You selfish, selfish woman...you waited TEN YEARS to contact him?

The BBQ Pit
61

This is based on WA law and, again, IANAL:

Support is based upon the combined income of the parents of the child and the number of dependent children each parent has. Generally speaking, the courts do not take bread from the mouth of one kid to feed another. What the court should do, if asked, is modify the ordered support amount based upon Jim having two dependent children–after kid 2 is born. Until kid 2 is born, there is only one dependent child to consider. But the court can only do this if asked, so Jim (either on his own or via his attorney) will have to go to court and request a modification. There are things that can be used to deviate from the standard support amounts that are set as well–travel costs, insurance costs, voluntary un/under-employment of one parent, etc.

Setting child support can be very difficult, even when the parents get along and are working together to come up with something equitable. There are added challenges when the parents don’t agree–I hear about them every day.

62

Damn, I wish I could get pregnant, I’ve had tons of sex in the last ten years, it would be nice if some of it could pay off in some fashion.

63

Aries28 You say they need help in the baby stuff department? I’d be happy to help if they don’t mind gently used baby stuff. Just let me know :slight_smile:

64

Etc. is right! 10 yrs. ago she was bangin’ Jim & Hubby and probably her divorce guy, who she was certainly bangin’ 4 yrs. later. Who handled her divorce from the divorce attorney? Jim’s lawyer? Sounds like he’s gettin’ some too. :eek:

She must be one magnificent piece of ass.

65

Well, I’m a lawyer, and here’s my two cents.

First, the law varies from state to state on who is responsible for paying this kid’s support–old husband, intervening husband, Jim–and it also depends on a lot of facts we just don’t have.

The most complicated fact we DO have is that the first husband hasn’t ever paid child support for the kid. This fact, and the absence of a lot of other facts about the first marriage, make it hard to say what the legal situation is.

Jim has a crappy family lawyer. The truth is that they could not have gotten a worse deal than they have right now.

Jim would probably end up with a support order for now and into the future, but the back support would have been an open question. Frankly, her evidence of trying to contact Jim is so crummy that she almost certainly would’ve gotten less that $21,000, and maybe nothing on back support.

Jim is also a rube for not insisting on a paternity test and joint custody (or liberal visitation) straight out of the box.

FACT: most courts tie support to visitation rights. If he’s paying, he’s almost certainly entitled to a relationship with the girl.

Seems to me that Jim is being kind of a spineless weenie, letting himself be manipulated by this woman. He needs to stand up for his rights and the rights of BOTH of his children. Bankrupting himself and his family so he can give the evil harpy $21,000 doesn’t serve the interests of Jim, Sarah, the unborn baby, OR the mystery kid.

Jim should’ve gone to court and fought, but it may now be too late–he’s started paying. Still, he should get a new lawyer who is competent and should look into what the law says, what the possibilities are, and fight.

That said, Jim and Sarah knew this other kid was out there, and while I’m sorry for them that their plans have been upset, they knew that there was a kid out there that Jim had never signed away parental rights for. Counting on the evil harpy to do what’s right was a big mistake.

66

I’m not sure who you mean by “we,” but yeah, if someone offers an ignorant thought on a legal issue, I’ll bitch about it. As far as moral insight goes, the only comment I’ve offered in this thread is that the situation kinda sucks. I’m not sure I’d call that ‘superior moral insight,’ but hey - whatever floats your boat.

67

Allow me to add for the hundredth time that Jim. needs. a. good. lawyer. He could also use a spine as he is seriously lacking in one.

Worst case scenario is that Jim is out $21g up front. That’s the price of a new car, folks. And we’re talking about something infinitely more precious – his CHILD. And remember that even IF the courts award that, a lawyer may be able to work out a payment plan. $650/month would cramp anyone’s budget but it would be so worth it if he gets to finally forge a relationship with his daughter.

