Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Florida man owes $10,000 for child who's not his

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:14 AM
Original message
Florida man owes $10,000 for child who's not his
Florida, huh?

Florida man owes $10,000 for child who`s not his

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (CNN) -- Francisco Rodriguez owes more than $10,000 in back child support payments in a paternity case involving a 15-year-old girl who, according to DNA results and the girl's mother, is not his daughter.

Rodriguez, who is married with two daughters and a son from his wife's previous marriage, is fighting for leniency. "It's not right. I'm not the father, " he said at a recent court hearing.

He says he knew nothing about the other girl until paperwork showed up about four years ago saying he was the father.

He now has DNA results that show the 15-year-old girl wasn't fathered by him. He even has an affidavit from the girl's mother -- a former girlfriend from 1990 -- saying he's "not the father" and asking that Rodriguez no longer be required to pay child support.

Yet the state of Florida is continuing to push him to pay $305 a month to support the girl, as well as the more than $10,000 already owed. He spent a night in jail because of his delinquent payments.

...


--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. Many states..
.... have rules that actual paternity is not a requirement for a child support obligation.

Anyone whining about sexism gets no sympathy from me, when it comes to marriage and family issues men are still getting screwed like it was 1950.

It's women and children first, men never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infomaniac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. As a second wife, I'd have to agree...
I hear horror stories like this all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
42. and all 50 states have an overwhelming male majority in their legislature
who make the laws...

So why did a male dominated society make laws like this?

and...children should come first...it is not their fault who their parents are...once brought into this world they need to be cared for...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. I wonder if the mother and/or her daughter are receiving welfare benefits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. And if they are
so what? What is your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Some states cut off welfare benefits unless the mom fingers a guy as the father.
The state forces mothers to commit fraud and uses that as an excuse to steal money from men which the men can never recover even if they prove they are not the father.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. A lot of the time, if the mother and child are on welfare
the state will persue support payments from anybody they can get their hooks into in order to take the burden off the tax rolls. No matter what the facts of the case are. Since the mother is saying he's not the father and DNA supports her, it is more likely that this is the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
46. Not only that, by Federal Statute, the mother receives the welfare and the
child support is forfeited to the State even when the child support is more than the assistance.

My Sister went through this bullshit and had to to receive Pell grants while she was in school.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sad. On so many levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. and wrong on so many levels too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. Maybe there are facts that haven't been published.
Under domestic relations law, even if you are not the biological parent of a child, you CAN be held legally responsible for support IF you assumed financial support for a period of time. In other words, let's say you're a guy, you meet a woman with a child from another relationship. She isn't getting any support from the child's father. You move in together. You pay for necessities for that child (food, medicine, shelter). You break up and you stop paying for that child. The mother can sue you to continue paying for that child as you assumed willingly the role of a parent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stewie Donating Member (244 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. But the difference is he never even knew the kid existed
It wasn't his child and he never even heard of her until his ex-girlfriend started telling people it was his.

It's like some girl you dated in college 20 years ago starts claiming her three-year-old is yours and wants you to start giving her money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. If he can prove his defense, then yes, she would have no claim on him
for support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
7. Hmmm, he got screwed by and ex-girlfriend. Sound like fraud by her.
Paperwork didn't show up until the girl was 11? She committed fraud and I'm sure fraud is one of those escape clauses.
The real problem is most states don't allow people to recover damages for theses cases, even if they are fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
28. Nope, I bet the ex-girlfriend was pushed into it by the state
She probably is receiving state aid for dependent children from the State and like most states when that happens they demand the mother name the father so that the state can get reimbursement ordered from the father. She may not even know who the father is but threatened with a cutoff of aid from the state if she didn't name someone, she may have named the one she thought most likely.

But I cannot see any legal basis for forcing this guy to pay if he has proven through DNA he is not the father. The only other circumstance that I know of (as a lawyer) where someone not the father can be ordered to pay support is if he had voluntarily in the past assumed the responsibilities of a parent even though he was not a biological parent.

He should win on appeal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Thinking about it I bet your right.
What a sad state of affairs.

Still, he can't recover the past amount he's paid out can he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. I would not be surprised if Florida privatizes collection of child support so that
there were a strong profit-motivated incentive for the state of Florida to collect this money and that's why they're making it so hard for this guy to get off the hook for the payments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. Now THAT makes sense. And seems likely. Any FL residents out there
who can track down whether state lets private firms do 'skip tracing' on delinquent dads? It might explain a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. What An Absolute Disgrace. He Shouldn't Have To Pay A Dime.
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 08:25 AM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
These courts are so ass backwards when it comes to shit like this. I wholeheartedly feel for this guy. This court is out of their minds. Paternity deadline? What kind of bullshit is that?

(On edit: removed possibility that the woman was bringing this to court, since that isn't the case. Course, that makes this even more asinine.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. She's NOT pushing for him to pay.
Read the OP again. She's actually asking for them to stop hounding him for support money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. Blaming the woman - how convenient.
Apparently, you don't know that in child support cases, it's the STATE who pushes the case, not the woman.

My ex owes me nearly $7,000 in back child support; however, I'm not the one who takes him to court and threatens him with jail time every four months until he pays a modicum of child support - it's the state of Tennessee who does it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. That's Why I Said 'IF'.
Since that's not the case, then it doesn't apply and there was no blame.

If she doesn't want it and he's not the father, then this is the biggest crock of shit case I've ever seen. What utter bullshit.

