Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Dannyalcatraz]

I repeat - in what jurisdiction does this occur? I don't think any jurisdiction is going to allow a divorce to go through without consideration of kids. I don't believe this happens in reality.

There may be an edge case where she does not know she is pregnant at the time of the divorce, but if the kid has been born before the divorce, who gets custody, and who pays what, is going to be part of the proceedings.

Texas seperates divorce & paternity issues.

The divorce courts decide who gets what, and child support is awarded based on statute OR party agreement.

If you are contesting paternity- and therefore support issues- there is a seperate & distinct SAPCR: Suit Affecting Parent Child Relationship. A SAPCR can happen anytime, even coincidentally with a divorce proceeding.

 

[Ryujin]

In what jurisdiction do they conduct a divorce *without* discussing child support as part of the separation? Question of paternity is introduced at the divorce, not several steps later.

Oh, it's dealt with all right, but have you heard the word "bureaucracy"?

The post by Dannyalcatraz reminded me of a specific case I'd heard of in which what I detailed actually happened, but I can't recall where I'd heard it. The issue of paternity was deallt with separately as far as The State was concerned, as they were not party to the divorce. Proof had to later be shown and, of course, there were several months between initial levy of garnishee and resolution with The State. I believe (as DA had stated) that this was in California.

 

[Umbran]

If you are contesting paternity- and therefore support issues- there is a seperate & distinct SAPCR: Suit Affecting Parent Child Relationship. A SAPCR can happen anytime, even coincidentally with a divorce proceeding.

The point, though, is that *the subject comes up*. It isn't like you go through your divorce without any consideration of the kids involved.

The issue of bureaucracy came up - in general, that applies as much to the divorce as it does to paternity proceedings. And, if the paternity is the *grounds* for the divorce, who on Earth is going into the divorce withotu the paternity issue already in hand? I mean, talk about horrible legal tactics.

 

[tomBitonti]

If someone can provide a cleaner link, please do.

In Texas at least, the seems to be a law to address paternity, and that seems more fit to the existence of DNA testing.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/n...w-allows-fathers-to-contest-their-1447153.php

Thx!
TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The issue of bureaucracy came up - in general, that applies as much to the divorce as it does to paternity proceedings. And, if the paternity is the *grounds* for the divorce, who on Earth is going into the divorce withotu the paternity issue already in hand? I mean, talk about horrible legal tactics.

As I recall, Texas grants divorces based on the following fault grounds: adultery, cruelty, felony conviction and abandonment. But it also has "no-fault" filing as an option as well, and that is how most divorce proceedings are filed. If nothing else, it is cheaper: no investigating required, days of testimony, etc., proving the existence of the grounds.

IOW, it may not have even occurred to the father that paternity was even worth questioning.

Or he may have decided to challenge that issue post divorce in the SAPCR, after negotiating for a divorce he otherwise prefers. By which I mean, the couple's divorce proceedings may go more smoothly if that possible issue of contention is removed from the process. If he gets most of what he wants in the divorce decree, then successfully challenges paternity in the SAPCR, that is a tactical victory on the cheap.

 

[Umbran]

IOW, it may not have even occurred to the father that paternity was even worth questioning.

You seem to have lost the narrative.

This whole line of discussion was about whether a guy, who finds out his wife had "his" child by another man, would get stuck holding the bag of child support for another man's kid after his divorce. The idea of questioning paternity is part of the base assumption, because it is the reason he's asking for a divorce!

Or he may have decided to challenge that issue post divorce in the SAPCR, after negotiating for a divorce he otherwise prefers.

Well, that's his choice then, isn't it?

My understanding is that "no fault" is used when the two want a simple and largely equal/equitable split. But you are painting the picture of a guy who is really trying to get the best for himself out of this. On what planet is walking into the divorce hearings with that paternity card in hand not going to improve his negotiating position?

And, for the guy who is trying really, really hard to get the absolute best for himself out of this, to the detriment of a child... I'm not really sure I care if he's holding the bag for a few months. The kid isn't *guilty* of being another man's kid. The kid is a kid, and has taken no wrong action. But we're trying really hard to find a way to have that kid without new sneakers and backpack for school, as soon as possible, or something? Is that what we are doing?

I am not liking the direction this is going. I think I'm done.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Remember though, it isn't usually the kids who are the targets of the angry adults. They're usually the collateral damage...or the weapons at hand. I do know people who are willing to support & interact with kids not their own, even post divorce. Or even post dating. But they are the exception.

