Judge Stops The Insanity of Trapping Men In Child Support Payments For Non-Biological Children
Options
Comments
-
yall acting like its credit card debt, chill...as long as he makes he month 1 dollar payment he will be more than fine
-
I forgot about passprt and license issues too. As long as he has an arreage, he will have all kinds of issues. Technically, the state could snatch his tax refunds.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »Bulletproof Wallets wrote: »I would still hate to have $23, 000 in debt in my name. He still wins tho.
At $1/month it won't hurt him at all because it won't have any impact on his debt-to-income ratio.
Basically, someone with $10,000 in debt paying $300/month is in a worse position than someone paying $1/month on $23,000 in debt.
Dude won.
bruh a $23K debt looks ? up on a credit report regardless of the payment terms
somebody with $10K looks better cause it will get paid before a $23K debt will..........the judge didn't think that one all the way thru even tho he had good intentions
That's a fair point, but your credit score is secondary to you being able to live from month to month, and for a lot of people an extra $300 burden is crushing.
what are you exactly arguing here?
I'm just saying that the judge still missed the mark even tho he had good intentions
the ? signed a birth certificate on good faith........only to find out shorty is an irresponsible ?
yet the debt is still pinned to dude legally
I'm just saying I don't believe the judge missed the mark. I could be reading it wrong, but it's not like the judge intended to exonerate dude from all responsibility. The judge clearly believes he has some fault to bear, so he wasn't trying to let dude off completely free. I see what you're saying, but depending on this dude's circumstances, not having to pay $300 a month could be a big time break for him.
but what fault does dude have in this tho?
the kid ain't his......and he signed the birth certificate under the pretense that he really believed the child was his
so now cuzzo has a $23K debt because a scandalous ? took advantage of his intentions to be a stand-up dude
only thing the judge did was hurt the grimy BM cause now she only getting $1 a month haha
but if dude wants to move on in life, ie, get a mortgage, buy a new car, get a better job
cuzzo's score is still tainted with a debt he should've never had in the 1st place....plus he had already paid thousands of dollars he most likely ain't getting back SMH
-
BlackThor356 wrote: »yall acting like its credit card debt, chill...as long as he makes he month 1 dollar payment he will be more than fine
Bruh, if the judge waived the arrears and then ordered a dollar a month then OK. But having a past due amount of support presents all kinds of problems. Thats the issue here, the drama arrears bring. -
blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »Bulletproof Wallets wrote: »I would still hate to have $23, 000 in debt in my name. He still wins tho.
At $1/month it won't hurt him at all because it won't have any impact on his debt-to-income ratio.
Basically, someone with $10,000 in debt paying $300/month is in a worse position than someone paying $1/month on $23,000 in debt.
Dude won.
bruh a $23K debt looks ? up on a credit report regardless of the payment terms
somebody with $10K looks better cause it will get paid before a $23K debt will..........the judge didn't think that one all the way thru even tho he had good intentions
That's a fair point, but your credit score is secondary to you being able to live from month to month, and for a lot of people an extra $300 burden is crushing.
what are you exactly arguing here?
I'm just saying that the judge still missed the mark even tho he had good intentions
the ? signed a birth certificate on good faith........only to find out shorty is an irresponsible ?
yet the debt is still pinned to dude legally
I'm just saying I don't believe the judge missed the mark. I could be reading it wrong, but it's not like the judge intended to exonerate dude from all responsibility. The judge clearly believes he has some fault to bear, so he wasn't trying to let dude off completely free. I see what you're saying, but depending on this dude's circumstances, not having to pay $300 a month could be a big time break for him.
but what fault does dude have in this tho?
the kid ain't his......and he signed the birth certificate under the pretense that the he really believe the child was his
so now cuzzo has a $23K debt because a scandalous ? took advantage of his intentions to be a stand-up dude
only thing the judge did was hurt the grimy BM cause now she only getting a $1 a month haha
but if dude wants to move on in life, ie, get a mortgage, buy a new car, get a better job
cuzzo's score is still tainted with a debt he should've never had in the 1st place....plus he had already paid thousands of dollars he most likely ain't getting back SMH
Like the judge said, don't sign that birth certificate unless you're certain. Like it or not, it's a binding document attesting certain responsibilities to those who sign it. Would you sign any other contract without making sure everything was on the level?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »Bulletproof Wallets wrote: »I would still hate to have $23, 000 in debt in my name. He still wins tho.
