[jariel]

A DNA test proving he wasn't the kid's father wasn't enough...

Quote:

He says he's not the father and he's got proof. A South Side man is back in court Thursday morning trying to convince the state to leave him alone. He's been in and out of courts for 21 years.

Even the mother of the child says the baby's not his. CBS2′s Dorothy Tucker takes a look at why the state won't listen.

"This is not my kid," said Sean Harbin — and he has the paternity tests to prove he's not the biological father.

"I've had suicidal thoughts, really, about this ordeal, because it's like every time I try to get on track this comes up," Harbin said.

He got off track in 1991, when he was ordered to pay $70 a week for a child he initially thought he might have fathered. But when he began to have doubts, he stopped paying. Then the state garnished his wages and kept his income tax refund check — taking more than $3,000.

That's when Sean started fighting the custody case and in 2001, he was "excluded from paternity."

"I thought it was over. I just knew it was over," Harbin said.

But it was far from over. The state kept sending Harbin bills and he kept going to court, filing motion after motion, trying to tell the courts he wasn't the father. He represented himself because he couldn't afford an attorney.

"Sean's biggest mistake was not knowing what petition to ask for," said an unidentified caseworker from Division of Child Support Services.

"When the genetic test came back, all he had was the results. He never had the order to end the support or vacate the order," the caseworker said.

In 2006, court papers show that the mother of the child even came to court and admitted that Harbin wasn't the father, so the state forgave some $40,000 in back payments.

But Harbin still needed to file the correct papers to dismiss the case and he said he found little direction from the courts.

"I'm trying to figure out what do I have to say to them, 'what motion?'" Harbin said.

In 2009, the state suspended Harbin's driver's license. He found that out two months ago.

After CBS 2 made some phone calls, representatives from Child Support Services and the Cook County State's Attorney's office said they'll look into the Harbin's case and take appropriate action.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/chicago/man-...52562.html

[Pete]

It's unbelievable. I think DNA testing should be mandatory at child birth. There's no need for someone to raise a kid that's not his, unless he doesn't care.

I also think that when people find out this when the kid has like 15. Mothers should be obligated to pay back all the money with an inflation adjustment and a generous interest rate. One of my friends received like $1000 on child support when he was a kid. He only saw about $50. His mother kept the rest and didn't even work. Hell, she didn't even gave him money to buy university textbooks. I think that instead of money, they should make the father pay for things like school, clothes, food, etc. 'Cause money is too easy for the child to receive nothing.

However, I also think that fathers who don't pay child support should have all their money and properties seized, if they don't have any they should be put to work on manual labor. My father owes me $50,000+ on child support and I doubt me or my mother will ever see a cent of that.

[ersatz]

Child support is Mother Support part 2. Part 1 is Alimony. A lot more men would be into paying child support if it wasn't mother support. The state is into child support because they get to tax 2% of it. Finding out a kid is not yours at 15, and making the mother pay it back with interest will be screwed up royally by the court system. Even the mother said the child is not his in this case, but due to fuck ups, it kept going 10 years later! Even if the woman just paid the man back as soon as she got the money, she would probably be told by the court eventually to pay back the money that she gave back, and according to bureaucratic policy section 39 subchapter B paragraph 3982, because she didn't file her refund in nantucket personally, she'd be liable for all of it. Adding accounting, especially decades of possible accounting to any legal procedure just makes it a nightmare for everyone.

A policy that would make more sense is that any man can demand a DNA paternity test by law, any time, forcibly if necessary (like social workers can take away your child kind of forcibly), and if the DNA test is negative, after a couple of double checks, he is completely free of child support from that moment on. Men who decide not to take advantage of this law do so at their own peril. Far more cleaner bureaucratically.

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/288...rt-reform/

[Pete]

(09-17-2011 12:37 AM)ersatz Wrote:  

Child support is Mother Support part 2. Part 1 is Alimony. A lot more men would be into paying child support if it wasn't mother support. The state is into child support because they get to tax 2% of it. Finding out a kid is not yours at 15, and making the mother pay it back with interest will be screwed up royally by the court system. Even the mother said the child is not his in this case, but due to fuck ups, it kept going 10 years later! Even if the woman just paid the man back as soon as she got the money, she would probably be told by the court eventually to pay back the money that she gave back, and according to bureaucratic policy section 39 subchapter B paragraph 3982, because she didn't file her refund in nantucket personally, she'd be liable for all of it. Adding accounting, especially decades of possible accounting to any legal procedure just makes it a nightmare for everyone.

