Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Protect Jobs for Illinois Veterans: Pass SB 1665/HB 2414
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Madigan responds - Union claims Lisa Madigan holding up signature *** AFSCME hasn’t signed the union contract
Posted in:
* I never would’ve thought this could be a problem, but it is for at least one person, so the Senate just approved a bill to help him out…
A measure that would allow an Edgar County man to stop paying child support for a teenager who isn’t his was approved 52-0 by the Illinois Senate.
The measure, SB 1867, was sponsored by Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, and was introduced to aid Brad Entrican, a Paris man who earlier told a Senate committee that he has been paying child support for years but didn’t learn until after DNA testing in 2011 that he was not the father of the boy, who is now 13. Attempts to resolve the case through administrative procedures and in the courts failed because Entrican had not filed his petition within the two-year statute of limitations.
The legislation allows a man to continue to challenge a finding of paternity after the statute of limitations has been filed when there is DNA evidence supporting him. […]
Entrican had said earlier this year that he didn’t challenge the paternity until the summer of 2011, after meeting the boy for the first time. He had failed to appear for a scheduled genetic testing in 2001 because at the time, he had no reason to doubt he was the boy’s father.
A fascinating personal story. I can’t help but feel sorry for the kid, though. Now what does he do?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:56 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Protect Jobs for Illinois Veterans: Pass SB 1665/HB 2414
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Madigan responds - Union claims Lisa Madigan holding up signature *** AFSCME hasn’t signed the union contract
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Looks like some guy, an unsuspecting father, is in for a big surprise and going to see a chunk of his paycheck disappear.
Comment by Downstater Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:01 am
Are we going to see this on the next episode of Maury?
Comment by Miss Marie Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:09 am
I guess it’s too late for the mother who accused the wrong guy to go on The Maury Show ?
Comment by Roadiepig Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:13 am
What is the likelihood that the real father will be required to start paying?
Or that the mother can be sued for fraud so the victim can recover 13 years of money he was wrongly forced to pay?
My guess is slim to none in both cases.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:13 am
Miss Marie- you beat me before I could post my comment
Comment by Roadiepig Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:14 am
Yes, it’s a sad story but also a cautionary tale. Get the darn test done before the court orders you to pay support. Sheesh.
And if you’re paying child support for a child you think is yours, why wouldn’t you try to build a relationship with the child? He just met the child in 2011? That’s ten years of a financial relationship without ever having a personal relationship?
That sad on several levels.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:14 am
Sounds like an episode of Maury waiting to happen.
Comment by NIref Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:15 am
I think the child (teenager now) will be somewhat relieved because he already knows this man has never cared about him, even when the man thought they were related. At leat now, the child can be comforted by the fact they aren’t related.
However, it does open up a can of worms in that the child and his Mom have to open up what could be painful and embarassing topics for them, and what could damage their relationship. And, please so snide commetns abou the Mom. She may have truly thought this man was the father based upon what she thought was the conception date (which the doctors will help you calculate).
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:16 am
Sorry. Comments. I can spell, but fingers just type too fast.
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:17 am
Poor kid. Does this guy have any kind of relationship with the child? Fatherhood isn’t just based on genetics.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:20 am
I suppose there was something in that first meeting that clued him in that he was not the biological father. Can he get a refund?
Comment by rusty618 Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:22 am
An Old Truism: “We don’t get to choose our parents” strikes again. I feel bad for the kid, now a fatherless child. The mother has some explaining to do. I assume the cuckold accused father wasn’t married to the kid’s mother at the time of conception, or the DNA would have been a moot point.
Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:22 am
@mythoughtis:
Why do you assume he never cared about the kid? I would say the exact opposite, or at the very least he took care of what he thought was his responsibility. Why should he have to pay now that he has found out the child is not his? Sure, it would be nice but he has taken care of what he thought were his legal obligations until this point.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:25 am
It sure is a good thing gay folks can’t get married and screw up society’s interest in procreation…
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:25 am
What a mess. Get the test right away.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:26 am
Since the moron did not see the child for the first 11 years, we are guessing the child should just keep doing what he/she has been doing and hope Mom is a little smarter with the next beau and perhaps apply to be a Capt Fax intern
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:29 am
=Yes, it’s a sad story but also a cautionary tale. Get the darn test done before the court orders you to pay support. Sheesh.=
I just glanced at the bill for a second and didn’t do any research, but it looked as if it might have broader applications than this one story.
Exactly when did the SOL begin to run prior to the change?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:30 am
“Looks like some guy, an unsuspecting father, is in for a big surprise and going to see a chunk of his paycheck disappear.”