At $1/month it won't hurt him at all because it won't have any impact on his debt-to-income ratio.
Basically, someone with $10,000 in debt paying $300/month is in a worse position than someone paying $1/month on $23,000 in debt.
Dude won.
bruh a $23K debt looks ? up on a credit report regardless of the payment terms
somebody with $10K looks better cause it will get paid before a $23K debt will..........the judge didn't think that one all the way thru even tho he had good intentions
That's a fair point, but your credit score is secondary to you being able to live from month to month, and for a lot of people an extra $300 burden is crushing.
what are you exactly arguing here?
I'm just saying that the judge still missed the mark even tho he had good intentions
the ? signed a birth certificate on good faith........only to find out shorty is an irresponsible ?
yet the debt is still pinned to dude legally
I'm just saying I don't believe the judge missed the mark. I could be reading it wrong, but it's not like the judge intended to exonerate dude from all responsibility. The judge clearly believes he has some fault to bear, so he wasn't trying to let dude off completely free. I see what you're saying, but depending on this dude's circumstances, not having to pay $300 a month could be a big time break for him.
but what fault does dude have in this tho?
the kid ain't his......and he signed the birth certificate under the pretense that the he really believe the child was his
so now cuzzo has a $23K debt because a scandalous ? took advantage of his intentions to be a stand-up dude
only thing the judge did was hurt the grimy BM cause now she only getting a $1 a month haha
but if dude wants to move on in life, ie, get a mortgage, buy a new car, get a better job
cuzzo's score is still tainted with a debt he should've never had in the 1st place....plus he had already paid thousands of dollars he most likely ain't getting back SMH
Like the judge said, don't sign that birth certificate unless you're certain. Like it or not, it's a binding document attesting certain responsibilities to those who sign it. Would you sign any other contract without making sure everything was on the level?
bruh but this is the only type of contract where US courts don't throw them out because of material misrepresentation
any other contract of this nature would be thrown out immediately........but childbirth is the only implied contract where the rules are unfairly slanted in favor of the woman
DNA tests are not free for everyone
and broads get out of prenups all the time for signing under duress........why is it a dude can never be given the same consideration when he signed the birth certificate out of good faith in an extremely stressful situation for a new parent?
-
blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »Bulletproof Wallets wrote: »I would still hate to have $23, 000 in debt in my name. He still wins tho.
At $1/month it won't hurt him at all because it won't have any impact on his debt-to-income ratio.
Basically, someone with $10,000 in debt paying $300/month is in a worse position than someone paying $1/month on $23,000 in debt.
Dude won.
bruh a $23K debt looks ? up on a credit report regardless of the payment terms
somebody with $10K looks better cause it will get paid before a $23K debt will..........the judge didn't think that one all the way thru even tho he had good intentions
That's a fair point, but your credit score is secondary to you being able to live from month to month, and for a lot of people an extra $300 burden is crushing.
what are you exactly arguing here?
I'm just saying that the judge still missed the mark even tho he had good intentions
the ? signed a birth certificate on good faith........only to find out shorty is an irresponsible ?
yet the debt is still pinned to dude legally
I'm just saying I don't believe the judge missed the mark. I could be reading it wrong, but it's not like the judge intended to exonerate dude from all responsibility. The judge clearly believes he has some fault to bear, so he wasn't trying to let dude off completely free. I see what you're saying, but depending on this dude's circumstances, not having to pay $300 a month could be a big time break for him.
but what fault does dude have in this tho?
the kid ain't his......and he signed the birth certificate under the pretense that the he really believe the child was his
so now cuzzo has a $23K debt because a scandalous ? took advantage of his intentions to be a stand-up dude
only thing the judge did was hurt the grimy BM cause now she only getting a $1 a month haha
but if dude wants to move on in life, ie, get a mortgage, buy a new car, get a better job
cuzzo's score is still tainted with a debt he should've never had in the 1st place....plus he had already paid thousands of dollars he most likely ain't getting back SMH
Like the judge said, don't sign that birth certificate unless you're certain. Like it or not, it's a binding document attesting certain responsibilities to those who sign it. Would you sign any other contract without making sure everything was on the level?
bruh but this is the only type of contract where US courts don't throw them out because of material misrepresentation
any other contract of this nature would be thrown out immediately........but childbirth is the only implied contract where the rules are unfairly slanted in favor of the woman
DNA tests are not free for everyone
and broads get out of prenups all the time for signing under duress........why is it a dude can never be given the same consideration when he signed the birth certificate out of good faith in an extremely stressful situation for a new parent?
