Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results
Q13Fox.com ^ | 28JUL2016 | Staff writer

Posted on 10/15/2016 4:55:05 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

1 posted on 10/15/2016 4:55:05 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Shameful. And you wonder why there is a mens rights movement.


2 posted on 10/15/2016 5:03:25 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

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.


3 posted on 10/15/2016 5:06:07 AM PDT by Principled (...the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

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.


4 posted on 10/15/2016 5:07:44 AM PDT by Chickensoup (Leftist totalitarian governments are the biggest killer of citizens in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

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.


5 posted on 10/15/2016 5:08:04 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

A really rotten woman in MANY ways. She’s screwing over the dad that her daughter grew up with and her daughter, too.


6 posted on 10/15/2016 5:15:04 AM PDT by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
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.”

After nine years of sole access to the daughter before the truth came out, it's little wonder. Even then, we don't know if she's telling the truth.
7 posted on 10/15/2016 5:24:54 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Even when the kid IS YOURS you can get screwed over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9scj-AC1RI


8 posted on 10/15/2016 5:25:05 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
And you wonder why there is a mens rights movement.

I would say the wonder is why more men don't support it, but I know why.

9 posted on 10/15/2016 5:30:20 AM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Clinton's actions speak louder than Trump's words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Varda

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.


10 posted on 10/15/2016 5:41:17 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Varda

“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!


11 posted on 10/15/2016 5:45:09 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

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?


12 posted on 10/15/2016 5:52:53 AM PDT by Ozark Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
<. When asked if she was being greedy, Lonnquist reportedly said, “Maybe, but I don’t feel bad about it, I really don’t.”

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?

13 posted on 10/15/2016 6:03:48 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Bill and Hillary Clinton are the penicillin-resistant syphilis of our political system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DH

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.


14 posted on 10/15/2016 6:06:14 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

The mother should be in jail for criminal fraud.


15 posted on 10/15/2016 6:30:29 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Wonder if Danny Clinton Williams can file a case with this judge?


16 posted on 10/15/2016 6:50:43 AM PDT by ptsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

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”.


17 posted on 10/15/2016 7:12:16 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Varda
We have the first winner.

You advvocate3 for the enslavement of this man...why?

18 posted on 10/15/2016 7:14:02 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

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.


19 posted on 10/15/2016 7:16:38 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

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.


20 posted on 10/15/2016 7:34:55 AM PDT by glasseye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson