Posted on 10/15/2016 4:55:05 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine
DENVER -- Chris Atkins leads a life that might be stranger than any episode of "The Maury Povich Show."
The daytime talk show host has made a living out of revealing DNA test results to squabbling couples, but Atkins already knows DNA has proven he’s not the father of his ex-wife’s daughter, who was 2 years old when the couple divorced.
But since the truth didn’t come out until the girl was 11 and his name remains on the birth certificate, he is legally obligated to keep paying child support until she turns 19, reports KDVR.
“It doesn’t make any sense to me,” said Atkins, who hasn’t had contact with the now-15-year-old girl in four years.
The 48-year-old said he should be allowed to maintain visitation with a girl he considered his daughter or if not, be allowed to stop paying $730 a month in child support and health insurance.
"I just want my daughter, but I can't even see her, but yet I'm still paying child support. And the biological father has been found and he gets to spend time with her. I don't get nothing,” Atkins said.
Atkins accused his ex-wife Lori Lonnquist of ignoring court custody orders that grant him visitation while still collecting child support. When asked if she was being greedy, Lonnquist reportedly said, “Maybe, but I don’t feel bad about it, I really don’t.”
Lonnquist insisted Atkins abandoned any relationship with her daughter when he learned she wasn’t biologically his. Atkins denied that and said Lonnquist refused to facilitate visits.
"I went to court and I said ‘I'm not seeing my daughter, but I'm still paying.’ (The judge) said 'What do you want me to do arrest her?' And I said 'Yes sir, something.' He said 'It's out of my hands.'"
When asked if she was taking advantage of the situation, Lonnquist responded, “Maybe so, but that's also not on me. My kid doesn't want to see him. She wants nothing to do with him.”
Lonnquist said she would agree to stop collecting child support from Atkins if he would agree to terminate his parental rights. Denver family law attorney Ron Litvak said Lonnquist’s suggestion is not a realistic option.
“It's very rare that a court will ever allow someone to terminate their parental rights unless someone else is willing to step into that role. The courts are not usually going to do that," Litvak said.
The most obvious “someone” would be Logan Doolen, the girl’s biological father. But the Aurora man said he has no intention of stepping to the plate.
Doolen said he feels bad for Atkins, but “on the flip side, if I would have to pay child support that would be messed up too."
Lonnquist said she doesn’t think it would be right for her to go after Doolen for child support.
“Because he has his own family, he has his own life. I don't think that's fair to come onto somebody when they didn't know for 11 years that they didn't have a kid and say 'Hey, by the way, you're going to pay child support for a kid that you didn't know was yours.,'" Lonnquist said.
Atkins said he only learned the truth when Lonnquist told him she wanted to legally change her daughter’s last name because she was getting remarried.
Atkins refused to agree to the name change and that’s when he said Lonnquist told him the girl wasn’t really his anyway.
“So the alarms went off and we had a DNA test done and she's not my biological daughter that I raised for 11 years," Atkins said.
After Atkins learned the truth, he tried to submit the DNA test to an Arapahoe County judge, but the family law judge refused to accept the evidence because Atkins, who represented himself at the time, didn’t know the legal rules for submitting evidence.
When Atkins came back later with an attorney, his appeal was denied because the judge said he had already been given his opportunity to submit the DNA results.
“You know, I don’t want pity, I just want everybody to know this is happening. It’s not right, it is not right,” said a frustrated Atkins, who is now on the legal hook to keep paying child support until the girl turns 19 -- despite DNA tests showing the girl is not his biological daughter.
Shameful. And you wonder why there is a mens rights movement.
Harass that bitch until she returns the stolen money, apologizes, and gets sterilized.
Use lawyers...they’re poison. But in this case they’d be _our_ poison.
The laws state that a child born with in the marriage is the child of both parents, DNA results not withstanding. This is a law passed years before there would be ways to definitively track genetic heritage.
The laws may need to be changed, but this is what they are now.
As it sits the child is his because legally the child is his, not genetically.
Since forever, the offspring of a married couple are the husbands responsibility. She’s legally his daughter. He should pay.
Men used to strongly consider the character of the women they married. It’s more important than looks.
A really rotten woman in MANY ways. She’s screwing over the dad that her daughter grew up with and her daughter, too.
Even when the kid IS YOURS you can get screwed over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9scj-AC1RI
I would say the wonder is why more men don't support it, but I know why.
You stated: “Since forever, the offspring of a married couple are the husbands responsibility. She’s legally his daughter. He should pay.”
This ANCIENT LAW was accepted before there was a test that POSITIVELY PROVED who the father was. He was “poking” her before they got married while the whore was “poking” others. When she got pregnant he had the choice to marry her or pay child support for another dog’s puppy (unknown to him) for the next 18 years. What a Bitch!
As long as we don’t have a “MEN’S RIGHTS” movement this will go on forever.
“Men used to strongly consider the character of the women they married.”
That was a long, long, long time ago. People of my advanced age married for life and most marriages did so. Today it’s different. Check out the average length of marriages today.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
The courts have seen fit to interpret the obligations incurred in entering into marriage. They haven’t achieved a just balance in all cases. If one interprets marriage from the viewpoint of a legal instrument, obviously several clauses and expectations were explicitly violated by her conduct.
Fraud should still be held accountable, even when discovered long after the transgression occurred. Chris Atkins life is still being impacted—the biological father skated on obligations other courts would have tasked him with, if the mother of the child had been single.
She effectively wielded a technicality with the courts blessing to burden him with the consequences of a concealed default. Why are the courts not as interested in a just outcome for Chris, as they are in awarding a prize to Lori? In this type of case why wouldn’t an independent trustee be tasked to administer application of the fathers financial support for a child?
The fuss is primarily about the fact that he wants visitation with the girl, who is now 15 years old. Then we have This:
When asked if she was taking advantage of the situation, Lonnquist responded, “Maybe so, but that's also not on me. My kid doesn't want to see him. She wants nothing to do with him.”
Could it be that she's been properly poisoned about him now?
Women bearing other men’s children isn’t new. Men not supporting their own children isn’t new. This man was probrably fornicating with this woman before marriage. If he was he knew what she was before he married her. Once he did, her children are his.
The mother should be in jail for criminal fraud.
Wonder if Danny Clinton Williams can file a case with this judge?
It won’t be long before some fool comes along this thread and says that it’s perfectly appropriate for this to occur “for the child”.
You advvocate3 for the enslavement of this man...why?
Since genetics is ignored, what about the financial responsibility for the children following a divorced woman in a new marriage she may engage in.?
New husband takes over the responsibility.
Stories like this are why I never married, terrible deal for the man in a ‘no fault’ arrangement.
I got snipped 15 years ago when I decided I did not need to reproduce.
Always entertaining to observe a womans reaction when I told them I had had the surgery, and educational.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.