That's not true. There are plenty of people out there who were the victims of fraud and still lost everything. Just because you get tricked doesn't automatically absolve you of responsibility. Even in those cases a flat out lie was told and revealed. That's not quite the same thing as a hoe not knowing who her baby belongs to and tagging it to the most reliable guy.
-
Guess I should find a new hustle.
-
here's my whole thing tho
if youre signing this "to the best of your knowledge" then why cant dna over turn it???
and why is there no simp section for the cats that want another mans child on purpose and adoptive parents??
fact is, in contracts when one party doesnt uphold their end of the contract it becomes void.
so when a mother signs this she is saying that either the man is the father or she accepts his replacement.
in other words, this ? is way too vague to keep a person stuck in it when that person can prove otherwise
-
Not all birth certs look like this but that looks pretty clear...UPTOWNCONNEXX wrote: »here's my whole thing tho
DNA should be able to overturn it but it's asking you to verify other information that may be on the certificate like time and date of birth, baby's weight etcif youre signing this "to the best of your knowledge" then why cant dna over turn it???
Adoptive parents can still take custody, they don't need to be on the birth cert.and why is there no simp section for the cats that want another mans child on purpose and adoptive parents??fact is, in contracts when one party doesnt uphold their end of the contract it becomes void.
so when a mother signs this she is saying that either the man is the father or she accepts his replacement.
No. The mother certifies that she gave birth to said child on said date and at said time.
The man certifies that he is the father of said child birthed by said mother on said date and time.in other words, this ? is way too vague to keep a person stuck in it when that person can prove otherwise
It's clear as crystal. If you certify that you are the father then you sign it, if you not the father or have any doubts then you don't sign it. -
Birth certificate verification is archaic. With DNA testing we can tell for sure who the father is, problem is getting the guy to submit DNA for testing.
The constitution prevents the unlawful collection of genetic material, and more often than not either the girl has more than one man to test.? ...this ? is so messy, and ? support having multiple ? and ? bussing it open for multiple ? smh -
Birth certificate verification is archaic. With DNA testing we can tell for sure who the father is, problem is getting the guy to submit DNA for testing.
The constitution prevents the unlawful collection of genetic material, and more often than not either the girl has more than one man to test.? ...this ? is so messy, and ? support having multiple ? and ? bussing it open for multiple ? smh
trust....that ain't the problem at all
DNA testing is not invasive enough to discourage a dude from doing it
the real problem is when the man wants a DNA test, it's the woman who tries to discourage the dude out of guilt
only a kind-hearted simp sucka type falls for it.......that's what you get for being a nice guy and trusting a female's word SMH -
an angel got its wings somewhere..
-
If she taking you to court for child support and you question paternity she doesn't have a choice but to submit the child for testing.
-
If she taking you to court for child support and you question paternity she doesn't have a choice but to submit the child for testing.
who told you this lie? haha -
BlackThor356 wrote: »yall acting like its credit card debt, chill...as long as he makes he month 1 dollar payment he will be more than fine
Bruh, if the judge waived the arrears and then ordered a dollar a month then OK. But having a past due amount of support presents all kinds of problems. Thats the issue here, the drama arrears bring.
Co-sign. The perfect outcome would have been - no arrears, no future payments, and perhaps making the mother pay him back.
Judge talkin' about not signing the birth certificate like if that's all to the story. What if you sign the birth certificate then a paternity test says you're not the father - they're going to ignore the test ? FOH. This judge took a small step but lets not act like he couldn't have done more. -
1 dollar a month is STILL too much.
Exactly what is he paying for?
The only person who should be forced to make any payments is that untrustworthy ? . -
blakfyahking wrote: »Bulletproof Wallets wrote: »I would still hate to have $23, 000 in debt in my name. He still wins tho.