If only there were a way for men to avoid becoming unsuspecting fathers….
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:32 am
Ronan Farrow @RonanFarrow 12 Feb
“What makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.” - The President and also Maury Povich
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:54 am
=If only there were a way for men to avoid becoming unsuspecting fathers…. =
Mmhm. Seems there is now. It’s called DNA testing–and that, when combined with SOLs specifically, might be quite intriguing.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:54 am
=If only there were a way for men to avoid becoming unsuspecting fathers…. =
Mmhm. Seems there is now. It’s called DNA testing–and that, when combined with SOLs specifically, might be quite intriguing. –
Believe it or not, there were ways to do so before DNA testing.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:59 am
This law only allows Brad Entrican to challenge his paternity obligations despite the statute of limitations.
There’s still no guarantee that the courts will allow an irresponsible adult to shift the burden of his carelessness onto a 13 year-old boy.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:01 am
=Believe it or not, there were ways to do so before DNA testing.=
Yes, and weren’t many of those methods based on statutes and “paperwork?”
I wonder how many elected officials and their staff consider what impact new and emerging technologies have on legislation.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:08 am
- Yes, and weren’t many of those methods based on statutes and “paperwork?” -
Ummm, somehow I don’t think word is talking about either of those things, unless “paperwork” is some new slang I’m not hip to.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:16 am
Thanks, Word and STL. I will just add that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - and many, many years of child support.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:21 am
=There’s still no guarantee that the courts will allow an irresponsible adult to shift the burden of his carelessness onto a 13 year-old boy.=
I’m not sure whether we’re coming at this from the same perspective, but another question just popped into mind. What impact, if any, would this change have on e.g., finding the actual father?
I believe DNA only verifies/denies a specific question within a very limited context–unless it’s being compared to data in a database and I haven’t checked recently re: how extensive the databases are today and/or legalities pertaining to accessing same and/or obtaining and using DNA (especially when it’s “snagged” off of e.g., a glass in say, a restaurant v. obtained through applicable legal procedures, (”if any”)).
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:27 am
Reformer 10:13
I’d say 100% on the former, slim to none on the latter.
MrJM 11:01
It’s not his child. Somebody else’s carelessness is involved here. If it is not his responsibilty how can he be irresponsible?
Comment by Joe from Joliet Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:31 am
=It’s not his child. Somebody else’s carelessness is involved here. If it is not his responsibilty how can he be irresponsible?=
And again, my questions is “When did the SOL begin to run prior to the change (in various scenarios) and what impact does this bill have on each one?”
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:35 am
Because I have no desire to work today, I read the complaint. And here’s the thing: “On July 17, 2001, (the mother and baby) appeared for the scheduled genetic testing, but Bradley failed to appear. As a result, the April 18, 2001, administrative paternity order adjudicating Bradley as H.L.B.’s father remained in effect and Bradley began paying child support.”
This guy had plenty of opportunities to prove that he wasn’t the father. And it sounds like the mother really did believe he was the father, as she showed up for DNA testing when the baby was small and agreed to immediate testing after the guy finally met the child.
I kinda feel like this is the sort of case the whole statute of limitations was designed to avoid. If you can’t find time to take a DNA test within two years of a child’s birth, I don’t think the courts should have to open the doors for you when you finally get around to it 13 years later.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:38 am
I know. All those various paths even what seem to be a few “simple” statutes can take (and that’s even before case law kicks in). Maybe whoever believes SOLs are “filed” can help.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:39 am
Entrican may be in for a surprise. Sepmeyer v. Holman, 162 Ill.2d 249 (1994: “The right to set up the bar of a statute of limitations as a defense to a cause of action, after the statute has run, is a vested right, and cannot be taken away by legislation.”
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:41 am
=Reformer 10:13
I’d say 100% on the former, slim to none on the latter.=
Interesting assessment. I’d bet on that, too.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:42 am
1. Child support is paid to the custodial parent, not the child.
2. The mother had every reason to suspect that someone else could be the father, because someone else IS the father, but she apparently didn’t tell this guy.
3. Based on #3 above, I doubt the mom’s legal challenge to the statute. She has engaged in an ongoing effort to withhold information that defrauded the plaintiff. As best I know, the clock doesn’t start ticking on SOL as long as the fraud is ongoing.
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:48 am
I wish there were more facts disclosed as I can’t really judge this situation based upon what we know.