Some courts are just so fucking moronic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
43. Why is he required to pay child support?
The woman provide his name as the father. Possibly as a requirement to receive public assistance. I want to know the circumstances of why he was named as the father and not the real father. Could it be that she knew where the real father was but didn't know where the other person was and thought nothing would happen?

The state apparently does not require any means to verify parentage as it should.

I would think the court can reverse a ruling and it should. In addition, in cases like this there should be a law that requires the custodial parent to repay the child support they received.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. Florida, Florida, Florida..sigh
What is in the drinking water there anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Pure neo-con.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
30. It's at least as bad
in California. I tried to bring this topic up at DU several years ago and holy goddess the grief I got. This is a HUGE problem and no one is willing to even allow a discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. Could he move to another state that does not garnish wages?
That might be his only option here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
16. "He even has an affidavit from the girl's mother...
...a former girlfriend from 1990 -- saying he's 'not the father' and asking that Rodriguez no longer be required to pay child support."

Well then does she send him his money back every month or does she cash the checks and spend them? Seems if she did the former, problem solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grillydad Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. Two Problems with that
1. The state usually takes a percentage as an administraive fee (added onto the child support) which wouldn't be returned.

2. The money is likely going not to the mother but to the state to reimburse the state for assisstance.

Also, his payments may be construed as an admission which could put him of the hook for even more expenses, like medical, dental not to mention any parental responsibility for the actions of the child.

That said, most state require some process (which includes DNA testing) to name a man the father, where was he during that process? Was he notified? The article, true to most journalism about the legal process, leaves out important facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. That was an informative post, thank you, Grillydad. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
44. The states get paid by the feds to increase child support
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
22. The state of California:
yanked my son's drivers' license for non-payment of child support. He is in a different state, which wouldn't issue him a driver's license in that state because CA yanked his.

What's so bad about this? We want all those deadbeat dads to pay child support, right?

What's so bad about it is that he has full custody of his son, and has for years. He paid child support when the boy's mother had him, and stopped when he took custody. The formal custody hearings happened two years and another state away from the actual date he took custody, but a California social services worker was present the day he picked his son up.

He has spoken to the child support people in CA repeatedly. Offered to fax them his custody paperwork. They refused. He's supposed to find a lawyer who works with both states' laws to represent him. Of course, he's having a hard time making any money SINCE HE CAN'T FUCKING DRIVE LEGALLY. He can't pay a retainer, and I can't pay it for him. I'm out of financial resources.

Meanwhile, his current state is pursuing never-paid child support from the boy's mother in CA.

Go figure.

It's not just Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. That's really horrible.
I feel really sorry for your son. That's just crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. It is crazy.
I was a single mom. I raised 2 sons without a hint of child support. My ex worked under the table and moved every few months until the youngest son was 18 so that child support could not be enforced.

I know what a deadbeat dad is.

It's not my son. If the INTENT of child support laws were honored, the state would not be pursuing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
23. That's fucked up....Pay for a kid that ain't mine? No fucking way....
Time to sue the State...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
29. Ah, yes.
The child support nightmare. Could I ever tell stories. Currently we get credited $1,000.00 for every $3,000.00 we pay out. Where the rest goes? No one seems to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. Probably interest. Texas pulls that bs. I know first hand about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
32. i used to work with a guy that a similar story, he paid because he really loved
the little boy, he said even if it wasn't his child biologically he was still his son no matter what. It's a sad situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. Sounds like he paid because he's the father
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 11:45 AM by Gormy Cuss
even if he's not the sperm donor. I hope that someday the son can fully appreciate just how good a dad he has.


on edit: the guy in the OP shouldn't be held responsible for child support period. No DNA, no relationship with the child, no claim. It's got to be about recouping AFDC/TANF costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. he was and is for sure, thankfully he and the mother stayed on good terms, they aren't BFF's or
anything but they remained civil through it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
33. I'm waiting for all the...
"but it's for the good of the child" posts that we had the last time (Amber Frye, I think).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayWhatYo Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. There's no real gray area here, so I doubt you will find many saying that...
Then again, I guess ya never know, aye?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
34. Malicious prosecution is on the rise
Michael Nifong. Ed Barker, the prosecutor who put Genarlow Wilson away for a decade. Ken Starr sticking Susan McDougall in prison for 18 months.

Et cetera, ad nauseam.

The entire legal system is infected with sadism. We have stocked the bench and the prosecutors' offices with thin-skinned, egotistical creeps and scumbags; Republicans the most of them, scoundrels all. We also have more prisoners per capita than any other nation in history, even Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. And even among ourselves, we make light of prison rape and call for the blood of "pedophiles" who are tried in the court of MSNBC and Fox.

America has a punishment fetish, and it's going to bring us down.

It's time that all changed.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Ever hear the comment, "once you do a crime you should lose all your rights"?

Problem with that statement is that 5 of the 10 Bill of Rights deal solely and explicitly with rights for those suspected, accused or convicted of a crime. That common rightwing sentiment betrays their complete ignorance of US history and everything this country stands for.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wellst0nev0ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
37. It Happened In Flori-DUH. Whatta Surprise (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
41. After reading the article, this fellow either ignored or did not receive
the paperwork that was required for him to act upon this case.

I don't know if any of this is true but in the cases of paternity perhaps they should have been hand delivered to insure that people can't use these excuses and or to back them up if they are not present to receive a summons/petition.

Because he did not file in time...he is stuck.

It seems unfair in this case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
47. Every Day I Thank Jeebus That I'll Never Make Anybody Pregnant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC