Guys get f-cked in court

**TJ Cline** · 09-26-2006, 03:34 PM

He who acts like a father, is a father -- if not biologically than at least legally -- the Court of Appeals said Thursday in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly.

The court in Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 40, upheld the trial court and the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, in ordering a man to pay child support on behalf of a child he did not father. In doing so, it recognized the legislatively endorsed concept of "equity paternity," or paternity by estoppel (see Family Court Act §§ 18 [a] and 532 [a]).
Shondel J. centers on a Guyana native who, while living in New York, met a woman in Guyana while visiting family in 1995. After the man, Mark D., returned to New York, the woman, Shondel J., informed him that she was pregnant and carrying his child.

Mark did not dispute his paternity. Instead, he helped pay for Shondel's pregnancy, visited the girl he thought was his and made her a beneficiary of his life insurance. He also signed a letter affirming his fatherhood so the child could obtain immigration papers. In 1999, he married another woman, and they have children.

The next year, Shondel moved to New York and lodged a paternity petition in Brooklyn, and Mark filed a separate visitation petition. A court-ordered DNA test proved that Mark was not the father.

At that point, Mark attempted to sever ties with the girl. But he was equitably estopped from disclaiming paternity and ordered to pay child support. The child support amounted to $78 weekly, plus retroactive support of $12,859. Mark has had no personal contact with the child since March 2000.

On appeal, Mark argued that the imposition of "equitable paternity" effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy.

But the 2nd Department, and now the Court of Appeals, focused not on whether Mark got a raw deal, but on the best interests of the child.
"In allowing a court to declare paternity irrespective of biological fatherhood, the Legislature made a deliberate policy choice that speaks directly to the case before us," Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt wrote for the 5-2 majority. "The potential damage to a child's psyche caused by suddenly ending established parental support need only be stated to be appreciated. Cutting off that support, whether emotional or financial, may leave the child in a worse position than if that support had never been given."
Like the lower courts, the Court of Appeals found that Mark had in every way held himself out to be the child's father -- buying her Christmas and birthday presents, referring to himself as "daddy," introducing her to his family, and regularly communicating with her. Mark had claimed he had rarely seen or had contact with the child, but none of the courts hearing his case believed him.

"The issue does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child," Judge Rosenblatt wrote. "The Legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation ... [T]he mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."
All four women on the court -- Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Victoria A. Graffeo and Susan Phillips Read -- joined Rosenblatt. Judge George Bundy Smith dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Robert S. Smith.
'COMPLETELY INNOCENT'
The dissenters objected to the application of estoppel against a "completely innocent litigant" who was misled by the child's mother. They noted that the woman swore in Family Court that she had not had sexual relations during the relevant time span with anyone other than Mark, an assertion that DNA analysis proved was a lie.

They said the decision rewards people who make no effort to nurture or support a child who may be their own while penalizing people like Mark who immediately assumed responsibility.

"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.
Judges Smith and Bundy Smith concluded that it could not serve the child's best interests "to have an order of filiation declare respondent to be her father, a man, who in addition to having no biological tie, has no interest in continuing a relationship with her or her mother."

Mark was represented by Ann L. Detiere of Manhattan. Steven P. Forbes of Queens argued for Shondel while Barbara H. Dildine of Brooklyn appeared as law guardian.

**Dale Mabry** · 09-26-2006, 03:41 PM

He should have went on Maury.

**joesmooth20** · 09-28-2006, 03:37 PM

I spent over 20k in court with my kid's mother. She was busted with a ounce of meth, house raided, jailed, her son taken by the state but i still can't take my daughter out of Minnesota to live with me. So she has to live with my mom because her loser mother has supervised visitations like once a month.

**KelJu** · 09-28-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by joesmooth20

I spent over 20k in court with my kid's mother. She was busted with a ounce of meth, house raided, jailed, her son taken by the state but i still can't take my daughter out of Minnesota to live with me. So she has to live with my mom because her loser mother has supervised visitations like once a month.

Man, that is so wrong dude. I am sorry to hear that. There really is no fairness or justice in our system. I know so many situations like the one you describe. It has nothing to do with who is the better parent or even who really cares, but whether you have a vagina. That is so ridicules.

**Little Wing** · 09-28-2006, 03:59 PM

yea i heard about that. a man that finds out he is not the father still has to pay child support. that is one of the most fucked up things i ever heard. i thought hmm that won't stand for long... wtf is wrong with our legal system?

