GC with Childsupport enforcement #3 [Archive]

JohnCindy

11-19-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Budlight
I'm sorry that I didn't write any detailed background about child
support and made a lots of confusion here. I wanted to ask only about
GC right now since problem of child support is too complicated. The
reason that my spouse has not paid child support is because it was not
his child. He was cheated and his ex-wife refused to take blood test
for the child. There are many thing going on about the child support
problem so I cannot write everything here. I am sorry that I made
some people upset. Thank you for your understandig,

Hi:

I think this worthy of starting a new string.

I'll leave it to Dekka's Angel or Dad of 3 to expound on this further if
they chose to because the subject is outside my area of practice -- but
as a lawyer, our knowledge has to have a broad base so that we can at
least spot problems and refer people to knowledgable lawyers.

The facts as YOU state them has me rolling my eyes. Sorry to say, "not
my kid because my wife was cheating" is one of the oldest stories in the
book. And one that the law generally rejects.

The law imposes a strong presumption, and in some states a CONCLUSIVE
one, if the wife gives birth and she was living with her husband at the
time of conception, its husband's kid.

[From what I understand, in some instances, this can give a kid TWO
fathers, which can lead to some interesting custody/visitation disputes
-- but I digress].

If there is a WARRANT out for unpaid child support and your husband is
in Contempt -- that means he litigated and lost. And now he thumbs his
nose at the system.

If your beloved truly believes in his heart that the child is not his --
don't visit, disinherit the child, have nothing to do with the child --
that I can understand. But non-payment in face of a court order. No.

In the famous Chaplin v Barry paternity suit, there was evidence that
Joan Barry was seeing two men. Joan Barry agreed to the blood tests and
they established that Charlie was not the father. Charlie lost.
Charlie refused to have anything to do with the kid, but he did pay the
child support.

--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization

Posted via http://britishexpats.com

JohnCindy

11-19-2003, 08:55 AM

I will continue the digression.

Some 27 years ago my ex-wife and I adopted her sister's newborn baby.
The sister was married to some guy in the northeast, left him, and had
been living in the vicinity of a major Marine base in the southeast US
and become pregnant by she didn't know who. She then returned to her
hometown to have the baby and be divorced by her husband.

In order for my ex-wife and I to adopt the baby we needed the
signatures of both the mother and father on the papers. The biological
father being unknown, the husband - although all concerned recognized
that he was not the biological father - was deemed to be the legal
father and his signature was required. He was most reluctant to sign
the papers for fear that it would constitute an acknowledgement that he
was the biological father and could somehow come back to haunt him in
the future.

Fortunately, his lawyer assuaged his fears and convinced him that he
would be in a better position by signing the papers so that the adoption
could go through than he would be if he blocked the adoption by
withholding his signature.

Regards, JEff

Originally posted by Folinskyinla
The law imposes a strong presumption, and in some states a CONCLUSIVE one, if the wife gives birth and she was living with her husband at the time of conception, its husband's kid.

[From what I understand, in some instances, this can give a kid TWO
fathers, which can lead to some interesting custody/visitation disputes
-- but I digress].

--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

JohnCindy

11-19-2003, 08:55 AM

JohnCindy

11-19-2003, 09:11 AM

I think it's a bunch of baloney.

The mother can't refuse the blood test for the child. The
father/accused father may have to pay the lab fees, but it HAS to be
done if he really wants it. I know of two different men who have been
slapped with child support and demanded a blood test. One turned out to
really be the biological father, the other turned out not to be. The
one that wasn't the biological father did not have to pay child support.

I also know of a guy that was hit for child support two years after
ending his relationship with a woman, she was collecting welfare and the
government made her name the father. He couldn't remember the exact
dates, but figured it was pretty close and never asked for a blood test.
He has paid child support for 12 years as well seeing his son every
other weekend. He married and had two more children. They consider the
first son their "big brother that doesn't live with them". As it all
turned out ....... the first boy is not his child after all. He did not
withdraw the child support, and he did not dis-own the boy. After all
that time he just couldn't do that to the kid.

