Are You Still Responsible for Arrears on a Child That’s Proven Not Yours

[hbarboza4139]

That makes no sense how is one responsible for something that's proven not theirs? Why isn't forgiven? I'm just confused with this system

[jk]

I mean after the fact... when we were in Louisiana that's when we couldn't afford a lawyer. We tried to get a lawyer in the beginning of 2009 just to do the DNA test but it didn't happen due the hours he was working and other issues. Yes it should’ve got taken care of sooner but we were in different state 10 hours away from where the child resided. .

yes because that delay may be the only reason you cannot have the arrears dropped.

how about a timeline

child was born in 2004

mom filed to establish paternity in 2004?

mom filed for CS in 2008

your husband was aware of the court ruling when?

he took some action with the courts to have the erroneous placement of paternity when?

[Dogmatique]

That makes no sense how is one responsible for something that's proven not theirs? Why isn't forgiven? I'm just confused with this system

Because biology isn't all there is to paternity.

What is Dad's attorney actually saying about disestablishing paternity?

[hbarboza4139]

The 82nd Texas Legislature amended the Texas Family Code to allow courts to terminate the parent-child relationship and the duty to pay child support in circumstances of mistaken paternity. Men who meet the requirements of the law may seek court-ordered genetic testing. If testing excludes a man as the child’s biological father, the court may terminate the parent-child relationship and the duty to pay future child support.

He met the requirments since the DNA request was granted. I'm still not understanding why and how he's still responsible for arrears. I could see if he missed payments after the order why he would be responsible. But she went in 2008 and they calculated back to 2004 why is he responsible for those years? It says in the order retroactive.. Is this even the same thing as arrears?

child was born in 2004

Neither parents did nothing for 4 years

mom filed for CS in 2008

your husband was aware of the court ruling in end of Sep 2008

he took some action with the courts to have the erroneous placement of paternity in November 2011

filed dna request with court dec 2011

mother agreed to dna test Jan 2012

Did dna test Feb 2012

0% results 2-14-12

filed results with court last friday 2-17-12

[jk]

I missed something in the time line. When was paternity legally established?

the fact he waited 3 years to do anything may be the reason he will not be able to have the CS dropped. While you argue it was the mothers actions that caused CS to be erroneously imposed, it is your husbands fault for not having the CS situation corrected when he knew of it. What that means is the state did not take action to find anybody else who may be the father during that time and as such, the mother would lose child support from the rightful father due to your husbands failure to act. That is why it is just the CS remains in place.

[Dogmatique]

The 82nd Texas Legislature amended the Texas Family Code to allow courts to terminate the parent-child relationship and the duty to pay child support in circumstances of mistaken paternity. Men who meet the requirements of the law may seek court-ordered genetic testing. If testing excludes a man as the child’s biological father, the court may terminate the parent-child relationship and the duty to pay future child support.

He met the requirments since the DNA request was granted. I'm still not understanding why and how he's still responsible for arrears. I could see if he missed payments after the order why he would be responsible. But she went in 2008 and they calculated back to 2004 why is he responsible for those years? It says in the order retroactive.. Is this even the same thing as arrears?

Two things.

First - look at the wording. It says the court MAY. It doesn't say the court SHALL or WILL. In other words - the court doesn't have to do anything at all.

Second - Retro isn't the same as arrears. Retro support is support granted for a period BEFORE the parent actually files.

child was born in 2004

Neither parents did nothing for 4 years

mom filed for CS in 2008

your husband was aware of the court ruling in end of Sep 2008

he took some action with the courts to have the erroneous placement of paternity in November 2011

filed dna request with court dec 2011

mother agreed to dna test Jan 2012

Did dna test Feb 2012

0% results 2-14-12

filed results with court last friday 2-17-12

Wait, you mean this only got filed on Friday?

Hon - seriously - what do you want to happen over a holiday weekend?

Nobody here can predict which way the court will rule - it can go either way.

The ATTORNEY is the person your husband needs to be talking to. But as jk said, there's at least a decent change that the court won't find it in the child's best interest to disestablish paternity at this point.

[hbarboza4139]

State of Texas says you have 4 years from when a man is declared the father to contest paternity if there wasn't a DNA test done. New bill starting sep 2012 they just passed states that they have 1 year to request termination of child support after they find out they're not the father.

So it's retro because she waited until 2008 to file? Arrears is when he misses any payments AFTER the order?

[Dogmatique]

It's retro because for whatever reason (it looks like Mom requested that support go back to the child's birth), it was ordered back to 2004. Yes, he builds up arrears the very second he doesn't make a payment - and unfortunately (for him and many other parents), when retro support is ordered the paying parent is in arrears virtually from the get-go unless they start saving money the very second they're served and pay the entire amount as soon as the order is put in place.

OP, I think there's something important that you're missing here. Just because the statute allows for paternity to be challenged, this does NOT mean that the court MUST allow such a challenge nor does it mean the court MUST rule in favor of the legal father even if DNA proves that he's not the biological father.

This is VERY important.

[hbarboza4139]

Well once this is over with I'll let y'all know the outcome.