**TJ Cline** · 09-28-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by joesmooth20

I spent over 20k in court with my kid's mother. She was busted with a ounce of meth, house raided, jailed, her son taken by the state but i still can't take my daughter out of Minnesota to live with me. So she has to live with my mom because her loser mother has supervised visitations like once a month.

That sucks and is bull shit, I feel for you. The sad fact is if you are a man you have to pay $$$$$ just to get equil rights in court....and still you will not get it.

**Jeeper** · 09-28-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

That sucks and is bull shit, I feel for you. The sad fact is if you are a man you have to pay $$$$$ just to get equil rights in court....and still you will not get it.

Not necessarily always true. I do this for a living andd have got many male clients to be primary custodian. The reality is that drugs are not a big issue for the court. Pee clean for 6 weeks of random testing and you are getting your kid back.

As far as that case above goes... I agree with it to a certain extent. Some times the guys just admit paternity even though they know otherwise. Then the statute of limitations on getting support from the real father runs out. The choice the state has is give welfare or punish the fool that didnt get a blood test. If you dont check from the get go then it is your problem. Making them pay in the future is crap though.

**Little Wing** · 09-28-2006, 09:07 PM

maybe blood tests should be made standard procedure in all births. someone start lobbying for that.

**TJ Cline** · 09-28-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jeeper

Not necessarily always true. I do this for a living andd have got many male clients to be primary custodian. The reality is that drugs are not a big issue for the court. Pee clean for 6 weeks of random testing and you are getting your kid back.

As far as that case above goes... I agree with it to a certain extent. Some times the guys just admit paternity even though they know otherwise. Then the statute of limitations on getting support from the real father runs out. The choice the state has is give welfare or punish the fool that didnt get a blood test. If you dont check from the get go then it is your problem. Making them pay in the future is crap though.

99% true, men get fuc-ked most of the time and the "system" is very sexist. Just tell all the guys who's wives fucked other men and got pregnant behind there husbands backs....and the husbands are forced by law to pay child support till the other mans kid turns 18.

Shame on you for your post

**Mudge** · 09-29-2006, 12:03 AM

Fuckin bullshit.

**TJ Cline** · 09-29-2006, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Jeeper

Not necessarily always true. I do this for a living andd have got many male clients to be primary custodian. The reality is that drugs are not a big issue for the court. Pee clean for 6 weeks of random testing and you are getting your kid back.

As far as that case above goes... I agree with it to a certain extent. Some times the guys just admit paternity even though they know otherwise. Then the statute of limitations on getting support from the real father runs out. The choice the state has is give welfare or punish the fool that didnt get a blood test. If you dont check from the get go then it is your problem. Making them pay in the future is crap though.

It is clear you are an idiot and a shitty lawyer ( I doubt you actually have a law degree) . Your contempt for justice and good honest people really shows what a loser you are.

**MyK** · 09-29-2006, 01:44 AM

I've never been fucked in court!

I've done library's, night clubs, stairways, hotel hallways, alley ways, etc!!

but Ive never done a court room, good Idea foreman!

**Jeeper** · 09-29-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

It is clear you are an idiot and a shitty lawyer ( I doubt you actually have a law degree) . Your contempt for justice and good honest people really shows what a loser you are.

I didn't realize you needed a law to degree to be an attorney. Oh well, I guess I have to turn in my bar card now. I would rather have someone paying to support the child, that didnt have the commmon sense to get a blood test, than pay to support the child on welfare with my taxes. Past support is one thing but you should not be required to pay for the future.

**KelJu** · 09-29-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Jeeper

I didn't realize you needed a law to degree to be an attorney. Oh well, I guess I have to turn in my bar card now. I would rather have someone paying to support the child, that didnt have the commmon sense to get a blood test, than pay to support the child on welfare with my taxes. Past support is one thing but you should not be required to pay for the future.

Omg dude, thats terrible. You are saying that people should be treated as if they were guilty just because they trusted someone? Wow!

Wow! Omg, dude you are a scumbag. I would rather support the child with my tax money then for a poor dude to pay child suport to a women that cheated on him, probably broke his heart, and destroyed his ability to ever trust a woman again.

**Jeeper** · 09-29-2006, 07:56 PM

Ahh! The educated response of name calling.

