Posted on 07/22/2017 12:41:29 PM PDT by AbolishCSEU
A Houston man is on the hook for $65,000 in child support for a child that's not his.
Gabriel Cornejo, 45, took a DNA test proving a child his ex-girlfriend had 16 years ago was not his.
The test was too late. In 2003, a child support court in Houston ruled that Cornejo owed his ex-girlfriend child support because, she claims, there was no way he wasn't the father.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
“what if a guy is not married at 29, then does he not have sex, and if he never marries he should never have sex, and if he does then he is fully responsible and she is not!!!!!!!”
This isn’t clear.
I’m saying people should have sex with their wife or husband.
It’s not hard.
“You really are strange. You are advocating punishing a man for something that he didn’t do. Calling people who disagree with you a “feminist leftist” is sheer lunacy. What YOU advocate is punishing a man for, what I believe is the true reason, your OWN perceived failings and beliefs.”
I think the actual impregnator is the person who ought to have been “on the hook” but I don’t know how it came out this way. But it did, in a court of law.
If he had chosen to actually just have sex with a woman he was married to, he wouldn’t even be in this predicament.
You agree with that, I assume?
As far as the "court of law". Nothing could be further from the truth. No law was followed. The law was bastardized to keep this man in indentured servitude to a child that is not his.
so to have sex you have to be married, and if one decides to never marry then he cannot have sex, and if he does then he is totally responsible for anything, and she is not. WOW
“Sorry, I don’t agree with you on this. You’re saying that since he has sex with her, and he’s an accessible pocket, he deserves the penalty, no matter how much she slept around.
It’s the other guy that got the free milk.”
I agree. The other guy also got the free milk. And the better deal. He should be the one “on the hook” if anyone.
But he’s not and this other guy having sex with her without being married to her lost in court. Raw deal. Too bad, so sad.
If he’d not had sex with someone he wasn’t married to, this would not have happened, would it have?
Not hard to understand.
The poor man has to pay for a child which is not his, and I cannot fathom out at all what the reasoning behind that decision.
“so to have sex you have to be married, and if one decides to never marry then he cannot have sex...”
Until the liberals transformed society, that was the standard.
“and if he does then he is totally responsible for anything, and she is not. WOW””
Don’t know what this means.
Are you saying if a man gets a woman pregnant he has no responsibility for her?
Are you saying if a man has sex with a woman he has no moral responsibility for her?
Just do it like animals?
“Semi-Mojo....who’s this kinky so-and-so...”
What are you on about it was the standard to not have sex till you were married. Back in Jesus times men were having sex with whores for crying out loud. Men were cheating, women were cheating. Men were having sex, women were having sex.
So for your view is you never have sex until you marry, and if you never marry you die a virgin.
Well I am no liberal, but I disagree, as my wife does.
A guy does not have to be fully responsible when it is not his kid.
There is nothing wrong with having sex if you are dating.
I enjoyed having sex with other women when I was in the military before I married, and which is why I married after I left the service.
“There is nothing wrong with having sex if you are dating.”
That’s an opinion, of course, shared with the liberal left society we have now. It’s become the dominant belief over the past few decades with the 60’s social revolution.
That is not a Christian belief.
It’s a free country, people can do what they want. No one says you have to be a Christian or anything else.
This guy found out how it can backfire on you.
Your absolutely disgusting in your support of men being forced to pay through courts for children that are not theirs. Only a cheating lying woman of no morals could support that position. I will go back to my original response FU.
Nope. I know of stay-in-bed moms who are NOT on welfare because the CS is so good. This isn’t just BMs on social services aka welfare; the system is rotten to the core. My husband pays his ex-shrew $200 a week after taxes (and that’s the LOWEST it has been these past 12.5 years). He makes $15-20 an hour.
The ex-shrew has a cushy Child Protective job with the county. Makes almost twice what hubs makes AND she’s remarried to a high five figure guy.
“Your absolutely disgusting in your support of men being forced to pay through courts for children that are not theirs. Only a cheating lying woman of no morals could support that position. I will go back to my original response FU.”
If he had not chosen to have sex with a woman who isn’t his wife he would not have been subject to any if this.
Not hard to understand.
You must not realize how many young women set up guys to get a steady stream of income...
One of my sons was dating a girl, who was already involved with another guy, unknown to my son.
They broke up when he found out and lo and behold a year later he gets hit up for child support...
She forged his name on the birth certificate and he is on the hook for 18 years...
The courts don't care because his money is that much less the government shells out in welfare for the whore.
so there you go.
Can you understand that you DON’T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN TO BE NAMED THE FATHER??!!
It is akin to false rape accusations. You don’t even have to be “at the scene of the crime” to have to pay “reparations” to someone else’s baby mama.
Just as the “deep pocket” theory goes where a drunk driver rams into someone standing in the median and the victim sues the CITY for having a MEDIAN to be standing in WHEN they were hit!!!
You seriously must be living under a rock!
No. You can merely be accused even though you never even TOUCHED a woman. Then be sentenced with 21+ years of indentured servitude (not just 18 anymore).
Get it?
“No. You can merely be accused even though you never even TOUCHED a woman. Then be sentenced with 21+ years of indentured servitude (not just 18 anymore).
Get it?”
That’s not what happened in this case.
You seriously need to open your eyes to the 21st century and abandon your false chivalry. Most modern western women nowadays exist simply to step on the necks of men.
Think Mooslimb men and reverse the genders. Then you’ll have an accurate picture of how misandric the “justice system” is in western civilization. This goes for the UK as well.
“You seriously need to open your eyes to the 21st century and abandon your false chivalry. Most modern western women nowadays exist simply to step on the necks of men.”
Then finding a spouse to marry rather than have sex outside of marriage would seem more important than ever, don’t you agree?
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.