 |
To califdadof3
I suppose you are in California.There is a 2 year statute of limitation for paternity questions in Cali.Let's immagine that there is a 3 yo child in question.You are his/her father but you have DNA test from A CERTIFIED LAB.Do you think that this DNA test is admissible?Or the court will use "Paternity by estoppel"
Sorry but the tests done by a certified labs are not admissible if they are not Court orderedQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Confussed already got answers from his attorney. He is looking for other alternatives. That is what I gave him. Other alternatives another than what his attorney already gave him.
Prisons are full of people who admitted guilt but are not guilty.
Only confused knows the real answer why he did what he did? He is obviously looking for a way out of his mistake. There might be one.
Confussed, will you please let me know if I am anwering your question?
Sometimes we have a question but we don't know what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana2007
Wait a minute here - you suggested that he change the law; you suggested that he check into penalties for women who make false accusations of paternity. I don't think either one of those is a viable option, although you apparently did get the opportunity to do some venting.
I wasn't aware that prisons are full of people who admitted guilt but are not guilty - would be interested in where you get your info (both the who and the why). I don't do a lot of Defendant work but I do some so I would be interested.
Several other people DID answer his question, right on point.
Dana 2007-in my view there is a difference between "I went to a Lawyer last week and he advised me that we can go to court and more than likely the judge will deny the DNA test." and "I went to a Lawyer last week and he advised me that we can go to court but the judge will deny the DNA test.".
When I asked him for more information I meant I have all state codes,and all court decisions about paternity disestablishment,also I have several friends who are judges in different states courts and I can ask them for advice.But I suppose you are not able to understand the whole of paternity legislation and court practice.
Your suggestion linking to GlennSacks.com does not have any legal merits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GV70
You don't get your legal advice from a radio commentator?
Shame on you. When a self-proclaimed authority begins to quote Jodie Foster movies as a source I tend not to listen. Also feel the same way about men, radio announcers or otherwise, who tell ME how I, as a female, "feel" about issues.
Anyway... I do think there should be some way to avoid the "you gave me a red mark, now I'm giving you a red mark" thinking. Seems to happen a lot with "new people" (like I'm not a new person!)
Sigh...
I wasn't worried about those things because we were married at the time of my children so it wasn't a concern. And as far as what I posted for a link that was to show an example of why it might cost more then the $200 that seemed to be quoting on other posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by GV70
As far as the law goes its clear that a lot of judges only use law as an example and not as a rule. That being said.. if you have honest evidence then it may be considered for an adjustment by the courts. The adjustment being that a new DNA test might be ordered and a possible search for the rightful father. That in no way would relinquish the current obligation as it stands. Knowing the true father has many attatchments including of succession and of medical history. I can't predict what courts will do or say even on a slam dunk train of thought but I would hope there is some way to straighten out messes that we have created.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Would you like to give us some examples where the judges do not use the law as a rule:confused:
No matter which side of a paternity issue you are on, you should know the basics of California paternity laws. Alleged fathers have a limited amount of time in which to act. Once the child turns two years old, the person assumed to be the father can no longer challenge paternity.
You did not answer... if the child in question is three years of age and has presumed father,will the judge order paternity tests or will not... if a paternity test was made would the result be admissible in Court?
What about if there is no another man who claims to be a biological father,how it can help to search for the rightful father?
Wow- I am ashamed of me because I do not consider neither Glenn Sacks nor Jodie Fosters as my legal standard.Sorry!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Judy,some people here cannot understand that it is a law board.The legal grounds are cold,not emotional... It is not same to answer a question like,"How to feed my cat with fish and what I have to use-a golden fork or a silver spoon ..."and" What are my legal rights..."Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
I suggested theOP to take a $99 test and if he is proven to be the father-there is no need to go to court. Is $99 a big sum:confused: maybe NOT!But it can resolve the problem.
I can't seem to find the 2 year limitation on paternity but I did find the form for changing it. It doesn't speak of a time limit based upon new facts or evidence. Form is FL-280.Quote:
Originally Posted by GV70
California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Parentage: How to Set Aside (Cancel) a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity: Bring a Court Action to Set Aside (Cancel) a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity
So it looks as if there may be a loop hole for a person that has signed the parentage form but never had a DNA test preformed. Im not a lawyer but it looks like that one may be it.