Comment by D P Gumby Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:49 am
=“The right to set up the bar of a statute of limitations as a defense to a cause of action, after the statute has run, is a vested right, and cannot be taken away by legislation.” =
So there’s potentially even a “before and after” aspect to all of this (assuming you have the right attorney)?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:49 am
=I wish there were more facts disclosed as I can’t really judge this situation based upon what we know.=
Well, that could be the red herring. It’s the statutes and the change on which people should be focused. Talk about possibly redefining marriage, specifically parentage as we know it today.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:54 am
There’s no fraud here. The mother showed up with the baby for DNA testing in 2001, and she promptly agreed to a test when he finally got around to meeting the child in 2011.
Keep in mind — you can only do DNA testing for paternity if the FATHER gives a sample. Otherwise, all you can prove is that the mother is, in fact, the mother, and that somebody else was involved in the conception. Which we assume she already knew.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:57 am
“I believe DNA only verifies/denies a specific question within a very limited context–unless it’s being compared to data in a database and I haven’t checked recently re: how extensive the databases are today and/or legalities pertaining to accessing same and/or obtaining and using DNA (especially when it’s “snagged” off of e.g., a glass in say, a restaurant v. obtained through applicable legal procedures, (”if any”)).”
It’s not CSI, no surreptitious gathering is needed. Odds are the mother has a short list of condidates, and that other fella can be ordered for testing.
Comment by Happy Returns Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:58 am
demoralized…
In answer to your question to me:
Because he didn’t bother to meet the child he thought he had fathered until 2011 and the child was born in 2001 or before. Because when he did meet the child, he wasn’t interested in spending time with him… just wanted a DNA test so he could quit payng for him.
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:02 pm
=…and that other fella can be ordered for testing. =
Is that per statute and is there an SOL on it?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:04 pm
“It’s not his child. Somebody else’s carelessness is involved here.”
The Appellate Court established the many and repeated ways in which Brad Entrican was either careless or irresponsible:
(emphasis added)
If my formatting broke this post, the Court’s opinion can be found here: http://goo.gl/HGGU5
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Many years ago, Soccermom started feeling funny in the morning and having trouble fitting into her jeans. So the always responsible Soccermom betook herself to the doctor’s office, where she had a blood test to find out whether she was expecting. The test was negative, and the doctor assured her that the test was 100 percent accurate.
So a rather disappointed Soccermom went home and returned to her normal activities, which included stripping woodwork with toxic products and drinking rather too much vodka punch at a Thanksgiving party.
Two months later, Soccermom returned to the doctor’s office to say, “Hey, I think that test was wrong.” The doctor scoffed and said it was impossible. To prove it, the doc whipped out her trusty ultrasound machine — which disclosed a very, very small future Brooklyn hipster, who had started ticking about two months previous.
This stuff is not rocket science, guys. It sounds like the mother honestly believed this guy was the father. It’s unfortunate that Brad didn’t seek out DNA testing in a timely fashion, but it’s not fraud. It’s not a scheming woman trying to take advantage of a hapless man. It’s just a messy family situation. These things happen.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:13 pm
“Is that per statute and is there an SOL on it?”
No, and don’t know.
That’s all assuming the courts would order it. Mainly was trying to address the idea that they would be searching a database of DNA profiles for the other guy.
Comment by Happy Returns Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:24 pm
HR — it seems highly unlikely that finding the biodad would require a search of DNA databases. Usually it’s more efficient to say to the mother, “Who else could it be?”
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:26 pm
=That’s all assuming the courts would order it.=
Yeah, well, as insignificant as that may seem, courts might have reservations about lining up a “bunch of suspects” to run DNA testing on them at any time whatsoever without their permission.
I’d hope that doesn’t happen alot in the US–except of course in criminal actions, where procedure is a bit more obvious.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:27 pm
And if I was the mother I wouldn’t want Enrico’s name on the birth certificate. What if the mother gets ill or dies and can’t take care of the child. By law custody would go to the Enrico.
Comment by Guzzlepot Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:30 pm
“Yeah, well, as insignificant as that may seem, courts might have reservations about lining up a “bunch of suspects” to run DNA testing on them at any time whatsoever without their permission.
I’d hope that doesn’t happen alot in the US–except of course in criminal actions, where procedure is a bit more obvious.”
It’s limited scope (to the question of paternity). It involves swabbing the cheek with a qtip (less invasive than a blood test like in the olden days), and its relatively cheap.
Comment by Happy Returns Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:36 pm
I know HOW DNA is obtained, Happy Returns. The question is WHEN the court would “order” such a procedure outside the context of criminal cases (i.e., in civil and specifically family law cases) as you were the one who brought it up.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:44 pm
If only there were a way for men to avoid becoming unsuspecting fathers…. =
A condom?
