Maybe I Should Get Snipped

[DisRuptive1]

Read me.

[StrawberryFields]

I couldn't get through the articul you referenced with all of the %^%R%$^% or whatever.

I think the reference to your getting "snipped" was to help you with your urges.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Absolutely appalling. Any procedure with that high a default rate has a serious problem with the notice process.

But nothing will happen reform-wise in Democrat-dominated California. Even though it's one liberal constituency (poor men) against another (single mothers), the latter has a higher "victim" status, and therefore neither reason nor justice availeth. Screw the guy. Truth is relative anyway. It's the result -- that the person with higher politically-correct "victim" status wins -- that matters.

[Guest curvette]

California social services is so overburdened, it's no wonder they only give the guy a month to object. It seems like the woman should be held accountable for falsely accusing a man of fathering her child. My dad is going through the system to get custody of his younger children and it has dragged on, and on, and on... Three years may seem like a short time to an adult, but to a child, it's almost their whole life!

Okay, here's my "Perfect World" scenario:

In a perfect world, every person's sex drive stays dormant until their wedding night.

Everyone marries for love, and finds their soulmate the first time around.

All children are wanted and cherished.

Birth control is 100% effective so there are no surprises.

No one desires more children than they can provide for.

Men don't need more than one woman. (ha, ha, ha...)

Just think of all the money our country could save if we could eliminate social services altogether. Just my "la la land" wish of the day!

[Guest lt]

The guy can always take it to court................and get a paternity test........

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by LaurelTree@Dec 15 2004, 12:43 PM

The guy can always take it to court................and get a paternity test........

True, but the whole procedure is set up to minimize the state's expense and maximize the expense of the defendant. It should be the other way around, considering the parties' relative resources.

In ordinary civil litigation, when you sue someone, you have to serve the defendant with your complaint and a summons. That is, you have to actually get it in his hands, and make a binding declaration under penalty of perjury that you have done so. Only after all else fails, you may be allowed to serve someone by publication of notice of your suit in a newspaper. Depending on how much information you have of the defendant's whereabouts, this can cost a bit and take some time.

In child-support proceedings, there's no such detailed service requirement. All the state has to do is to mail the complaint to the defendant's last known address -- which, given our mobile society, is very likely to be outdated. The state can then just count the days until the response time expires and enter a default judgment, which is an absolute bear to remove. Getting a default judgment revoked is guaranteed to cost at least a couple thousand dollars, which a lot of people don't have lying around. Even if the putative father gets a paternity test that establishes without a doubt he's not the father, that's irrelevant in California -- he still needs to go through the lengthy, expensive process of getting relief from default. Meanwhile, he's getting his pay garnished and has all kinds of limitations on him until his supposed obligations are paid -- with the result that by the time he can finally scrape together the resources to pay for legal representation to get relief from default, and by the time the relief proceedings run their course, his finances are a wreck and his credit is shot.

In other words, just so the state can save a couple hundred bucks to investigate the defendant's current address and serve him properly -- as it would have to do in an ordinary civil proceeding -- the state places the entire burden on the defendant, and has no qualms about ruining him. Real nice.

Family law in general is such a mess that I'm glad I have virtually nothing to do with it. (My only foray into that area involved getting an involuntary conservatorship for medical decisions for an elderly man whose wife wished the old guy would hurry up and die. He died the same weekend the conservatorship was granted. Now THAT was money well spent by the kids.) There is an absolutely bleak, dark feeling in the local family court; every second person coming out of a room seems to have tears streaming down his (invariably his) face. About the worst thing I ever heard was one case down here where a man, who had impregnated his girlfriend, left her, and didn't know that she'd had a child who she then gave up for adoption, decided that he wanted to be a father and wanted the kid. By the time the legal proceedings ran their course, the little boy was four, and had spent his entire conscious life with his adoptive parents. Didn't matter. The court took him away.

I think I would have resigned as a judge before enforcing the absolutely stupid laws that the court felt it had to enforce to work that atrocity. As for the "father," hell's too good for him.

[DisRuptive1]

WELL SAID, duck!!!!!

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 15 2004, 02:11 PM

In child-support proceedings, there's no such detailed service requirement. All the state has to do is to mail the complaint to the defendant's last known address -- which, given our mobile society, is very likely to be outdated. The state can then just count the days until the response time expires and enter a default judgment, which is an absolute bear to remove. Getting a default judgment revoked is guaranteed to cost at least a couple thousand dollars, which a lot of people don't have lying around. Even if the putative father gets a paternity test that establishes without a doubt he's not the father, that's irrelevant in California -- he still needs to go through the lengthy, expensive process of getting relief from default. Meanwhile, he's getting his pay garnished and has all kinds of limitations on him until his supposed obligations are paid -- with the result that by the time he can finally scrape together the resources to pay for legal representation to get relief from default, and by the time the relief proceedings run their course, his finances are a wreck and his credit is shot.

In other words, just so the state can save a couple hundred bucks to investigate the defendant's current address and serve him properly -- as it would have to do in an ordinary civil proceeding -- the state places the entire burden on the defendant, and has no qualms about ruining him. Real nice.

