More bad legal precedents

[Navigator]

The Florida supreme court last week made a horrible precedent relating to child support.<br />For those of you who didn't hear about it here it is in a nutshell:<br />A man and women are married and have a child. The man and woman get divorced due to suspected infidelity on the womans part. The man is court ordered to pay almost 9k per year child support. Suspecting the child wasn't his, the man had DNA testing done on both him and the child and the results came back that he was definitely not the father. He files to be relieved from the child support and it goes up to the Florida Supreme Court. The court ruled this week that although he is NOT the father, he must still pay child support for the next 18 years because it would not be in the best interest of the child if he stopped.<br />How would you like to be court ordered to support an illegitimate child of an unfaithful wife????<br />People down here are getting really angry. What this precedent means now it that prior to and formal divorce, the parents must have DNA testing done on all of ther children to prove they really are theirs. Talk about making a bad thing even worse!!!<br /><br />Oh and here's another one that happened a few months ago. A man married a woman who has small children from a prior marriage. Being the great dad, he adopts the children. (Original dad is a deadbaet and never bothered to pay child support prior to the new dad adopting them) Several years later they get divorced and wife goes back and remarries her former deadbeat husband. New dad is court ordered to pay child support to xwife and old dad simply because he did the right thing and adopted the children. How's that for a kicker <br /><br />Nav

 

[SCO]

Re: More bad legal precedents

I'm lukewarm on the 1st one and against you on the 2nd. When he adopted the kids, he assumed responsibility for them though obviously there is massive injustice. A deal's a deal. The point being the injustice is better borne by the adult rather than the kids. In the 1st one though, the same applies though less clear. He has to bear the injustice so the kids dont have to. It's too bad he doesn't simply love the kids and want to stand by them. It should be criminal if the money doesn't go 100% for the kids benefit and instead to the Womans welfare. On the first one, what a problem. If your wife gets preg from another,first child, and you divorce her prior to birth, are you stuck? That one clearly doesnt seem right to me. Be careful who you marry.

 

[BassMan283]

Re: More bad legal precedents

I know three cases like this around me. Woman gets custody, man pays child support, but kids spend 60-90% of their time with the man. All 3 men prefer not to rock boat with any court action for fear of getting hosed worse the second time than they did the first or being prevented from seeing their kids. All three women accomplished broom riders.

 

[Navigator]

Re: More bad legal precedents

Its too bad that in society, it is extremely difficult for the man to get custody. In both cases, The man should have sought custody of the children. I am all for benefiting the child. No child should have to grow up in need because child support never was paid. I just think, in this case, it isn't fair. In the second case when mom went back to original dad, responsibility should have automatically shifted back to original paternal dad. <br /><br />What I am against is when the men are exploited and looked to as a source of revenue for the mother with little of it ever getting to the child. I know people who get loads of child support, but most of it goes to support Mom and her new Lexus while junior is told there isn't enough money to send him to summer camp. I guess its a sore spot with me since I work with youth groups in my spare time and I see it first hand.<br /><br />Nav

 

[plywoody]

Re: More bad legal precedents

In the first case, if he can prove who the real father is, he can go after him in court to pay him back the support. Meanwhile, the kids need to be taken care of, and he will need to continue the support.<br /><br />In the second case, one needs to be careful when one takes on specific legal responsibilities--Legal does not necessarily mean "just"

 

[Fishbusters]

Re: More bad legal precedents

Case 2 the man that adopted the kids has a legal and moral obligation to them. He agreed to be their legal father by adopting them and as such is responsible for at least half of their care and upkeep. As to case one it is wrong and the judge should have said the man did not have to pay child support and if the woman wanted any she would have to name the father unless it could be proven this was the first time the question of paternity arose and it was based solely upon the divorce.

 

[SS MAYFLOAT]

Re: More bad legal precedents

Being a survivor of the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement Agency in Ohio, I have gained a bit of experience on this subject. <br /><br />I adopted my ex's daughter when she was two. At that time I was aware about having to pay support if anything would happen to the marriage. The marriage lasted ten years. During that time we had a boy between the two of us. One night she went line dancing and didn't come back. Called at 4 am and said she wasn't coming home and wanted a diviorce and didn't want anything to just make it quick. "WOW" My Prayers were answered!<br />Two months to the day, it was final. She was ordered to pay me support for my son age 10, and my adopted daughter age 14. I didn't see any support for two and a half years. They sent her "Seek Work Orders", but it didn't get anywhere.<br /><br />When my daughter turned 16, she wanted to go live with her Mom. I didn't object at all since she was hard to handle. She didn't like house rules but, she obeyed them. Cost $800 to get all the legal stuff taken care of, and now I have to pay support, even though I have custody of my son. Cause I made more money than hers. However since she owed me so much in back support, I didn't have to pay anything except for the last two months before she turned 18.<br /><br />During the legal paper work on my daughter, the Bureau somehow lost my son! To them, he doesn't exist. My EX is in poor health and can't afford the support anyway. So this works great.<br /><br />In my county, they average out what you made in the previous year, and base the support on that. This should not be done like this. It factors in bonus, raises, and overtime. If you worked alot of overtime that year, and then the next year you barely got your 40hours, your screwed. To me the support should be based off a 40 hour work week. Let the support payer enjoy the extra money for the overtime.<br /><br />My close friend pays so much support, his ex lives off of the support and doesn't work! He lost his 40K job and now is at 32K. They won't adjust the support in relation to his current pay. He is close to loosing his property over this.<br /><br />I'm just glad my days of dealing with The Support Agency is OVER! Only grandkids from now on..

 

[miloman]

Re: More bad legal precedents

oh ya you think you guys have it so good my first wife (may a trailer hit her) had me in court for 4 years 150000 in legal fees and 7600 a month in support for HER now the kids get theirs no problem but hER she has a job makes agood income but she has to be kept in the lifestyle she is accostomed to. as per the courts. Iwas denied acces to my children they were manipulated with.<br />NOw I have had the courts remove her support The kids get a higher amount which anything above the stated amount is put into a trust fund for them. She sued for the trust fund won and took ALL the money took a trip with her new sucker and last month I find out the money I had paid for my kids teeth was taken by her for a new car.... I am lucky this time around I meet the love of my life

 

[roscoe]

Re: More bad legal precedents

Nav, you said in original post that child was illegitimate. wrong, child was born within a legal marriage. That makes him the legal father regardless of paternity. <br /><br />That is nothing new in many states.<br /><br />I suspect the only way around this one is to get a divorse while she is still pregnant.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: More bad legal precedents

dam miloman- that bites. would quitting a job and living on a boat help?

 

[miloman]

Re: More bad legal precedents

ebb it might have helped several years ago now my wife and I are starting to plan for retirement and the plan is to buy a 50 to 65 boat in the next 4 years park it in a shed spend 7 restoring it then moving to the keys I now have apartner who fully suports and enjoys the pleasure of boating and baiting a hook I often wonder where she was 12 years ago.

 

[Navigator]

Re: More bad legal precedents

Roscoe,<br />I stand corrected, you are right. The child was not illegitimate. But you would think that in this situation, there should be something He can do about her. She falsely listed him on the birth certificate as the legal father.<br /><br />Oh well, that's what the courts are trying to figure out. Kind of makes you not want to have children...or better yet...when you do get married, make it for all the right reasons and stay with it for life !!!!<br /><br />Nav