Like the OP said....... There are a lot of things that go on about the
child support problem.

--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

JohnCindy

11-19-2003, 09:11 AM

paulgani

11-19-2003, 09:14 AM

"Folinskyinla" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1073017.1069259292@britishexpats.com... If your beloved truly believes in his heart that the child is not his -- don't visit, disinherit the child, have nothing to do with the child -- that I can understand. But non-payment in face of a court order. No. In the famous Chaplin v Barry paternity suit, there was evidence that Joan Barry was seeing two men. Joan Barry agreed to the blood tests and they established that Charlie was not the father. Charlie lost. Charlie refused to have anything to do with the kid, but he did pay the child support.

There was an expose on this subject on Dateline or such a few months back.

The show's POV was to express outrage that DNA test proven non-biological
fathers were being forced to pay child support anyway.

Some experts in the field countered that "what's best for the child"
overrode any concerns of "justice" for the (non)fathers.

Personally, I think a fair solution might be to force child support payments
until 18, but then force the (misbehaving) mother to pay back the
(non)father once the child turns 18, with the same legal enforcement
provisions towards her as they had towards him. That sounds more like
"justice" to me.

Paulgani

paulgani

11-19-2003, 09:14 AM

Folinskyinla

11-19-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Paulgani
"Folinskyinla" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1073017.1069259292@britishexpats.com"]news:1073017.1069259- 292@britishexpats.com[/url]...
If your beloved truly believes in his heart that the child is not his --
don't visit, disinherit the child, have nothing to do with the child --
that I can understand. But non-payment in face of a court order. No.
In the famous Chaplin v Barry paternity suit, there was evidence that
Joan Barry was seeing two men. Joan Barry agreed to the blood tests and
they established that Charlie was not the father. Charlie lost.
Charlie refused to have anything to do with the kid, but he did pay the
child support.

There was an expose on this subject on Dateline or such a few months back.

The show's POV was to express outrage that DNA test proven non- biological
fathers were being forced to pay child support anyway.

Some experts in the field countered that "what's best for the child"
overrode any concerns of "justice" for the (non)fathers.

Personally, I think a fair solution might be to force child support payments
until 18, but then force the (misbehaving) mother to pay back the
(non)father once the child turns 18, with the same legal enforcement
provisions towards her as they had towards him. That sounds more like
"justice" to me.

Paulgani

Hi Paul:

There exist a body of "Uniform" acts which are presented to the
states for enactment -- the most used one is the Uniform Commerical
Code or UCC.

There is also the Uniform Parentage Act which in its latest revision can
be found with comments by its promulgating commission at

]http://www.aaml.org/Articles/2000-
11/UPA%20FINAL%20TEXT%20WITH%20COMMENTS%20.htm[/url]

These "uniform" acts are not law until enacted by the individual states
and they often have variations.

But I do note the long standing presumption is retained -- a married
woman gets pregnant, the husband is the presumed father until proven
otherwise.

--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization

Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla

11-19-2003, 03:24 PM

Dad of 3

11-19-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Folinskyinla

The law imposes a strong presumption, and in some states a CONCLUSIVE one, if the wife gives birth and she was living with her husband at the time of conception, its husband's kid.

Folinskyinla:

Finally, a topic I can actually discuss intelligently...:-)

You are right, in many states where the husband of a woman who gives
birth to a child, the husband is presumed to be the legal father of the
child. Some states also look at whether the couple was married both at
birth and conception or even if the child was born within a certain
number of days after a divorce is final. While I am speculating when I
say this, there are numerous public policy reasons that states enact
these laws....the least of which is that legislators actually belive
that every time a married woman gets pregnant the father is her husband.