PD,

I would agree that this is a problem. I believe that the father should be served just like the other court cases. The way they are treated in your description is all about the states money. The rights of the father are not considered because if the father pays enough the state won't be stuck with the heavy costs of raising his children via welfare. It is the father¡Çs rights that he is found so that a default judgment implemented and it be unfair. I believe that the father should help to raise his children and that does cost money.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Dec 16 2004, 03:22 AM

WELL SAID, duck!!!!!

I don't get where you are coming from.

Father's do need to help cover the costs of their children. You can't force a mother of your child into an abortion. You can't trick her by marrying her and then placing the child up for adoption without her permission. YOU will have to pay for the raising of your child, which is the law.

(As a side note) One can only hope that you become an asset, not a liability in this Childs life.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Dec 16 2004, 07:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Dec 16 2004, 07:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Dec 16 2004, 03:22 AM

WELL SAID, duck!!!!!

I don't get where you are coming from.

Father's do need to help cover the costs of their children. You can't force a mother of your child into an abortion. You can't trick her by marrying her and then placing the child up for adoption without her permission. YOU will have to pay for the raising of your child, which is the law.

(As a side note) One can only hope that you become an asset, not a liability in this Childs life.

What in the world don't you get? Of course actual fathers should pay child support. The problem is that when a man is falsely claimed to be a child's father, the state doesn't particularly care -- it just wants money. And the legal procedures the falsely-accused man has to go through to clear his name are set up in a way that guarantees many men will never have an idea that they're being pursued for child support until it's too late to contest paternity, requiring him to incur the additional expense of getting relief from default.

(As a side note) One can only hope that you become an asset, not a liability in this Childs life.

Was that directed at me? If it was, pardon me for being blunt, but work on your reading comprehension. I'm writing about a problem in the abstract, not about my own life -- in which I am happily married and raising three children quite nicely, as far as I can tell.

[Jenda]

I think she was talking to Disruptive1, commenting on his desire to be able to get it on with the opposite sex without wanting to face the consequences of his actions. His continual insistence that if a woman gets pregnant as a side effect of him not being able (or wanting) to control himself, that it is just a calculated trap to ensnare him and get his freedom and/or money.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 16 2004, 01:24 PM

I think she was talking to Disruptive1, commenting on his desire to be able to get it on with the opposite sex without wanting to face the consequences of his actions. His continual insistence that if a woman gets pregnant as a side effect of him not being able (or wanting) to control himself, that it is just a calculated trap to ensnare him and get his freedom and/or money.

Oh. Oops, then, and sorry, Strawb.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 16 2004, 02:24 PM

I think she was talking to Disruptive1, commenting on his desire to be able to get it on with the opposite sex without wanting to face the consequences of his actions. His continual insistence that if a woman gets pregnant as a side effect of him not being able (or wanting) to control himself, that it is just a calculated trap to ensnare him and get his freedom and/or money.

:) Thanks Jenda.

I get myself into trouble cause I think much quicker then I type...I still do the hunt and pick method.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Dec 16 2004, 06:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Dec 16 2004, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 16 2004, 01:24 PM

I think she was talking to Disruptive1, commenting on his desire to be able to get it on with the opposite sex without wanting to face the consequences of his actions.  His continual insistence that if a woman gets pregnant as a side effect of him not being able (or wanting) to control himself, that it is just a calculated trap to ensnare him and get his freedom and/or money.

Oh. Oops, then, and sorry, Strawb.

No problem PD, although you did get my heart rate up for just a minute.

I tried to be clear by posting twice, one to you and then one to Disruptive1.

Disruptive1 has been posting quite a bit about the things Jenda mentioned. He has lead me to believe that he or someone he knows very well is trying to find a way out of being responsiable for their actions.

Merry Christmas to you, your wife, and three children.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 14 2004, 01:30 PM

Absolutely appalling.  Any procedure with that high a default rate has a serious problem with the notice process.

But nothing will happen reform-wise in Democrat-dominated California.  Even though it's one liberal constituency (poor men) against another (single mothers), the latter has a higher "victim" status, and therefore neither reason nor justice availeth.  Screw the guy.  Truth is relative anyway.  It's the result -- that the person with higher politically-correct "victim" status wins -- that matters.

I agree that the notice problem is a serious breach of "due process" on the part of the State, in my opinion.

However, those who DO get notice of summons and "mess" around with it the way the first guy in the article did, are just asking for what they got. Anyone who has dealt with the DA should know not to try to "wing it" pro per. He should have grabbed a good father's rights attorney, filed a response and gotten his DNA tested. A good attorney can get this stopped in its tracks if the DNA doesn't match. The problem is a lot of guys do what this poor schmuck did and ignore the summons. That's America, love it or leave it guys. ("and don't date single mothers"--Tom Likis)

[DisRuptive1]

Leykis. Don't spell my father's name wrong :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Dec 19 2004, 03:40 PM

Leykis. Don't spell my father's name wrong :)

Sorry, Leykis rules! (I'ld like to be able to disagree with him, but he makes too much sense, most of the time.)