As far as using the law as an example and not a rule. I have appeared in a courtroom and have addressed a judge about blatent purjury by my ex. When I did prove it to its fullest extent the judge had done nothing about it. I proved beyond a shadow of any kind of doubt what she had done and why. I was forced to make over payments in child support for 6 months due to a dragging family court system. The end total was over $2600 in over payments. The judge didn't credit me a penny which isn't what the law says should happen. The judge never charged nor warned her in any way about purjury or contempt. Instead the judge allowed her to profit from her purjury and just keep the money and make an adjustment to be later carried out by the child support division as to what the child support was supposed to be. Her other purjury was to get a TRO against me during a custody evaluation ( again proven totally false and created by her and her lawyer ). If the judge had used the rule of law in those 2 incidents then the judge at a minimum would have applied the overages correctly and at least warned her about any further purjury not being tolerated. I hope that clears it up as far as my saying by example and not rule of law. To me the " rule " is meant to be applied equally but in my case I don't believe it had been that way.
A judge does not have to do anything about perjury. That is up to the prosecutor since it's a criminal offense. So a prosecutor has to decide whether to charge and prosecute someone for perjury. So that is NOT an example of a judge using the law as an example and not a rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODEQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
SECTION 7540-7541
7541.(b) The notice of motion for blood tests under this section may be
Filed not later than two years from the child's date of birth by the
Husband, or for the purposes of establishing paternity by the
Presumed father or the child through or by the child's guardian ad
Litem. As used in this subdivision, "presumed father" has the
Meaning given in Sections 7611 and 7612.
SECTION 7610-7614
7611. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he
Meets the conditions provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
7540) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 7570) of Part 2 or in any
Of the following subdivisions:
(a) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to
Each other and the child is born during the marriage, or within 300
Days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment,
Declaration of invalidity, or divorce, or after a judgment of
Separation is entered by a court.
(b) Before the child's birth, he and the child's natural mother
Have attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in
Apparent compliance with law, although the attempted marriage is or
Could be declared invalid, and either of the following is true:
(1) If the attempted marriage could be declared invalid only by a
Court, the child is born during the attempted marriage, or within 300
Days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of
Invalidity, or divorce.
(2) If the attempted marriage is invalid without a court order,
The child is born within 300 days after the termination of
Cohabitation.
(c) After the child's birth, he and the child's natural mother
Have married, or attempted to marry, each other by a marriage
Solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted
Marriage is or could be declared invalid, and either of the following
Is true:
(1) With his consent, he is named as the child's father on the
Child's birth certificate.
(2) He is obligated to support the child under a written voluntary
Promise or by court order.
(d) He receives the child into his home and openly holds out the
Child as his natural child.
That's the rule-no one can modificate retroactive CS.If you want you can go to Small sums court.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Please,have a look at Scott's answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
If the facts are as you say (and I have absolutely no reason to doubt you, none at all) then you need to go back with either an Attorney or another Attorney and argue the unfairness of the original decision. There was a Court steno there; pay for a transcript and use that in Court. If the law was not followed, appeal!
And the TRO - well, that's dangerous ground because it's just very, very difficult proving a lie, convincing anyone that there is not one shred of truth or legitimate concern about it. I'm not saying the Court didn't beat you up but I am saying you were in a tough spot.
It seems courts are different throughout the land. In Calif at that time I was in a " family " court. A prosecutor deals in criminal court. If perjury is found in a family courtroom its up to the judge to inform the prosecutor / DA's office that an offence has occurred otherwise you could lie all day long without threat of any kind. There was in place a 3 separate court formula criminal, civil, family. Its my understanding the judge had the power to make recommendations just as if there were criminal intent discovered in a court case. Some states only have 2 court systems like civil and criminal. I believe it was within his powers during discovery that something even a warning should have been issued.
That's what I said. Perjury is a criminal offense and such a charge has to be prosecuted in criminal court.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Do you have any cite that says a Family Court judge MUST refer perjury to a prosecutor? Yes a judge has the power to refer charges, but I doubt if they are required, by law, to do so. Why didn't you press charges? The threat of prosecution for perjury always exists. But the enforcement iof that threat varies.
I think it would be worth it for you to go and have a DNA test done. Your lawyer handles all that for you. At least if you find out it's not your kid you will have a piece of mind. And I agree that all States should have DNA tests done on every kid that is born, it is no fair that a guy has to pay for someone else's child support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
In my area there still are 2 courts - civil (everything that is not criminal) and criminal - technically family court is a civil court.
Are you saying there was lying during trial or discovery?
While certainly not a recommended course of action lying during DISCOVERY (and for that matter TRIAL) is not unusual and unless it's way over the top usually nothing is done. It would appear that there were lies in order to get a TRO - but then you are back to proving that there was absolutely no basis in fact or basis for belief - and that's a hard one. Often your only hope is that someone filed a false Police Report - because the Police don't like that.
And civil Court - my own experience - I often get subpoenaed to testify at trial. The witness has never, ever, cross his/her heart seen me/met me/talked to me. And then I come in, notes and photos (and sometimes they are actually in the photos) in hand and, whoops, they suddenly remember! And absolutely nothing happens to them.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:34 PM. |