In my personal and professional life, I've gotten to see a few divorces up close & personal- not any of them mine, FWIW- and when kids are involved, it is USUALLY a messy business. Although there is a popular idea that one bad parent uses the kids as pawns against the other, innocent parent, it is far more often the case that both sides play games. It's just a matter of degrees. (Ther are exceptions, of course.)

So, while I'm not actually a divorce attorney, what I've seen has driven me to work on some solutions to minimize certain aspects of game playing in those situations.

Of course, the is always the law of unintended consequences. Some of my solutions are pretty good for ending certain kinds of gamesmanship in child support issues, like withholding payments or misdirecting child support to, saaaay, new earrings for mom. But they're a bit slower to be responsive to issues like we're discussing now, namely, what if the kid requiring the support isn't your kid.

My understanding is that "no fault" is used when the two want a simple and largely equal/equitable split. But you are painting the picture of a guy who is really trying to get the best for himself out of this. On what planet is walking into the divorce hearings with that paternity card in hand not going to improve his negotiating position?

In the few no-fault divorces I've handled, no children were involved. Division of assets and liabilities was not equal, however. The couples usually had good reasons for the distributions they chose. But key, they made most of these decisions before engaging a lawyer to draft pleadings & petitions, etc. at hundreds of dollars an hour.

When kids are involved, though, those child support and custody negotiations are usually contentious, lengthy and expensive. And all of the other issues get examined in that context.

By leaving those issues aside until a divorce decree has been made, a father questioning paternity in a SAPCR keeps that issue from coloring those pre-divorce negotiations. He saves time and money.

It is effective enough that some divorce attorneys negotiate to include provisions in the decree that pushes the date of any potential SAPCR back a few years...at which point, you can wind back at square 1, negotiating everything over again.

 

[Kramodlog]

Those couples can marry, so how, again, does it do what you say it does?

Heh. That is similar to the "homosexuals aren't discriminated because they can marry people of the oppiste gender" argument.

 

[Kramodlog]

It has been used as such in the past, yes.

And you're doing the same here. You're justifying discrimination by the state of people who didn't go through a ritual. The ritual doesn't make people good foster parents, like being of different gender doesn't make people good foster parents. Some married couples will be good foster parents, and others not so much. Just like couples who didn't get married. So the ritual isn't a mesure of anything, other things need to be checked to make sure the couple will make good foster parents.

This discrimination not only affects couples who didn't go through the ritual, it also hurts kids who could use good parents but because of state discrimination can't get those.

 

[Ryujin]

Remember though, it isn't usually the kids who are the targets of the angry adults. They're usually the collateral damage...or the weapons at hand. I do know people who are willing to support & interact with kids not their own, even post divorce. Or even post dating. But they are the exception.

In my personal and professional life, I've gotten to see a few divorces up close & personal- not any of them mine, FWIW- and when kids are involved, it is USUALLY a messy business. Although there is a popular idea that one bad parent uses the kids as pawns against the other, innocent parent, it is far more often the case that both sides play games. It's just a matter of degrees. (Ther are exceptions, of course.)

So, while I'm not actually a divorce attorney, what I've seen has driven me to work on some solutions to minimize certain aspects of game playing in those situations.

Of course, the is always the law of unintended consequences. Some of my solutions are pretty good for ending certain kinds of gamesmanship in child support issues, like withholding payments or misdirecting child support to, saaaay, new earrings for mom. But they're a bit slower to be responsive to issues like we're discussing now, namely, what if the kid requiring the support isn't your kid.

In the few no-fault divorces I've handled, no children were involved. Division of assets and liabilities was not equal, however. The couples usually had good reasons for the distributions they chose. But key, they made most of these decisions before engaging a lawyer to draft pleadings & petitions, etc. at hundreds of dollars an hour.

When kids are involved, though, those child support and custody negotiations are usually contentious, lengthy and expensive. And all of the other issues get examined in that context.

By leaving those issues aside until a divorce decree has been made, a father questioning paternity in a SAPCR keeps that issue from coloring those pre-divorce negotiations. He saves time and money.

It is effective enough that some divorce attorneys negotiate to include provisions in the decree that pushes the date of any potential SAPCR back a few years...at which point, you can wind back at square 1, negotiating everything over again.

In the case I recall the issue wasn't whether or not the kid would have new shoes, but rather recovery of monies already paid by The State for support of the children.

As a child of divorce, whose father cut off any money to the family he left and tried very hard to drive my mother insane or to break-down prior to leaving, believe me when I say that I'm quite familiar with the concept of children being used as weapons. Or, in my case, the better description might be 'held hostage.'