Here is the problem that none of you see since you dont deal with it day in and out. Basically all states have a statute of limitations on how far back you can go for child support. This is so that 10 years after you thought you were done paying, the other person cant come back and sock you with a big arrearage which accrued at 10-12% interest, and if you dont pay you go to jail. Most people will agree with that. Now we have a situation where the mother cannot go after the actual father since the statute of limitations has run and the kid needs support. Making someone pay for future support is ridiculous but if the custodial parent(man or woman) cant go after the other party then the only choice is the government. Future support and support still inside the statute of limitations range should not be charged to that person. I believe that states should allow for fraud claims to collect support of the child if the mother knew the guy wasnt the father but that is a different issue. My basic point is that everything is an easy issue unless you actually have to deal with it in reality. But I guess I am an ass...blah blah blah

**DOMS** · 09-29-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Jeeper

Ahh! The educated response of name calling.

Here is the problem that none of you see since you dont deal with it day in and out. Basically all states have a statute of limitations on how far back you can go for child support. This is so that 10 years after you thought you were done paying, the other person cant come back and sock you with a big arrearage which accrued at 10-12% interest, and if you dont pay you go to jail. Most people will agree with that. Now we have a situation where the mother cannot go after the actual father since the statute of limitations has run and the kid needs support. Making someone pay for future support is ridiculous but if the custodial parent(man or woman) cant go after the other party then the only choice is the government. Future support and support still inside the statute of limitations range should not be charged to that person. I believe that states should allow for fraud claims to collect support of the child if the mother knew the guy wasnt the father but that is a different issue. My basic point is that everything is an easy issue unless you actually have to deal with it in reality. But I guess I am an ass...blah blah blah

There is a flaw in your reasoning. You state the statute of limitations and the need to find a provider. In these cases, isn't the child usually under the age of 10? Why can't she go after the biological father?

Or why can't the law stipulate that she receive no pass support payments and only future payments? Either of these is better than saddling some poor schmuck, who was doing the right thing by providing the support for the child that he thought was his, with the exorbitant support payments?

Also, if a man is in a position where he's paying for a child that isn't his, one of two things is true. Either woman lied to him, or she's a whore who fucks so often, with so many people, that she can't be sure who the father is. Either way, she's a bitch that deserves no support from the guy who isn't the biological father.

**KelJu** · 09-29-2006, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Jeeper

Ahh! The educated response of name calling.

Here is the problem that none of you see since you dont deal with it day in and out. Basically all states have a statute of limitations on how far back you can go for child support. This is so that 10 years after you thought you were done paying, the other person cant come back and sock you with a big arrearage which accrued at 10-12% interest, and if you dont pay you go to jail. Most people will agree with that. Now we have a situation where the mother cannot go after the actual father since the statute of limitations has run and the kid needs support. Making someone pay for future support is ridiculous but if the custodial parent(man or woman) cant go after the other party then the only choice is the government. Future support and support still inside the statute of limitations range should not be charged to that person. I believe that states should allow for fraud claims to collect support of the child if the mother knew the guy wasnt the father but that is a different issue. My basic point is that everything is an easy issue unless you actually have to deal with it in reality. But I guess I am an ass...blah blah blah

"Ahh! The educated response of crappy grammar", the kettle said back to the pot.

We completely understand why the courts do it. That was never the question of this thread. I am saying that it is ethically wrong. I guess you don’t understand right and wrong anymore. Lawyers have to separate themselves from their conscious to allow them to do the disgusting work that you do. Lawyers are disgusting people. The justice system is the biggest crock of BS.
This whole thing sounds to me like more "protect the criminal, violate the victim".

The defendant in this situation is the victim in every category, yet the courts go after him instead of the real father in the name of "statute of limitations".

What a crock that one is, too. Who cares when you did it? If you did the deed, then pay up.

"statute of limitations"

**Dale Mabry** · 09-29-2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

or she's a whore who fucks so often, with so many people, that she can't be sure who the father is.

Do you happen to have her phone number?

**TJ Cline** · 09-29-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Jeeper

I didn't realize you needed a law to degree to be an attorney. Oh well, I guess I have to turn in my bar card now. I would rather have someone paying to support the child, that didnt have the commmon sense to get a blood test, than pay to support the child on welfare with my taxes. Past support is one thing but you should not be required to pay for the future.

I was told it took you 5 times till you passed the bar......true???

If your Father had not left before you were born he would be ashamed of you. Now hoild my purse while I make a trip to the ladies room.

