In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
What say you on this deal????
bpost
Member Posts: 32,669 ✭✭✭✭
TULSA (KFSM) - A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.
When Thomas' high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.
Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.
"It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should've expected it but I didn't and it hit me. I'm telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone," he said.
The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child's birth.
Thomas said that he had no reason to question it before he did, but, because he missed the deadline, the judge ordered him to pay around $500 a month in child support and nearly $15,000 in back support - for a child that is not his.
"I wish I was telling a lie," he said. "I wish it wasn't the truth but it is. That's what makes it so crazy. Everyone I talk to about this can't believe where the court system is coming from."
Thomas wants lawmakers to change the law. He said he believes DNA matters regardless of when a man learns he's not the father of a child.
"At this point, there's really nothing I can do to get out of the $15,000 or get out of the child support, it's done, it's the law," he said.
When Thomas' high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.
Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.
"It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should've expected it but I didn't and it hit me. I'm telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone," he said.
The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child's birth.
Thomas said that he had no reason to question it before he did, but, because he missed the deadline, the judge ordered him to pay around $500 a month in child support and nearly $15,000 in back support - for a child that is not his.
"I wish I was telling a lie," he said. "I wish it wasn't the truth but it is. That's what makes it so crazy. Everyone I talk to about this can't believe where the court system is coming from."
Thomas wants lawmakers to change the law. He said he believes DNA matters regardless of when a man learns he's not the father of a child.
"At this point, there's really nothing I can do to get out of the $15,000 or get out of the child support, it's done, it's the law," he said.
Comments
Laws like this, do indeed, need to be changed.
That's a kick to the nuts.
Literally.
I'd say, that pretty well SUCKS, and is wrong on it's face.
Laws like this, do indeed, need to be changed.
That's a kick to the nuts.
Literally.
+1
The judge ordered alimony and child support. The husband stood up in court and told the judge to go eff himself. He went to jail for a week that time. Every time he reappeared he told the judge the same thing and went back to jail.
I do not remember the eventual outcome but sometimes the law and justice are light years apart.
He lost to the tune of 75 grand. She put a lien on his home.
The ex girl friend had just divorced her hubby, which for 17 years had been supporting and loving and claiming this little girl as his daughter as told wife.
Ex hubby sued ex wife for 75g plus emotional pain and suffering, fees,etc.
He won.........
Now daughter will not have any contact with mother or father, only to her
dad that raised her.
Bad deal for every one involved except the lawyers. Especially my friend.
Early on she was getting food stamps and section 8. He got the kids every weekend but never any help with food for them.
He got behind and had to sell his .45 to stay out of jail. Gave me the ammo (I had given him a couple guns over the years).
I'd say, that pretty well SUCKS, and is wrong on it's face.
Laws like this, do indeed, need to be changed.
That's a kick to the nuts.
Literally.
Judges who decree such should be hanged by the neck until dead in a public venue.
I don't know if I explained it the way I wanted.
KC
I read somewhere a long time ago that the premise behind naming fathers is for support not necessarily for paternity. It said then; (pre DNA), it didn't matter what you could prove after the fact you would play hell to get out of it.
I don't know if I explained it the way I wanted.
KC
I know what you are saying. (And) I have heard the same thing.
It is WRONG.
I can understand the man's unhappiness with his exwife, but from that little boy's perspective, that man is his dad. I hope that can be remembered.
The Mom in this case, should go after the real Sperm volunteer.
The Non-Father, should be, by no means, on the hook financially, for this.
A few weeks later, it became obvious that the child could not be his.
He left the state.
He was on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Which he dutifully paid.
Sometimes the law sucks.
1)Was married to the child's mother when the child was born.
2)Was married to the child's mother any time during the 300 days before the child was born.
3) Married the mother after the child was born and voluntarily claimed paternity of the child with the bureau of vital statistics, on the child's birth certificate, or in a record in which he promised to support the child as his own.
4) During the first two years of the child's life, continuously lived with the child and represented to others that the child was his own.
It sounds as though the man in question fits one or more of the criteria.
This is simply another reason why any intelligent male should not trust the justice system.
Or women [B)]