A policy that would make more sense is that any man can demand a DNA paternity test by law, any time, forcibly if necessary (like social workers can take away your child kind of forcibly), and if the DNA test is negative, after a couple of double checks, he is completely free of child support from that moment on. Men who decide not to take advantage of this law do so at their own peril. Far more cleaner bureaucratically.

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/288...rt-reform/

I don't think it would be that hard to make some calculations. How many months did he pay child support? How much? multiply that, then multiply the result by inflation for every year or for the period of time. Then on top of that the interest which could be 4%. And then maybe she can pay it monthly or all at once. But it is fair.

If none of this happens women will continue to do it. They can get a few years of child support or support from a beta who hasn't been as smart as to ask for a dna test as soon as the kid was born. Then when he discovers it he's out of money, youth, etc. There's no consequences for women? they can get away with anything?

[MiXX]

Yup! Even murdering their kid.

See: Casey Anthony on Wiki

Mixx

[oldnemesis]

(09-15-2011 08:24 PM)jariel Wrote:  

But Harbin still needed to file the correct papers to dismiss the case and he said he found little direction from the courts.
"I'm trying to figure out what do I have to say to them, 'what motion?'" Harbin said.

That's a pretty typical example of what I said multiple times before - a lot of Americans have absolutely no idea how the justice system in this country works. Then they come complaining about how "unfair" the justice system is and how they got "raped" by it. Lame.

[oldnemesis]

(09-16-2011 08:32 AM)Pete Wrote:  

It's unbelievable. I think DNA testing should be mandatory at child birth. There's no need for someone to raise a kid that's not his, unless he doesn't care.

Why should it be mandatory? If you want to run the DNA test, you can do it right now. Other people may not want it, why force them?

Quote:

I also think that when people find out this when the kid has like 15. Mothers should be obligated to pay back all the money with an inflation adjustment and a generous interest rate.

The beneficiary of child support money is the child, not the mother. And it is the state which makes and enforces the child support rules.

Quote:

One of my friends received like $1000 on child support when he was a kid. He only saw about $50. His mother kept the rest and didn't even work.

I assume he did have a room, right? He had the electricity, water, heat, TV. Was he provided food? Clothing? Medicine, maybe even some entertainment? Did those things came off the sky, or he expected to have them for free?

Sorry but your friend sounds like some ungrateful bitch thinking child support money was his allowance to buy weed and booze, and he expected to be provided everything else for free.

[Pete]

(09-17-2011 05:51 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-16-2011 08:32 AM)Pete Wrote:  

It's unbelievable. I think DNA testing should be mandatory at child birth. There's no need for someone to raise a kid that's not his, unless he doesn't care.

Why should it be mandatory? If you want to run the DNA test, you can do it right now. Other people may not want it, why force them?

Quote:

I also think that when people find out this when the kid has like 15. Mothers should be obligated to pay back all the money with an inflation adjustment and a generous interest rate.

The beneficiary of child support money is the child, not the mother. And it is the state which makes and enforces the child support rules.

Quote:

One of my friends received like $1000 on child support when he was a kid. He only saw about $50. His mother kept the rest and didn't even work.

I assume he did have a room, right? He had the electricity, water, heat, TV. Was he provided food? Clothing? Medicine, maybe even some entertainment? Did those things came off the sky, or he expected to have them for free?

Sorry but your friend sounds like some ungrateful bitch thinking child support money was his allowance to buy weed and booze, and he expected to be provided everything else for free.

1. Most men don't want it 'cause they don't know the real world, or think they can trust their women.
2. Come on! Let's be real, we know that the many, if not a majority, of the mothers use child support for things other than supporting their child. I've even heard of women moving from states because if they move to a certain state before having a divorce they could still get child support until the son finishes college.
3. Yes, he had a room. From a house his father owned and had to give up in the divorce. He had health insurance that his father paid monthly. He also studied on a private school paid by (guess who?) his father. I've seen his father giving him money for many things. My friend who you say sounds like an ungrateful bitch, works his ass off, he paid his own way through college, he worked at a gas station to pay his clothes and the things he needed to go to uni. He doesn't drink. He hasn't gotten anything for free, he has worked for everything he has. I've seen him saving money for a few years to buy a $3,000 car. You need to see the world for what it is. Things aren't always how they are supposed to be.