Comment by Very Old Soil Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:50 pm
If only there were a way for men to avoid becoming unsuspecting fathers….
Same sex marriage??
Comment by Very Old Soil Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:55 pm
Just to clarify, Happy Returns. I wasn’t referring to DNA testing itself when I referenced “procedure.” I was referencing criminal v. civil procedure. And, my comment re: databases and “applicable legal procedures” was also raised within the context of family law–and again, not criminal law (no matter how witty your CSI retort was).
Last I checked, being accused of fathering a child is *generally* not a crime.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:58 pm
Soccermom and MrJM did the homework for us. Apparently, Rose did not do his. Rose should butt out.
Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:09 pm
=Soccermom and MrJM did the homework for us. Apparently, Rose did not do his. Rose should butt out.=
Sorry, I must have missed the definitive answer then. Could someone restate it?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:12 pm
And as there’s probably more than one question involved, could you state it, as well?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:13 pm
Yeah. That’s what I thought.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Stop.Feeding.The.Trolls, right?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:18 pm
Sorry. There should have been a “lol” at the end of that last one.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:18 pm
Question: Should one always choose to brag about something being “bipartisan” (i.e., isn’t it time for that “selling point” to retire–at least part-time)?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:27 pm
Maybe he would qualify for govt benefits… after first taking the GOP drug test.
Comment by Equity Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:28 pm
Why do so many people assume that the father didn’t want to see his child? There are all kinds of possible reasons.
There’s no need to rush into judgment, especially when we don’t have nearly enough facts.
Comment by Stuff happens Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Perhaps this being civil, not criminal would make a difference but in criminal cases once the case has “expired” under the existing statute of limitations, no legislation can revive it. I suspect the courts will rule the same here based on the detrimental effect on the child.
Comment by girllawyer Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:55 pm
=Maybe he would qualify for govt benefits… after first taking the GOP drug test. =
lol I thought that was a “bipartisan” solution, too, but it was the Rs who for “some” reason (can’t imagine why) who wound up getting all the bad PR for it.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 2:16 pm
- Rose should butt out. -
You know, this brings up a point about Sen. Rose I find ironic. The same guy that caters the the welfare hating crowd (LINK photo ID) seems more than happy to make sure someone isn’t unfairly paying child support.
How about a law cracking down on fathers that owe child support but aren’t paying, Sen. Rose? You do know where single moms have to turn when they’re not getting child support and can’t pay the bills, right?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 2:18 pm
No winners here the Ex father has paided enough. Now it’s time for Ma to search for the real dad. I also feel bad for the child.
Comment by mokenavince Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 3:00 pm
It’s time for the legislature to get back to work. The court, or the parties, can figure this out without intervention.
No way these one-off cases should take the time of the state legislators.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 3:50 pm
anonymous @ 1:12, 1:13, 1:17, and 1:18. First of o all, for pity’s sake, come up with a nickname. Second, I went to lunch, then came back and did some work, rather than check on this post.
The “answer” was that the guy had chances to take a paternity test early on, and didn’t show up. Now, years later, the statute of limitations has run out, and he wants, (literally) an “Act of Congress” to change the rules. Tough.
And if I were the one paying child support, I would have been checking on him, just to check on the return on investment. I might even have gotten to know him and liked him….
Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 4:00 pm
Thanks for the suggestion, commissioner, but I already have one.
And, the point that I was trying to make was that the “Act of Congress” raises WAY more questions than it answers.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 4:06 pm
Good for the guy, but you’re right about the teenager–hopefully, he has a good Mother caring for him who can meet his needs withOUT the child support, or if not, that there is a concerned relative who’ll take good care of him/his needs. Otherwise, sadly, he could be looking at DCFS Foster Care and a Foster Family in the interim, if absolutely necessary, to help see him through…OR, the Legislature, once again but for a DIFferent reason, COULD pass a special Bill to financially assist the Child until the issue of meeting his living needs is definitively worked out,..!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 6:02 pm
Anonymous, what questions do you have? What do you want to know?
Comment by Happy Returns Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 6:55 pm
Typical woman, trapping some guy.
Well, I hope the guy can recover every cent he paid, and see the mother charged with a crime.
Comment by Zermigula Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 7:16 pm
And you wonder why you have to drink alone.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 7:49 pm
This happens a lot more often than you think. And it’s completely unfair to the men in this case. IMHO, the woman should face jail time, it’s fraud and misrepresentation.