**Double D** · 09-29-2006, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

99% true, men get fuc-ked most of the time and the "system" is very sexist. Just tell all the guys who's wives fucked other men and got pregnant behind there husbands backs....and the husbands are forced by law to pay child support till the other mans kid turns 18.

Shame on you for your post

Foreman I actually agree with you this time. Men do get fucked in these deals. Seems like the women always gets the best of the situations.

Different topic: Guy gets with girl she has no money, no land, and frankly no pot to piss in. They hook up and have 4 kids. She now thinks that he isnt good enough for her so she wants a divorce. Whats the courts do? They give her the house and all the land and make him pay child support! Happened to a close friend of the family here recently.

**DOMS** · 09-29-2006, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Double D

Different topic: Guy gets with girl she has no money, no land, and frankly no pot to piss in. They hook up and have 4 kids. She now thinks that he isnt good enough for her so she wants a divorce. Whats the courts do? They give her the house and all the land and make him pay child support! Happened to a close friend of the family here recently.

Is it any wonder why every few months you hear about a guy killing his ex-wife?

**Double D** · 09-29-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

Is it any wonder why every few months you hear about a guy killing his ex-wife?

Oh so true. Then he gets fucked twice as hard.

**TJ Cline** · 09-29-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Double D

Different topic: Guy gets with girl she has no money, no land, and frankly no pot to piss in. They hook up and have 4 kids. She now thinks that he isnt good enough for her so she wants a divorce. Whats the courts do? They give her the house and all the land and make him pay child support! Happened to a close friend of the family here recently.

I have no problem with a woman who is married to a man for 20 years getting 1/2 the stuff. But it sounds like your friend gave up much more than 1/2.

**TJ Cline** · 09-29-2006, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

Is it any wonder why every few months you hear about a guy killing his ex-wife?

No comment

**Double D** · 09-29-2006, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

I have no problem with a woman who is married to a man for 20 years getting 1/2 the stuff. But it sounds like your friend gave up much more than 1/2.

Well she has never had a job he has always worked from sun up to sun down. His farm is huge. And he has to give all of that up. I think they have been together for about 5 years or so. He has horrible knees and is damn near crippled because he has been at it so hard for so long. And yeah she definitly is getting more than half, she got it all and he got the bills. So if you wanna call the bills his half then I guess he did.

**TJ Cline** · 09-29-2006, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Double D

Well she has never had a job he has always worked from sun up to sun down. His farm is huge. And he has to give all of that up. I think they have been together for about 5 years or so. He has horrible knees and is damn near crippled because he has been at it so hard for so long. And yeah she definitly is getting more than half, she got it all and he got the bills. So if you wanna call the bills his half then I guess he did.

He should feed her to the pigs

**Double D** · 09-29-2006, 08:52 PM

I agree. As far as her he wouldnt have anything to do with her ever again, he just wants his kids that he is only going to be seeing 2 weekends out of the month and every other weds. And he wants his lands back. Currently he is living in a 3 room apartment. And he had to give up like 300 acres.

**TJ Cline** · 09-29-2006, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Double D

I agree. As far as her he wouldnt have anything to do with her ever again, he just wants his kids that he is only going to be seeing 2 weekends out of the month and every other weds. And he wants his lands back. Currently he is living in a 3 room apartment. And he had to give up like 300 acres.

Make sure you tell him not to hire Jeeper as his lawyer again.

**Jeeper** · 09-29-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Make sure you tell him not to hire Jeeper as his lawyer again.

Screw that.... I was her attorney.

The alimony/spousal maintenance thing is the worst killer if you think you want a 1950's family where the woman stays at home. You get bent over. Always make sure she has a college degree and at least works part time. If you have separate property then make sure to keep it separate. My favorite thing is getting the guy alimony.

**maniclion** · 09-30-2006, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Little Wing

maybe blood tests should be made standard procedure in all births. someone start lobbying for that.

It's standard AKC practice for Top Breeders, like Chapion lineage, for mutts like us I don't think they give a damn they'd rather euthanize us with no money, lots of alcohol to kill the pain of living and the boob tube...

Thread: Guys get f-cked in court

Thread Tools

Display

Guys get f-cked in court

Similar Threads

Lol I fu cked up!

If U have a 401K U R F*cked

cause i f*cked yo' couch n***a

Wow, totally f*cked up.

This is f*cked up...

Posting Permissions