[oldnemesis]

(09-18-2011 03:30 PM)Pete Wrote:  

1. Most men don't want it 'cause they don't know the real world, or think they can trust their women.

I have a problem with this statement. Think of it, you're basically saying that you're much smarter than most men, as they don't know the real world. You also know that they should not trust their women. I suggest you better get off your high horse.

Not to mention this is kinda socialistic - to force everyone to do something just because you think it is worthy. You're likely to be labeled a "socialist liberal" who wants to have a "nanny government".

And of course an important question would be who's gonna pay for it? Sure, it is not that expensive ($1,000 or so), but I guess for a lot of people it is significant amount of money. And some people are poor and cannot afford it at all. So are you ok with paying more in YOUR taxes so everyone would get free DNA tests?

Quote:

2. Come on! Let's be real, we know that the many, if not a majority, of the mothers use child support for things other than supporting their child. I've even heard of women moving from states because if they move to a certain state before having a divorce they could still get child support until the son finishes college.

Who are those "we" who knows? I certainly did not know anything about that, unless of course you're trying to say that paying rent, utilities and buying food has nothing to do with supporting the child. You're making a bold claim, and so far you didn't provide anything to back it up.

I heard of a lot of weird things too, those including Bush doing 9/11 and Noah Ark, and I don't believe in those either.

Quote:

3. Yes, he had a room. From a house his father owned and had to give up in the divorce.

If the father owned the house, this would mean he purchased it before the marriage (as everything purchased during the marriage is shared property), and then the house cannot be "given up". Sounds like typical "was-raped-by-unfair-family-courts" bullshit.

Quote:

He had health insurance that his father paid monthly. He also studied on a private school paid by (guess who?) his father. I've seen his father giving him money for many things.

So what the complain was about? Apparently he had everything he needed to live a comfortable life when he was a kid, and this is what child support is about. What child support is NOT about is his allowance money, so those $50 of it he actually received is not something he even should to.

[MikeCF]

(09-16-2011 08:32 AM)Pete Wrote:  

It's unbelievable. I think DNA testing should be mandatory at child birth. There's no need for someone to raise a kid that's not his, unless he doesn't care.

Should we require people to wear seat belts and helmets, too?

If a man is too beta to demand a DNA test, why should the law protect him?

[Pete]

(09-18-2011 04:49 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-18-2011 03:30 PM)Pete Wrote:  

1. Most men don't want it 'cause they don't know the real world, or think they can trust their women.

I have a problem with this statement. Think of it, you're basically saying that you're much smarter than most men, as they don't know the real world. You also know that they should not trust their women. I suggest you better get off your high horse.

Not to mention this is kinda socialistic - to force everyone to do something just because you think it is worthy. You're likely to be labeled a "socialist liberal" who wants to have a "nanny government".

And of course an important question would be who's gonna pay for it? Sure, it is not that expensive ($1,000 or so), but I guess for a lot of people it is significant amount of money. And some people are poor and cannot afford it at all. So are you ok with paying more in YOUR taxes so everyone would get free DNA tests?

Quote:

2. Come on! Let's be real, we know that the many, if not a majority, of the mothers use child support for things other than supporting their child. I've even heard of women moving from states because if they move to a certain state before having a divorce they could still get child support until the son finishes college.

Who are those "we" who knows? I certainly did not know anything about that, unless of course you're trying to say that paying rent, utilities and buying food has nothing to do with supporting the child. You're making a bold claim, and so far you didn't provide anything to back it up.

I heard of a lot of weird things too, those including Bush doing 9/11 and Noah Ark, and I don't believe in those either.

Quote:

3. Yes, he had a room. From a house his father owned and had to give up in the divorce.

If the father owned the house, this would mean he purchased it before the marriage (as everything purchased during the marriage is shared property), and then the house cannot be "given up". Sounds like typical "was-raped-by-unfair-family-courts" bullshit.

Quote:

He had health insurance that his father paid monthly. He also studied on a private school paid by (guess who?) his father. I've seen his father giving him money for many things.

So what the complain was about? Apparently he had everything he needed to live a comfortable life when he was a kid, and this is what child support is about. What child support is NOT about is his allowance money, so those $50 of it he actually received is not something he even should to.

1. That's your interpretation of my opinion. That's ok. But don't put words "in my mouth". I never said, or better said, wrote that. Please show me where I wrote "I'm much smarter than most men" word by word. We're all ignorant to many things in the world. Not to the same extent, and not on the same subjects. That's reality. That doesn't mean you're smarter than me, or vice versa. For every guy that knows how women work, there are many many more who don't.

