[Synnen]

Right... you didn't seek support from the father--you GOT support from the state for medical expenses. The STATE then sought child support from the father at that time to cover the medical expenses the state had paid. Because support was ordered at that time, it accrued as "back support" because it was ordered THEN, not when you went for aid when the child was older.

[this8384]

Thank you!! I knew I was right. It happened to ME for Pete's sake!! I got (well, got ORDERED to get...)money from actually BEFORE my son was born (for medical I got from the State) and support from his date of birth onwards. This after almost 13 years. Of course I don't get the money for the medical, he has to pay it to the State....but he has to pay for it regardless. His income taxes are currently being garnished because he owes so much back support and current support and he doesn't pay regularly.

Oh and if he's the father, he'll have to pay the courts back for the paternity test as well. The cost varies, but it's going to run around at least a few hundred dollars.

ScottGem, you should remove your comment, that's not fair. Or apologize at least!! You are incorrect in your post, ALL parties typically must submit samples for genetic testing for absolute accuracy. It's a standard that the mother submits as well as the alleged father.

Yes, his comment is fair. You're talking about your state and your situation; you have no idea where the OP is from. That would be like me saying the mother can collect 17% of the father's income because it's one child and then backing up my statement with "That's how MY state works, so nothing I said was wrong."

Scott has let a lot of your bad answers slide without giving you a reddie in the past; how childish of you to "demand" that he remove the one he gave you now or apologize for it.

[GV70]

Yes, his comment is fair. You're talking about your state and your situation; you have no idea where the OP is from. That would be like me saying the mother can collect 17% of the father's income because it's one child and then backing up my statement with "That's how MY state works, so nothing I said was wrong."

Scott has let a lot of your bad answers slide without giving you a reddie in the past; how childish of you to "demand" that he remove the one he gave you now or apologize for it.

Hello this!
Scott is 50% right and 50% wrong.It has always been wrong to give a straight answer without knowing the state legislation.That was the reason for me to suggest everyone to write his/her state.
I can give you examples about 20 states that child support is owed retroactive till child's birth.

[this8384]

Hello this!
Scott is 50% right and 50% wrong.It has always been wrong to give a straight answer without knowing the state legislation.That was the reason for me to suggest everyone to write his/her state.
I can give you examples about 20 states that child support is owed retroactive till child's birth.

Exactly what you said - we can't give a straight answer without knowing where the OP is from.

And just so everyone's aware, there is a reason that passmeby has a troll avatar. She consistently argues, whines and pouts that people "aren't being fair" or "are being mean" rather than stop giving bad legal advice to numerous people.

She also is allegedly married to a corrections officer:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/crimin...ml#post1926868
But was going to purchase a shirt for her toddler that reads "[Expletive] the police" on it:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/crimin...ml#post2071520

Real classy...

[ScottGem]

I do believe that it is quite typical for the State to go after the father for State-paid medical expenses and possibly other things such as Food Stamps and so on, regardless of how long ago those things were acquired, and regardless of when in the childs life the mother seeks support.

I do believe the same thing. I just don't believe that a court would normally award support prior to it being asked for. In many child support cases it's the state driving the request for support because an indigent custodial parent has been living off the taxpayer and the state wants the money back.

I also have an issue with what GV70 posted. I'd have to go read the entire statute. Just the parts posted aren't enough. For example in the TN statute, it just refers to time limit, it doesn't specify which way the limit goes. In the Ky cite, I'm assuming it was a typo since most NCPs would love to pay ONLY "till" birth. ;)

[passmeby]

When giving a general answer (not state-specific and rather broad), I think it would be fair to say that it's entirely possible to have to pay (retroactive) child support from birth. It's basically the "worst-case" scenario for the deadbeat parent, and best-case scenario for the child... certainly something to either fear or to hope for, depending... When it comes to legal issues, I think it's absolutely, positively IMPERATIVE to know the best and worst-case scenarios as it would help one to prepare, to know what might be in store and to know how serious the matter could be. When it's YOUR butt on the line, how common or uncommon a ruling is doesn't really matter, all that matters is that the possibility is there!

[ScottGem]

When it comes to legal issues, I think it's absolutely, positively IMPERATIVE to know the best and worst-case scenarios

While I agree with that, I also agree that the risk of both the best and worst case should be listed. Also, in your original response you did not give best and worst, You made a blanket statement, that the father would be responsible for support from birth.

Now stop trying to support a losing argument. That's what keeps getting you into trouble here.

[JudyKayTee]

This will only result in more defending bad/incorrect answers BUT in many States the mother has no choice in whether the State will pursue the father in the event State benefits were ever extended/awarded. I am aware of cases where the State has taken as long as 12 years and then recovered State-paid medical birth expenses.

In NY child support begins when the mother files BUT I was in Court recently when the Court rejected that concept and awarded child support as of the hearing date. The mother, of course, is appealing but I must say I was pretty stunned that the Judge went against State Law.