Comment by and1 Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 8:03 pm
And1, are you illiterate or what? The guy didn’t contest paternity and didn’t show up for the test. How is that unfair to men?
This post has elicited some of the most uninformed comments I’ve ever read on Capfax.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 8:10 pm
“The guy didn’t contest paternity and didn’t show up for the test”
So, you are saying that a guy, who was not the father to begin with, but was accused of such, should not be able to get his money back anywhere along the line? If he was not the father, he should be repaid. How could he not be falsely accused by the gold-digger? He surely didn’t accuse himself.
Comment by Zermigula Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 8:21 pm
“And you wonder why you have to drink alone.
– MrJM”
I don’t drink. Alcohol is a destructive drug, used by losers.
Comment by Zermigula Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 8:24 pm
Whoops, I think I took the bait on another thread. I suspect Zermy is a lonely old troll.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 8:43 pm
Hey Rich, you hear that? Alcohol is only for losers LOL. I wonder how many folks are reading Zerm’s blog?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 8:55 pm
This is not at all relevant to this topic, but anyone besides me notice in the “Blogs”
section to the right the climate article with the interesting title. Good article, but the word used would get somebody banned for life if used here. (Don’t condone that word, but feel that Rich is a little too strict in his ban against profanity)
Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:40 pm
Just a question-I thought legislation intended to benefit one person, “special legislation” as it was called back in the day, was unconstitutional. Am I missing something?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:43 pm
Never mind.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:53 pm
=Anonymous, what questions do you have? What do you want to know?=
Very kind offer, Happy Returns, and thank you. However I have several questions, many of which are dependent on one another (as I’m sure you can imagine). Therefore, I think that the only way to really get them answered, would be to review the bill and the related statutes in their entirety, which is something I’m really not motivated to do. (An actual conversation might be fun and productive, too, but a blog probably isn’t an appropriate forum for the back and forth that would be desired.)
Having said that, I am mildly curious as to some of the “data” others have provided regarding the “specific case” that’s supposed to be directly related to the legislation somehow.
For example, what MrJM provided in his longest post on this thread seems to merely be a summary of the facts at the trial court level and not the Appellate Court’s finding. Also, no one seems to have mentioned the exact question or issue that was brought before the Appellate Court.
I think those two things might be more interesting that the facts of the case in the lower court and possibly even the legislation itself.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:28 pm
Sorry…that obviously should have read “more interesting THAN the facts of the case in the lower court….”
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:31 pm
Also, am I the only one who sees a “logical” flaw in making a respondent pay child support based on a refusal to submit to DNA testing? You’d imagine that some “standard of proof” would be required before someone is ordered to do so (which, of course, might exist and was met, but it wasn’t clear in this discussion).
Otherwise, what’s to prevent this from happening over and over again–even within the context of the same mother and child? And, of course, if I truly wanted to be silly: What if multiple names had been submitted and they all refused?
That could be quite a few instances of “20% of someone’s income.”
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:42 pm
Oh, hungry and anonymous troll — If you had ever filled out a birth certificate, you would know that there is only one space for a name under “Father.” There is no opportunity to opt for “all of the above.”
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:54 pm
Oh, strike that last one. Family Law has never been one of my favorites and now thinking about it, isn’t there some requirement on the petitioner’s behalf to disclose any other suits that are pending at the time (at least when it comes to custody, I think)?
(lol I can see the sad truth behind 47th’s comment re: “ignorance.”)
Still. I’d like to read the Appellate Court’s opinion.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:57 pm
I don’t even understand that response, soccermom. Doesn’t all of this go way beyond what’s on a birth certificate–and isn’t that one of the issues?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:59 pm
And I don’t appreciate your calling me a “troll,” troll.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:01 pm
Seriously. And these are supposed to be the anti-bashing “thought” patrol people?
Nice. Basics in manners would probably go alot further.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:10 pm
To those of you beating up on the non-father for not having a relationship with his non-child:
When I divorced the mother of my children, it was my intention to have a *big* relationship with my children. (and I have succeeded) But I had to argue with the judge and my lawyer. Both of them essentially said, just pay the money and get on with your life. It was as if even the judge did not understand how much I love my children, nor did he seem to care.
My point here is that with everyone telling me to pay for and ignore my children, it would have been easy to do.
Comment by DivorcedFather Friday, Apr 26, 13 @ 8:10 am
DivorcedFather, good on you for not buckling under. Obviously your kids are lucky to have an interested dad.
Comment by Happy Returns Friday, Apr 26, 13 @ 11:39 am