About the money issue of the test. If you don't have the financial resources to bring a kid into this world, then don't bring it. If they don't have $1,000 for the test. They probably don't have the $300,000+ that takes to raise a child until 18 years of age.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2010.pdf

(09-18-2011 05:23 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(09-16-2011 08:32 AM)Pete Wrote:  

It's unbelievable. I think DNA testing should be mandatory at child birth. There's no need for someone to raise a kid that's not his, unless he doesn't care.

Should we require people to wear seat belts and helmets, too?

If a man is too beta to demand a DNA test, why should the law protect him?

When you put the point like that I understand your opinion better. Now that I read it like this, I think I agree with you.


However, if I get caught by police not wearing a seatbelt I'll probably get a traffic ticket, so essentially everyone is being "required" to wear them or pay. The same with helmets on motorcycles (at least where I live).

[MikeCF]

Also what's missing: If the guy had paid a lawyer $5,000 to draw up the right paperwork, he'd have been fine.

Instead, like so many other men, he handled his case pro se. You can't even help guys like that, since they are know-it-alls.

Family law is extremely complex. Otherwise, how would the cartel of family lawyers make their profit?

Yet you can either pay a lawyer a lot now, or you can pay someone else even more in the future.

There is no cheap or easy way out of family court hell. "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."

[oldnemesis]

(09-18-2011 06:52 PM)Pete Wrote:  

1. That's your interpretation of my opinion. That's ok. But don't put words "in my mouth". I never said, or better said, wrote that. Please show me where I wrote "I'm much smarter than most men" word by word.

If I misinterpreted your words, I apologize for this. But so far it looks quite clear to me. You said "Most men don't want it 'cause they don't know the real world or think they can trust their women" when I asked why you think DNA testing should be mandatory. So your rationale is obvious here - you think most men know real world less than you, and they know their women worse than you do. This is how you explained why they need a guidance from you in form of the law - because they do not have enough experience to make the right decision themselves, and they need someone smarter than them to make a decision for them.

Quote:

About the money issue of the test. If you don't have the financial resources to bring a kid into this world, then don't bring it. If they don't have $1,000 for the test.

We all know it doesn't cost any money to actually make a baby. There are people right now who go to hospitals and cannot pay for the delivery because they're poor. How are you going to address this problem?

[Samseau]

I love oldnemesis' attempts to justify the corrupt and unjust family law system.

The whole fucking thing is a joke, top to bottom. Family law is unconstitutional and is a sin on this nation. It has destroyed far more lives than it has helped.

[Bad Hussar]

This is why you HAVE to get a paternity test as soon after birth as possible; irrespective of whether you are married to the mother, you think she's the bestest, sweetest, most honest woman ever, she threatens to leave you if you go ahead etc. etc. It's no use getting the test years latter and expecting to get your money back.

No matter how Alpha you are, or think you are, the biological/evolutionary truth is that a woman can ALWAYS fuck a "better" man than she can marry/have along term relationship with. It's just the way things are set up biologically. This tends to cause confusion for both men and women.

Women think that because she fucked some high value man in a bathroom stall at a club and he didn't even put a bag over her head she must be hot stuff. But he would laugh at any sort of suggestion that they have any sort of long term relationship. So, as stated on this site ad nauseum they go through life fucking a series of men who wouldn't dream of marrying them. Time passes, age takes its toll and it become too late for them. Warren Buffet goes long Cat Food companies.

As men, on the other hand, we are lulled into a false sense of security. We immagine that if only we are Alpha enough no bitch will ever dream of fucking us with something like a false paternity claim. Why would they? We're the top dog! But there's always a bigger dog. And if a woman is married to, or in a long term realtionship with, you she is quite capable of having a sex only relationship them. It doesn't mean that you are weak or not Alpha enough. It's just the way women are wired. Always looking for the better deal. Obviously no sane man will be happy with or even accept this situation, but there's really not all that much we can do to stop it playing out.

So. Get the paternity test ASAP and dont cry years latter expecting your money back. The State doesn't care about your individual rights. They have bigger and broader concerns to try to deal with.

[oldnemesis]

(09-19-2011 07:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I love oldnemesis' attempts to justify the corrupt and unjust family law system.

I find it amusing when samseau retorts to personal attacks once he is not able to argue the facts anymore. Very typical for religious people though.