With the boom in the number of child support cases over the past years,
it is now relatively easy for someone who is alleged to be the father of
a child to appear in Court in case that attempts to establish paternity
and child support and claim to the judge that he is not the father, or
the more popular response is, "Judge I am not sure so can I have a
test?" Many states now attach a price tag to such testing. If the man
is the father, he picks up the cost of the testing which can be very
expensive. Of course, the presumption the husband is the father keeps
cases involving married parties out of court until the father files some
kind of petition to contest the legal presumption or a divorce is
litigated and the issue of paternity is raised by one of the parties.

As many of the states now impose stricter and more harsh penalties on
parents who fail to take care of their children, (witholding all types
of licenses, wage garnishment, interception of tax refunds, etc) the
cost of failing to live up to one's parental responsibilities has
incresased....as well it should. I often wonder if failure to pay court
ordered child support were criminalized and carried sanctions including
imprisonment in the state pen for a significant amount of time, whether
there would be a significant increase payment of child support.

IMHO, as the issue relates to the GC with child support probmes
strings that have been posted on this board, someone who has been so
involved in the court system that an arrest warrant has been issued
[and in many states even though the non paying parent is
incarcerated...the imprisonment is a civil (coercive in that payment
of a purge amount which allows the non compliant parent to pay a
certain amount of back child support owed to set themselves free)
penalty and not a criminal (retribution or punishment) has some
serious maturity, personality and moral issues to address with
him/herself. As I have posted before, it is beyond my comprehension
why any parent would make such a choice. It is even further beyond my
ability to understand how ANYONE WOULD CHOOSE TO MARRY SOMEONE, let
alone have a child with, someone who already has a proven track record
of failing to support their own child. A judge I know was famous for
saying that the best predictor of a person's future actions is
the person's past behavior. How true that is !

--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Dad of 3

11-19-2003, 04:22 PM

Andrew DeFaria

11-19-2003, 10:23 PM

Leslie66 wrote:
I also know of a guy that was hit for child support two years after ending his relationship with a woman, she was collecting welfare and the government made her name the father. He couldn't remember the exact dates, but figured it was pretty close and never asked for a blood test. He has paid child support for 12 years as well seeing his son every other weekend. He married and had two more children. They consider the first son their "big brother that doesn't live with them". As it all turned out ....... the first boy is not his child after all. He did not withdraw the child support, and he did not dis-own the boy. After all that time he just couldn't do that to the kid.

IMHO, a biological father is merely a sperm donor. Being a real father
is much more than that. It is a person who is actively involved in their
child's upbringing. In the above paragraph that guy was the father but
not the sperm donor. So in cases where the father is not the biological
father then I think that the real "fatherhood" should be examined. If a
guy raises his kid from birth to say 12 years old then he's the dad. If
it is later discovered that he is not the biological father then it
doesn't mean as much to me. If, however, the child is not yet born, the
marriage is falling apart and it is discovered that the child is not his
that's another story. Of course those are the relative extremes. Other
times it's harder to tell.
--
Diplomacy - the art of letting someone have your way.

Andrew DeFaria

11-19-2003, 10:23 PM

Dad of 3

11-20-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria

IMHO, a biological father is merely a sperm donor. Being a real father is much more than that. It is a person who is actively involved in their child's upbringing... If a guy raises his kid from birth to say 12 years old then he's the dad. If
it is later discovered that he is not the biological father then it
doesn't mean as much to me. ... .

Your comment is so true. In fact, in the state where I practice, if you
have the kind of situation where a biological father comes along years
after a child's birth and there is another man who has already "stepped
up to the plate" to parent the child and be the child's "dad", there
must be a special hearing regarding whether or not the bio father can
just "appear into the child's life" thereby destroying the relationship
between the child and the only real "DAD" the child knows.

