Ask Me Help Desk - Default paternity judgement

http://www.lawhelp.org/documents/148...ateabbrev=/WA/

How can I make sure the correct support amount is set?
A. Court Cases
A Superior Court judge sets the monthly child support that the parent owing support must pay. You must be served with papers when you are involved in a divorce, paternity, or other court case. The papers you receive tell you how to respond to the court and other party (spouse/parent/state). You must properly respond to the papers you are served with. You will receive notices of important court dates when decisions will be made about support and other issues. You must show up and be prepared to participate at trial or another court proceeding. If you do not go to court or fail to meet a deadline, the court may give the other party whatever they ask for without

Any input from you. If you do not respond to a paternity action, you could be named the father of the child. If named as the father of the child you could be expected to pay for:
• the costs of birth
• court and blood tests costs
• past and current child support
• child's medical expenses

1. Statute of Limitations
The Statute of Limitations is essentially a legal time limit. On support orders signed by a judge or set by DCS on or after July 23, 1989, the statute of limitations allows DCS ten years from the date the youngest child named in the order turns eighteen to collect unpaid child support. Any back support not collected by the time the child reaches eighteen will not be collected.

Ok things get screwed up, I got my check garnished for child support last year, someone with a similar name in another state owed support, they got it for 3 weeks before I was able to stop it.

What do you do. First forget about complaining, forget about saying it ain't fair. ( courts don't care) forget about wanting to sue someone.

1. you hire an attorney
2. you file a motion to have the child support motion vacated pending a DNA testing.
3. you file in court demanding a DNA test.

*** then you will be proved either to be or not be the father.

Assuming you are found not to be the father, you can sue for a return of your money, In may case, since there was a incorrect Social security number, my employer had to pay my money back But your attorney will know who to sue for the money back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Ok things get screwed up, I got my check garnished for child support last year, someone with a simular name in another state owed support, they got it for 3 weeks before I was able to stop it.

What do you do. First forget about complaining, forget about saying it ain't fair. ( courts don't care) forget about wanting to sue someone.

1. you hire an attorney
2. you file a motion to have the child support motion vacated pending a DNA testing.
3. you file in court demanding a DNA test.

*** then you will be proved either to be or not be the father.

Assuming you are found not to be the father, you can sue for a return of your money, In may case, since there was a incorrect Social security number, my employer had to pay my money back But your attorney will know who to sue for the money back.

It was done...
1. I filled up a motion to have CS vacated pending race difference
2. The judge relieved me of my future support obligation
3. The judge declined to vacate the past obligation

My attorney said that I CAN'T sue CSA and the mother for a return of my money.My only odds are to find the natural father:confused:
I wish I was born in another country.

It was on Friday.

I can see not suing CSA or having the court vacate the past obligation. But I don't understand not suing the mother. Even if you can't sue her, can you try getting her prosecuted for fraud and perjury? Maybe she'll pay you back to avoid going to jail. Given the circumstances she can't claim she thought you were the father.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!

ScottGem-you are right... but if you do not live in the USA. Really-I cannot see justice in American Courts.Here is an example;"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent ...” writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.
“We recognize that /Mr.Parker/ in this case may feel victimized,” he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: “While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present.”
Judges generally view the man as nothing more than a “walking checkbook,”The Florida legislature tried to balance the law to avoid forcing children onto welfare rolls, says Tom Sasser, chairman of the family-law section of the Florida Bar. It rejected a proposal to allow ex-husbands to recover prior child-support payments. It also rejected a proposal to allow triple damages against deceptive mothers. Instead, the law allows ex-husbands to be released from future payments.
Default
Federal law also requires, as a condition of receiving Federal funds, that State law provide for the entry of a default order in a paternity case. In addition, the State can allow any additional showing(s) required by State law. Entry of such a default order is considered a binding legal determination of paternity, and may serve as the basis for a support order.

Prohibition against Jury Trials
Historically, State law determined whether a defendant in a paternity case had a right to a jury trial. However, PRWORA required States, as a condition of receiving Federal funds, to preclude jury trials in contested paternity matters.
Some defendants denied jury trials have attempted to argue their right to a jury trial on constitutional grounds. Generally, courts have found that there is no right to a jury in a paternity trial.
Because American judges have feminist overlords in 44 states it is prohibited to sue mothers for wrong paternity claims.So called PUBLIC POLICY prohibits any reimbursement because the money was used for the children not for their deceitful mothers...No one in the USA is against the children,O.K.???
I read in another forum one feminist post,"Men,if you are duped-you are duped!If you are not duped-you are not duped!Either way you HAVE TO PAY!"
Proud to be American!

A lot of states have law which prohibits reimbursemsnt for victims of fraud... for example: in Alabama §26-17a-1 FC Allows action to disestablish paternity to be brought at any time upon presentation of scientific evidence by legal father that he is not the biological father. Not applicable in cases of adoption. Section 26-17a-2 prohibits claims for damages, recoupment or reimbursement against court, mother or state.
Tennessee is currently considering a law that would allow for the disestablishment of parentage.The new paternity law would not allow reimbursement for child support that has already been paid and would only apply to future child support payments

Sad. I am all for protecting the child and making it hard for the non custodial parent to get out of supporting the child, especially when public funds have to be used. But it should not go so far as to allow such a gross miscarriage of justice.

I'm wondering if it's possible to sue the mother who committed fraud for defamation of character, or something along those lines.

If you're not suing SPECIFICALLY for refund of child support funds, can you still sue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

I'm wondering if it's possible to sue the mother who committed fraud for defamation of character, or something along those lines.

If you're not suing SPECIFICALLY for refund of child support funds, can you still sue?

What kind of fraud do you mean?

Saying that someone is a father when you KNOW they are not to get money from them is fraud, if you ask me.

Granted, the law is there to protect the kids, but really... do you really want a liar and a cheat bringing up children?

It is not about who is the liar-it is LAW!!

What we're saying is that while it's the LAW, it's not JUSTICE.

There's a HUGE difference between the two.

If she were a welfare mama she may have been just giving them a name to satisfy them, or not to look bad. Sounds like she just pulled your name from thin air. I would def. be giving them a call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushg

If she were a welfare mama she may have been just giving them a name to satisfy them, or not to look bad. Sounds like she just pulled your name from thin air. I would def. be giving them a call.

And what?Do you think a call will solve the problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GV70

And what?Do you think a call will solve the problem?

No but If she did this to intentionally defraud them . I think she has questions that she should have to answer. Why should she just get to walk. A innocent man has been paying welfare back for a child that is not his. Let her pay it back. Let welfare pay him back what they took from him, that was never theirs to begin with. I would at least try. If one person did not listen I would go up the chain of authority until I ran out of options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushg

No but If she did this to intentionally defraud them . I think she has questions that she should have to answer. Why should she just get to walk. A innocent man has been paying welfare back for a child that is not his. Let her pay it back. Let welfare pay him back what they took from him, that was never theirs to begin with. I would at least try. If one person did not listen I would go up the chain of authority until I ran out of options.

Hi,Geri! bushg-It means Bush,George W.;) and his administration do not think in this way.It is FORBIDDEN to welfare and the mother to recoup/compemsate ,reimburse... /this man because it is not a case as Fr.Chuck's-wrong SN... Legaly there is nothing able to be done because that is the LAW and PUBLIC POLICY of the USA.Policy of "blaming victims";)

I will remain as a legal father without child support obligation.Now I am trying to reduse this past obligation.