[Samseau]

(09-20-2011 03:51 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-19-2011 07:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I love oldnemesis' attempts to justify the corrupt and unjust family law system.

I find it amusing when samseau retorts to personal attacks once he is not able to argue the facts anymore. Very typical for religious people though.

Using the word sin doesn't make me religious.

And I still cannot understand how you ignore the evidence presented in front of you. It overwhelmingly shows how bad a deal men get in the family law courts.

[oldnemesis]

(09-20-2011 04:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And I still cannot understand how you ignore the evidence presented in front of you. It overwhelmingly shows how bad a deal men get in the family law courts.

I see no corruption or mistreatment in this case. What I see is that a dude was too cheap to visit a lawyer for the advice, and too lazy to find a free legal help or at least read a legal book in the library.

"Sean's biggest mistake was not knowing what petition to ask for". A lot of people can't be even bothered to learn the basics of how the justice system works, they just assume the court is the same as they mom they complained about their brother stealing their toy. Just look at that:

"Harbin still needed to file the correct papers to dismiss the case and he said he found little direction from the courts"

Judges are not there to help a party with the case. This is what lawyers are for. Courts are more like referees in soccer, they expect you to come prepared, know the rules and play by them. They may feel sympathy to you if you tell them you didn't know you're not supposed to touch the ball with your hands and never played soccer before, but they cannot skip the penalty. Nor the referee can give some player an advice, even if he sees he is obviously doing something wrong. This is how the courts work.

But it still won't change those men who made themselves and then married some hot chick making nothing. Then they got divorced, and the dude screams how he was "unfairly raped" by the justice system. Well, you got into the locker room, you gonna see some dick.

[alphabeta]

You're completely ignoring the fact that all the red tape makes this man with evidence to prove his innocence still gets treated like a criminal under the eyes of the law on the grounds that he is a man.

Stating that it's his own fault for being "too cheap and stupid" doesn't change the fact that the system is inherently flawed. It's assuming guilt over innocence because he didn't know article XXIV-ccb subsection 13(1) or whatever, and with evidence proving his innocence the whole issue shouldn't even exist anymore.

[oldnemesis]

(09-21-2011 03:14 PM)alphabeta Wrote:  

You're completely ignoring the fact that all the red tape makes this man with evidence to prove his innocence still gets treated like a criminal under the eyes of the law on the grounds that he is a man.

This is absolute bullshit.

Quote:

Stating that it's his own fault for being "too cheap and stupid" doesn't change the fact that the system is inherently flawed.

It is the same as complaining that a soccer referee is flawed because he refused to give you a pass when you played with your hand - even if you never knew you should only use your feet.

Quote:

It's assuming guilt over innocence because he didn't know article XXIV-ccb subsection 13(1) or whatever, and with evidence proving his innocence the whole issue shouldn't even exist anymore.

You're basically complaining the judge doesn't decide the cases the way one's mom does. He went to the court to prove something, he has to do it in a certain way. There are some good reasons for that, and I explained some of them above. You somehow think a dude going against the state in the court should get some leeway from a judge just because he's a dude.

[alphabeta]

Actually I'm saying he got fucked over because the laws are inherently bias against men, not because his mom won't coddle him or whatever

I don't blame the judge for upholding a law nor do I think a man should get leeway on the grounds he's a dude; I think the law is inherently flawed when an innocent man has to do anything other than not be guilty of whatever crime he's been charged with in order to not get punished.

[Samseau]

OldNemesis is Russian, tyrannical laws are the norm there and that's why he finds nothing wrong with this. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a foreign concept in most 3rd-world countries.

[oldnemesis]

When you mentioned law school, did you actually attend the law school? I remember asking you that, but you did not reply. I'll ask it again since the "innocent until proven guilty" concept does not apply to civil law torts, and generally applies only to the criminal law.

[Samseau]

Quote:

When you mentioned law school, did you actually attend the law school?

Yes I did.

Quote:

I'll ask it again since the "innocent until proven guilty" concept does not apply to civil law torts, and generally applies only to the criminal law.

This is indeed the case.

But we are discussing what should be, and most men would agree "innocent until proven guilty" is applicable whenever someone's life could be punished in non-monetary ways, such as having to do probation, losing your license, jail-time, or facing the death-penalty.

Family law involves all punishments except for the death-penalty, and punishes people based solely on their gender.

This isn't a legal concept, this is a moral one.