--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Dad of 3

11-20-2003, 05:10 PM

Folinskyinla

11-20-2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Leslie66 wrote:

I also know of a guy that was hit for child support two years after
ending his relationship with a woman, she was collecting welfare and
the government made her name the father. He couldn't remember the
exact dates, but figured it was pretty close and never asked for a
blood test. He has paid child support for 12 years as well seeing his
son every other weekend. He married and had two more children. They
consider the first son their "big brother that doesn't live with
them". As it all turned out ....... the first boy is not his child
after all. He did not withdraw the child support, and he did not
dis-own the boy. After all that time he just couldn't do that to the kid.

IMHO, a biological father is merely a sperm donor. Being a real father
is much more than that. It is a person who is actively involved in their
child's upbringing. In the above paragraph that guy was the father but
not the sperm donor. So in cases where the father is not the biological
father then I think that the real "fatherhood" should be examined. If a
guy raises his kid from birth to say 12 years old then he's the dad. If
it is later discovered that he is not the biological father then it
doesn't mean as much to me. If, however, the child is not yet born, the
marriage is falling apart and it is discovered that the child is not his
that's another story. Of course those are the relative extremes. Other
times it's harder to tell.
--
Diplomacy - the art of letting someone have your way.

Hi:

I happan to agree with you. However, in different context, the Board of
Immigration Appeals does not.

US Citizen and Permanent resident parents can petition for their
alien children. In the case of fathers, the marriage presumption
will be applied.

However, in the case of fathers who never married the mothers, it seems
that biology rules. See Matter of Bueno, 21 I&N Dec 1029 and Matter of
Pagan 22 I&N Dec 547.

A good friend of mine [who later took the bench and is now retired] had
a heartbreaker of a case. Client was from Jamaica and his girlfriend
got pregnant and gave birth. Mom gives kid to boyfriend and departed
never to appear again.

Man acknowledges kid as his own, and child lives the man's mother and
is raised by grandma. Man departs for the US, gets green card and
later naturalizes. He regularly visits his mother and son and
supports the kid.

Kid turns 18, Grandma dies and Dad files I-130 for kid. I-130 approved,
no problem. Kingston issued immigrant visa, no problem.

Kid applies for entry at JFK, big problem. Kid is "deferred" to Los
Angeles and INS orders blood tests. Should be no problem -- Dad and son
give their blood and its tested.

Now the big problem -- Dad is NOT the biological dad. Kid placed in
"exlusion" proceedings. My friend argues that under California law and
Uniform Parentage Act -- that kid is dad's kid, the blood tests be
damned. IJ rules no. BIA says no.

This is one of those cases that pisses me off and makes me tend to agree
-- the law can be an *** at times.

--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization

Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla

11-20-2003, 07:47 PM

Folinskyinla

11-21-2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Dad of 3
....

IMHO, as the issue relates to the GC with child support probmes strings that have been posted on this board, someone who has been so involved in the court system that an arrest warrant has been issued [and in many states even though the non paying parent is incarcerated...the imprisonment is a civil (coercive in that payment of a purge amount which allows the non compliant parent to pay a certain amount of back child support owed to set themselves free) penalty and not a criminal (retribution or punishment) has some serious maturity, personality and moral issues to address with him/herself. As I have posted before, it is beyond my comprehension why any parent would make such a choice. It is even further beyond my ability to understand how ANYONE WOULD CHOOSE TO MARRY SOMEONE, let alone have a child with, someone who already has a proven track record of failing to support their own child. A judge I know was famous for saying that the best predictor of a person's future actions is the person's past behavior. How true that is !

Hi:

You and Angel have me outnumbered. We stopped at two -- both out of the
house, but one has recently moved back to LA for grad school.

Your comment on future actions being governed by past behavior has
struck a nerve on the I-864 here -- if the Gov't ever has to enforce the
thing -- they will have a battle -- and "budlight cheated on me!" or
"budlight committed marriage fraud!"

The devil in me is almost tempted to predict that he will claim marriage
fraud becuase Budlight will dump him quick when she truly sees what a
jerk he is.

But, then again, there is no accounting for love -- and I still retain
the romantic part of my soul after all these years.

--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization

Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla

11-21-2003, 07:17 PM