At $1/month it won't hurt him at all because it won't have any impact on his debt-to-income ratio.
Basically, someone with $10,000 in debt paying $300/month is in a worse position than someone paying $1/month on $23,000 in debt.
Dude won.
bruh a $23K debt looks ? up on a credit report regardless of the payment terms
somebody with $10K looks better cause it will get paid before a $23K debt will..........the judge didn't think that one all the way thru even tho he had good intentionsleftcoastkev wrote: »Do they put cs on your credit report tho?
Yep. It goes on as a collection account
AND
It stays there for the whole 7yr reporting limit(unless you get get it off). It also updates every single month until you pay it of,which will keep making the collection look "new"BlackThor356 wrote: »yall acting like its credit card debt, chill...as long as he makes he month 1 dollar payment he will be more than fine
Bruh, if the judge waived the arrears and then ordered a dollar a month then OK. But having a past due amount of support presents all kinds of problems. Thats the issue here, the drama arrears bring.
Ok.....the bolded makes sense.
I wasn't thinking about the amount being past due......and showing up as a collection.
Thought it would just show up like a loan/credit card debt.
So, I guess he won and he lost.
$1/month is better than $300/month, but having a collection and past due amount on your credit report is gonna cause irreparable damage to his credit report unless he somehow gets the cash to pay it in full.
-
........In 5 Years, Ol Broad can get a #1 from McDonalds .
#WINNING Huh.? lol -
I agree with the judge here. Principle, people principles.
-
? gonna have this judge pictures next to the Black Jesus with the Dreadlocks, Martin Luther King and Biggie and/or Tupac.
-
A lot of ya'll are arguing against the wrong thing. Right or wrong, the birth certificate stuff isn't there to protect the mother or father. It's there to protect the children. That's why a lot of judges are still committed to making the man pay. From their standpoint, if a man has been providing for a child, it's not fair to the child to just have that support taken away all of a sudden for something that was no fault of their own. I'm not saying that's a good reason, but that is the reason in a lot of cases.
I also wouldn't call a dude a simp for continuing to support a child, at least not in all cases. If you've been raising a kid for 10 years thinking he/she is yours, it might hurt to find out it's not, but I don't think a decade worth of love and caring disappears instantly. Biology or not, if you've been working and sacrificing for that child's well being for several years, that's your child. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »A lot of ya'll are arguing against the wrong thing. Right or wrong, the birth certificate stuff isn't there to protect the mother or father. It's there to protect the children. That's why a lot of judges are still committed to making the man pay. From their standpoint, if a man has been providing for a child, it's not fair to the child to just have that support taken away all of a sudden for something that was no fault of their own. I'm not saying that's a good reason, but that is the reason in a lot of cases.
I also wouldn't call a dude a simp for continuing to support a child, at least not in all cases. If you've been raising a kid for 10 years thinking he/she is yours, it might hurt to find out it's not, but I don't think a decade worth of love and caring disappears instantly. Biology or not, if you've been working and sacrificing for that child's well being for several years, that's your child.
I agree. People forget that you become emotionally attached to that child whether the child is biologically yours or not.
-
These laws were created cuz the gov got tired of footin the bill for dudes who took off on their kids. They werent created to protect kids. If that were the case, they would care when some of these ? use c support as their personal allowance. They dont give a half a ? about anybody that walks threw those door.
Yeah I know bonds get created and such, but you cant just force somebody into servitude when they were duped. How about findin the bio dad and taxing HIS pockets and ? up HIS credit? See they dont care bout that either cuz they already got him on the hook. -
These laws were created cuz the gov got tired of footin the bill for dudes who took off on their kids. They werent created to protect kids. If that were the case, they would care when some of these ? use c support as their personal allowance. They dont give a half a ? about anybody that walks threw those door.
Yeah I know bonds get created and such, but you cant just force somebody into servitude when they were duped. How about findin the bio dad and taxing HIS pockets and ? up HIS credit? See they dont care bout that either cuz they already got him on the hook.
If it wasn't about protecting the kids then this wouldn't be an issue because they would just let things be. The only reason this even exists is because there are measures in place to make sure kids are taken care of, so protecting the kids is intrinsic to the whole matter.
