Via Drudge: A Houston man is on the hook for $65,000 in child support for a child that's not his.
Gabriel Cornejo, 45, took a DNA test proving a child his ex-girlfriend had 16 years ago was not his.
The test was too late. In 2003, a child support court in Houston ruled that Cornejo owed his ex-girlfriend child support because, she claims, there was no way he wasn't the father.
At the crux of why Cornejo must pay up is Texas' family code, chapter 161, which states, even if you're not the biological father, you still owe child support that accrued before the DNA test proves you're not the father, Cornejo's lawyer Cheryl Coleman told Chron.com.
Gabriel Cornejo, 45, took a DNA test proving a child his ex-girlfriend had 16 years ago was not his.
The test was too late. In 2003, a child support court in Houston ruled that Cornejo owed his ex-girlfriend child support because, she claims, there was no way he wasn't the father.
At the crux of why Cornejo must pay up is Texas' family code, chapter 161, which states, even if you're not the biological father, you still owe child support that accrued before the DNA test proves you're not the father, Cornejo's lawyer Cheryl Coleman told Chron.com.
"I've researched the records and found that there is an issue with the service where they served him back in 2002," Coleman said. "There are some anomalies with how this case handled by the attorney general's office. He was never served with those documents in 2002 when the actual paternity petition was filed against him."
(Link to more)
5 comments:
There must be some procedure to revisit this ruling now that there is evidence that it is utterly unfair. Also, bad mom should be on the hook to pay him back. She's probably judgment proof but he should get a judgment against her anyway just in case she wins the lotto or money otherwise falls out of the sky for her.
So the issue was he was in arrears.
The law needs to be rewritten.
Our system seems extremely reluctant to fix it's mistakes. A sign of irresponsibility and poor character in people, but our system is above all that. With sympathy for all of you who are part of the legal profession, it has the poorest record of any profession in this regard, except for maybe politicians and hangmen, but I guess those are extensions of the legal system too.
I understand law. The concept is the child, now 16, has grown up with the notion the other guy is the father, and regardless of what the mother did, the child is financially dependent on the guy. The state sees the child support as for the child, and the child is not who did wrong here.
What's wrong with the system is that the mother, as recipient of the child support, can pretty much do with it as she pleases. This despite the fact the state considers the funds for the child. There are some limitation, but not enough to protect from abuse, because money is fungible, and politicians write stupid laws.
Otherwise, I agree with Amartel.
This guy only met this man once and never fathered him and yet he's on the hook for 65k? Fuck that. This is clearly an unfair and punitive law.
Post a Comment