Should lawmakers make this a crime?

[Blakeski]

Or, you have Sancho's daughter and pay more than a child costs per month and hate the idea of knowing that there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop it, so you rather not know...

Stevo

No not really, my daughter is exactly like me in every single way possible, tall, athletic, and good looks...not to brag or anything. And yes I do hate the fact that I am spending money knowing that the ex is spending it on her stuff.

[Gtracer]

The new law effectively terminates child support payments and requires the state to pay back any support already paid at the time of the petition. It is possible, then, that those women who have been fraudulently extorting monies from those targeted by their scams, will become liable to the state for restitution of the money they have illicitly collected.

Suckers...

[FRANCISCO308]

Kill the bitches!!

[stevo]

In TX it is already settled case law. The father has to pay support even if the kids are not his.

Are you saying this in response to the post about the law passed last year?

SB785 has been referred to as the law that addresses "Paternity Fraud", where typically a man was pressured into admitting he was father of a child but without genetic testing when in fact he is not the father. Prior law barred such a man who was found (or adjudicated) to be the father from ever again challenging his paternity, or his duty to pay child support, even if the mother of the child flaunted the fact that the man was not the father of the child.

"Before this law became effective in May, 2011, a man who demonstrably was not the father of a child could not legally be excused from his obligation to pay child support for that child that, in fact, was not his child," said Ken Raggio, a Dallas attorney who testified for SB785 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of the Texas Family Law Foundation on March 8th. "Once the 'non-paternity' of the 'previous father' has been determined, the new law allows the mother to pursue the 'real' father of the child, and the law is sensitive to any relationship that the newly-adjudicated 'non-father' has with the child."

Technically, SB 785 amends the Texas Family Code Sections 154.006 and 161.005.

Senate Bill 785 was sponsored by Senator Chris Harris from Arlington, and was a bill endorsed by the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Texas and by the Texas Family Law Foundation.

The text of SB 785 is here.

The remarks of Ken Raggio to the Senate Judiciary Committee are here that explain more about the working of SB785

Senate Bill 785 recognizes that technological changes required a serious reconsideration of public policy in paternity situations.

The new law provides a limited remedy for a man whose paternity regarding a child has been previously established, but who later discovers a reason to doubt the truth of his paternity, to raise a challenge in court. A man in that situation will have one-year after he discovers the doubts as to paternity to file the challenge in the court that determined the paternity. After filing his challenge, he can request DNA testing be conducted. If the DNA test results exclude him as the father, the court must terminate his rights to the child as well as any obligation to pay child support. The law does not allow the man to challenge the payment of child support while he thought he was the father -- what's done is done, according to the new law.

Stevo

[Taylor]

What if you have documentation proving you were sterilized long before the conception of the child?

[mikec]

^^^this^^^

^^^that^^^



Absolutely it should be. Never will be though.

[onemeangixxer7502]

i can see that you would have financial responsibility for a kid that's not yours, if you adopted the kid...but if you didn't, then you shouldn't.

ie; if a guy marries a woman with a child; if they get a divorce (and he hasn't adopted the kid), then he shouldn't owe child support.

its just a way for a woman to welch some $$. They want equality then they should get it. they're from your snatch you pay for them.

[STANGGT40]

Texas is one of these states. It's intended to keep a man, who knowingly accepts paternity of a child that's not his, from welching when things go downhill.

It's a shitty situation. It's sad that these poor kids won't have ANY parents because of lies and money.

i can see that you would have financial responsibility for a kid that's not yours, if you adopted the kid...but if you didn't, then you shouldn't.

ie; if a guy marries a woman with a child; if they get a divorce (and he hasn't adopted the kid), then he shouldn't owe child support.

[onemeangixxer7502]

In TX it is already settled case law. The father has to pay support even if the kids are not his.

thats fucked up, i believe in oklahoma its the same way. What if a guy has kids and the woman acts like they're hers and leaves. I wonder if she has to pay..... who am i kidding. LOL

[svauto-erotic855]

In TX it is already settled case law. The father has to pay support even if the kids are not his.

[Forever_frost]

Good for Texas!

[stevo]

That's pretty much what I was thinking. It sure would be cool if someone tested it. It appears that there's new legislation on the civil side that betters the situation:

Good find. I wonder how it is going to work out the first time it gets ignored by the state attorney general and goes to court.

Stevo

[Saleen781]

I remember watching a documentary a couple of years ago that did a study and found that a high percentage of men are raising children that aren't theirs and don't know it. I want to say it was somewhere over 20%.

[Gear_Jammer]

It's probably covered in the fraud statutes, but no one has ever filed a case of this type.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. It sure would be cool if someone tested it. It appears that there's new legislation on the civil side that betters the situation:

September 16, 2011

Texas legislates against paternity fraud

AUSTIN, Texas (AVfM) Legislators have changed a law that prevented victims of paternity fraud from challenging child support obligations. The landmark legislation took six years and three congressional sessions to complete.

According to the old Texas law, a man is legally a father if any child is born during his marriage, regardless of whether he is or isn’t the biological father. This resulted in many men paying child support after a divorce for children that were a product of their wife’s infidelity.

No genetic test was required to establish paternity. If fact, paternity tests proving no biological connection between the legal father and the child were considered irrelevant to the issue of child support.

Under the old Texas law, he was forced to support that child financially, and had no course of action to terminate the parent-child relationship even though he was a proven victim of paternity fraud.

The new law changes all this. It allows men to use the results of a genetic test to prove they are not fathers, and to petition Texas courts to terminate the parent-child relationship and child support. Courts will now be mandated to terminate child support orders and end legal sanctions against the victims of paternity fraud.

The law includes a grace period until September of 2012 for men who were victims of paternity fraud to make their cases before the court. Men who discover they are victims of paternity fraud after September 1, 2012 will have one year from the time of discovery to petition the courts.

The new law effectively terminates child support payments and requires the state to pay back any support already paid at the time of the petition. It is possible, then, that those women who have been fraudulently extorting monies from those targeted by their scams, will become liable to the state for restitution of the money they have illicitly collected.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rig...ternity-fraud/

[Forever_frost]

Oh I'm for charging the woman who defrauds the man into paying child support on a kid who's not his with a crime and forcing her to pay it back with interest. And if you raised a kid as your own and find out it's not yours, she should be required to pay you pain and suffering as well as every dime spent