The good news in this story, the thing that should be focused on, is that that Jim has a beautiful, healthy daughter who has asked to see him. Sarah has a beautiful, healthy step-daughter. That is a good thing. It is not only Jim’s right, but it’s his DUTY to try and make up for the time he missed in her life, and to provide the emotional and financial security that her mother so clearly lacks. Blood is thicker than water and it surely is more important than money.

68

By the way, has he considered having a paternity test done?
:d & r:

69

While offering advice on any specific case might be a bit risky for the board lawyers, you could help in a more general way. As a layman, I would think getting a lawyer that is as narrowly specialised as possible in these kind of cases would be a benefit. How about offering some tips on exactly how you could go about checking a lawyers qualifications. I don’t know if Jim actually needs any help in that area, of course, but if nothing else it would be educational for the rest of us.

So… what kind of public records are there regarding individual lawyers? Can you find out what cases they’ve handled overall, how many custody/support cases, wins/losses/settled, things like that? Maybe something is available online?

With this kind of money, doing extensive research on your own instead of just trusting the first lawyer you contact seems like a very good idea, and getting pointed in the right direction might help save time and aggravation.

70

If I’n not mistaken, his paying child support and him actually having access to his daughter are different issues.

She can collect the cash and still freeze him out. (The mom, not the daughter)

71

Bear in mind, he is, by bureaucratic or legal definition, a dead-beat dad.

Keep that in mind the next time you see a story about the millions of thoughless pricks running around the country, hiding from authorities and shirking their responsibilities. This poor slob is one of those statistics. Are there alot of deadbeats out there? Sure. But try to remember the numbers don’t always tell the whole story.

72

Where the heck is minty green, or Bricker, or Jodi?

I don’t think he’s a dead beat dad by legal definition because I don’t think he’s the father by legal definition.

I stand by my assumption that if the mom was married at the time of birth, then the husband is legally considered the father.

Where did I come by this assumption? Well, I’ll tell ya.

We’ve had a number of threads, which I’m too stupid and lazy to find, where we have discussed a man paying child support for a child who was actually the result of an affair between the ex-xife and another man. In those threads, it was put forward that it was irrelevant that said man (or men, actually) was not the biological father. He was legally the father and the courts would not listen to evidence that he was not.

Now, check my reasoning here for errors please…

If a man has to pay child support to an ex wife for a child that is not actually HIS child, then that ex wife cannot go to the actual father for child support, too. In the eyes of the law, there can only be one legal father, right?

Now, let’s look at this differently. Let’s say that the mom in THIS case stayed married. Would Jim be able to assert ANY parental rights throught the courts??

I do not believe he would be able to. Even if had the results of DNA testing, the courts would look at the mom’s husband as the father…

We need one of the legal eagles here.

73

The rule varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But I believe that in most American jurisdictions, the biological father can potentially be put on the hook for child support, with a narrow exception for sperm donors.

Whether the mom’s husband can be liable is a trickier question, but note that even if he is liable, it does not necessarily follow that the biological dad is not.

(Traditionally, the common law on this issue is known as ‘Lord Mansfield’s Rule,’ under which the husband of the mother was conclusively presumed to be the father of a child as long as at some point during the gestation period he was not beyond the four seas of England. However Lord Mansfield’s rule has been eroded over the years by statute and judicial decision.)

**

Not necessarily. For example, in New Jersey, termination of a man’s parental rights does not relieve him of parental responsibilities. So if he won the lottery, he could in theory be sued for child support. At the same time, if that child is adopted by another man, the other man would have parental responsibilities. So it’s possible for multiple men (and women) to have parental responsibilities towards a child.

**

I believe that in some jurisdictions (but not all) a stranger to a marriage can in theory pursue an affiliation proceeding with respect to a child who is a product of that marriage.

74

Ah, they’re 1920’s style “paternity tests”.

75

This is interesting reading, and has actual case law, provided by our own minty green.

So I understand that to mean if a parent hasn’t challenged paternity in the first 5 years, it cannot be challenged thereafter.

But again, I could be wrong.