hard to see him as innocent because it could well have simply been fate that some other guy's sperm was what fertilized her egg.

My assumption is that no one was purposely duped since that's not a claim in the OP. What is interesting or unfair about the situation is that he isn't removed from the birth certificate despite the mother's agreement that he should be and the judge's as well. The state seems to be opposing this only because he hasn't filed proper paperwork. He is acting as his own attorney which seems unwise since he can't figure out the paperwork. In reality, it shouldn't be that complicated or require an attorney. THAT is the real story.

 

[Toni]

It is possible she had an inaccurate impression of when she ovulated, incorrect information from the doctor how many weeks ago the conception occurred after an ultrasound, or incorrect information from another possible father about whether he could father children.

Further, that she named a father is incorrect as the father signs a form himself. It is possible he knew there could be another.

We should not be trying people in the court of public opinion with such little information.

When she ovulated isn't really relevant, it's a matter of her cycle. Anyone she had sex with during that cycle should be considered a possible father. Being off by one month based on ultrasound is within the realm of possibility but it should be apparent at birth.

I can believe magical thinking, but that's basically lying.

These things are not always as easy as it seems.

It is quite possible for a woman to have periods or rather, a blood flow that mimics her period when she is pregnant. This can happen for only one month or for several or sometimes throughout the pregnancy. So this whole 'cycle' theory of yours isn't fool proof at all. Not all women have access to or choose to get comprehensive prenatal care. She may not have had any ultrasounds. Heck,she may not have known she was pregnant at all--that happens, too.

Given that she is fully supportive of him being off the birth certificate, it is difficult to see a case for insisting that she lied or duped him. An error was made. The real story is in the difficulty in rectifying it, especially given that the woman wishes it to be rectified as much as the man does.

 

[Toni]

Do we KNOW she told him he was the father?

Maybe she just said, "I'm pregnant."
Maybe she said it to two guys.
Maybe she said, "I'm pregnant" and one guy disappeared.
Maybe she said, "I'm pregnant" and the other guy just asked, "Are you keeping it?" Maybe he made assumptions and never asked, "Are you sure it's mine?" If he just made assumptions, there is no actual need for her to have told a lie.

Apparently, if she did not know with certainty, she should have either not said anything or had an abortion.

DNA test. The cost of a DNA test is low enough that it should be a standard requirement in child support cases.

The cost of a GOOD DNA test is not as cheap as you imagine. We've had that discussion before, Loren. Sure, there are cheap tests out there but they are not really very good for establishing paternity. They are better at eliminating candidates than confirming them.

Also, what you and I may think is cheap can be well out of the reach of a lot of people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The whole DNA test is another area where we don't actually know what happened. So, for example, did the guy take a home paternity test for $30 and get it notarized or some other validation of something so that he would have a judge's sympathy. Did he fake his own sample? How did he get the child's dna for comparison? It seems the mother of the child would have been supportive of his cause in order to get the child to spit in a tube or do a blood test or something. Yet, some people are calling her a liar and making her out to be the villain here with absolute certainty.

Now the state requires a particular DNA test done through a lab where they can confirm everything is legit. Those things may cost hundreds of dollars (like $500) when going through America's expensive health care system, the bureaucracy, and also all the people who have to be legitimately paid as they are involved in making sure of no fraud or clinical mistakes to guarantee results.

I don't know what the poor guy's personal situation is, but he apparently makes less than $240 a paycheck because he claims the $80 per paycheck for child support was more than a third of his pay. It would be presumptuous to claim he's a do-nothing, lazy person as much as it is terrible to call the mother a definite liar. Everyone's got a story. And as Toni says hundreds of dollars for a legit test is a lot of money for some people...and this guy is no exception based on his reported income.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

DNA test. The cost of a DNA test is low enough that it should be a standard requirement in child support cases.

The cost of a GOOD DNA test is not as cheap as you imagine. We've had that discussion before, Loren. Sure, there are cheap tests out there but they are not really very good for establishing paternity. They are better at eliminating candidates than confirming them.

Also, what you and I may think is cheap can be well out of the reach of a lot of people.

And if they eliminate a candidate what more is needed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The whole DNA test is another area where we don't actually know what happened. So, for example, did the guy take a home paternity test for $30 and get it notarized or some other validation of something so that he would have a judge's sympathy. Did he fake his own sample? How did he get the child's dna for comparison? It seems the mother of the child would have been supportive of his cause in order to get the child to spit in a tube or do a blood test or something. Yet, some people are calling her a liar and making her out to be the villain here with absolute certainty.

The judge ordered the test when he asked for visitation.

Now the state requires a particular DNA test done through a lab where they can confirm everything is legit. Those things may cost hundreds of dollars (like $500) when going through America's expensive health care system, the bureaucracy, and also all the people who have to be legitimately paid as they are involved in making sure of no fraud or clinical mistakes to guarantee results.

It's not the overpriced health care system, it's the level of care taken against mistakes that drive up the cost of official tests.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The whole DNA test is another area where we don't actually know what happened. So, for example, did the guy take a home paternity test for $30 and get it notarized or some other validation of something so that he would have a judge's sympathy. Did he fake his own sample? How did he get the child's dna for comparison? It seems the mother of the child would have been supportive of his cause in order to get the child to spit in a tube or do a blood test or something. Yet, some people are calling her a liar and making her out to be the villain here with absolute certainty.

The judge ordered the test when he asked for visitation.

Now the state requires a particular DNA test done through a lab where they can confirm everything is legit. Those things may cost hundreds of dollars (like $500) when going through America's expensive health care system, the bureaucracy, and also all the people who have to be legitimately paid as they are involved in making sure of no fraud or clinical mistakes to guarantee results.

It's not the overpriced health care system, it's the level of care taken against mistakes that drive up the cost of official tests.

Nope, they are BOTH factors in high costs. Other countries have the same thing of care taken against mistakes but not the same cost of healthcare.

 

[Toni]

DNA test. The cost of a DNA test is low enough that it should be a standard requirement in child support cases.

The cost of a GOOD DNA test is not as cheap as you imagine. We've had that discussion before, Loren. Sure, there are cheap tests out there but they are not really very good for establishing paternity. They are better at eliminating candidates than confirming them.

Also, what you and I may think is cheap can be well out of the reach of a lot of people.

And if they eliminate a candidate what more is needed?

Confirming a candidate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if they eliminate a candidate what more is needed?

Confirming a candidate.

The question is whether X should pay child support. If you rule out X the question is answered. She needs to name the right guy.