Men In Texas To Be A Little Less Screwed
That's how it sounds, anyway. From KiiiTV3.com, Courtney Francisco writes (with very little clarity -- but there wasn't another story when I checked):
Men who have been paying child support for a child they believe is not theirs have 43 days to take their case to an attorney and get a court ordered paternity test.Texas lawmakers recently passed a bill helping men who have dealt with mistaken paternity.
It gives men who have known they may not be the father of a child for more than a year a window of time starting in May 2011 to end payments when he has been wrongly named the father.
That window of opportunity closes September first, and a new law will go into effect.
Attorneys say getting out of paying child support was once difficult for men after the court determined a man was the father of a child. Even with DNA evidence, attorneys say father could rarely win the argument.
However, since the new law, more than 100 cases have been heard in Jefferson County. 80 percent of those men were found not to be the child's father and no longer pay child support.
... With the May 2011 to September 2012 window, men who have known they may not be the father for more than a year can have the opportunity to do a court ordered paternity test. If they aren't the father, they can stop paying child support.
...When September comes, men will then have to go to court within one year of becoming aware of mistaken paternity.
...Oxford says the catch is, even if you aren't the father you can still end up paying for a child that's not yours if you aren't up to date on your child support.
"The theory is you were the father at the time the child support was accrued," said Oxford.
And how do they prove when a man started "believing" the child wasn't theirs?
I'll look for other stories on this in the morning. No help from the state of Texas. But, even if this story turns out to be bogus or somewhat bogus, I've posted it because it reflects the sort of thing that happens to men across the country.
via ifeminists
Why should there be a time limit at all?
Its not like the evidence just disappears.
I get the whole "welfare of the child" thing.
But you do not create a just system by arbitrarily screwing people that have been lied to.
Robert at July 26, 2012 12:52 AM
> And how do they prove when a man started
> "believing" the child wasn't theirs?
No big deal... It's the same test we give to people to excuse them from taxation for being gay.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2012 6:19 AM
Hope this works (Sorry, I don't do HTML):
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/TextSearchResults.aspx?CP=1&LegSess=82R&House=True&Senate=True&TypeB=True&TypeR=False&TypeJR=True&TypeCR=False&VerInt=True&VerHCR=True&VerEng=True&VerSCR=True&VerEnr=True&DocTypeB=True&DocTypeFN=False&DocTypeBA=False&DocTypeAM=False&Srch=simple&All=paternity&Any=&Exact=&Exclude=&Custom=
ahw at July 26, 2012 7:59 AM
OK, here's the bill's page. The landing page is the history; if you'd like to read the actual bill, go to the "text" tab and look at the "enrolled" version.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB785
ahw at July 26, 2012 8:07 AM
And when someone demands to know why the child should suffer loss of income, why doens't the man have to go on paying, ask them why they don't start paying if they think that's so important, since they are as much the father of that child as the defrauded man is.
Note that the law makes no provision for recovery fo money the mother obtained by her fraud, nor any kind of criminal penalty.
Ginkgo at July 26, 2012 1:41 PM
Note that the law makes no provision for recovery for money the mother obtained by her fraud, nor any kind of criminal penalty.
Posted by: Ginkgo at July 26, 2012 1:41 PM
________________________________
Well, not in Texas. BUT......
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/06/04/iowa-supreme-court-duped-man-may-sue-for-paternity-fraud/
Excerpt:
"Then there’s the argument that, however wrong her actions may have been, we can’t allow her to be sued because that would take money away from her and therefore the child. The obvious answer to that is that we do that nowhere else in American jurisprudence, so why would we do it with paternity fraud? If Mom runs a stop sign and hits a pedestrian, can she defend herself in court by saying 'Hey, I’m a mother; if I have to pay a judgment, it’ll take money away from my child?' What about if she sticks up a convenience store and shoots the clerk? Can she keep out of jail because going there would adversely affect her child? Is motherhood just a Get-Out-Of-All-Legal-Responsibility card? Not yet. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed."
lenona at July 26, 2012 1:58 PM
I think Iowa will soon see an influx of divorced dad :D
nico@hou at July 26, 2012 9:30 PM
Leave a comment