back in 92 a man here paying child support for a kid that wasn't his walked into the social services office and murdered the four women in the support/collection department then committed suicide this too could end badly
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.
Proof of paternity is not the issue and DNA is just better proof. The law was not written because proof may be lacking or questionable. The law was written that way to contravene the proof.
If you had no hard proof, like DNA, to prove paternity then you cannot disprove it either thus no need for a law. But if you can prove or disprove paternity then the law makes sense in that it does what it supposed to do which is keeps the child from bastardy and effects.
It would appear that Chris Atkins, the legal father, has sufficient grounds to sue the biological father, Logan Doolen, for the amount of child support. Is there a reason that he can’t?
This ancient law was written to exclude proof. Read up on it. There was 100% proof even back then such as the husband being at sea for a year. The ancient laws said it did not matter if the husband was at sea. The laws are intended to establish legal paternity not biological.
No reason he cannot sue but then you can sue for practically anything. Winning the lawsuit is another matter. His lawsuit would be tossed or lost. How can you sue another man for child support when you are the father? That is the key point since paternity is a legal issue and in this case paternity is defined by law not biology.
Since forever, with the financial responsibility came custody. The father got custody.
If the wife gets custody, she should also get the financial responsibility to pay for the child.
I had a great employee who didnt show up one day and was never heard from again. He went to ground to avoid paying support for 3 kids that were not his.
Marries a woman who has a kid because she says she is pregnant by him. Kid is born and wife talks him into adopting her first child. His second child by her comes along under suspicious circumstances but he doesn’t do anything until after the child is born. He sneaks a DNA test disproving his paternity. At the divorce trial she admits the other one she birthed while married isn’t his either. Judge tells him tough luck, legally they are yours.
Idiotic analysis. It isn’t his.
So where is justice in making one innocent man financially responsible for the fraud of a woman, and the wrong act of another man?
Is the need of the child so great that it demands grave injustice be inflicted on an innocent man?
Totally sick.
He says he hasn’t seen the girl in 4 years. So how did he get a DNA test done? How did he get a DNA sample from the child? Wouldn’t a DNA sample from her be necessary to prove paternity?
Of course if he has been denied contact with the child and a DNA test proves that he isn’t the father, then no, he shouldn’t be required to pay child support going forward and should be IMO due a refund going back the 4 years he was denied visitation, if that is indeed true.
But then on the other hand, the mother remarried and asked for Atkins’ permission to change the child’s last name and he refused. If her new husband is able to provide support and is willing to adopt her, then I would think that would get Atkins off the hook for child support – would it not?
I understand if he still feels and wants to be the child’s father since he believed himself to be so for 11 years, but it sounds to me like he is perhaps also being a bit of an obstacle to this end.
Sad - especially for this 15-year-old girl caught in the middle of this legal and emotional mess and tug of war.
Imagine how messed up she must feel – the dad I knew as my dad for 11 years isn’t really my dad and I’m either not allowed to see him or my mother has poisoned me to the point I no longer want to, or maybe, perhaps I have legitimate reasons why I don’t want him in my life; my new dad isn’t allowed to give me his name and my biologic father who I never knew, suddenly comes into my life but doesn’t have to take any financial responsibility for me.
back in 92 a man here paying child support for a kid that wasn't his walked into the social services office and murdered the four women in the support/collection department then committed suicide this too could end badly
Exactly. When visiting gross injustice on people, and even being gleeful or flippant about it, one should always remember, almost everyone has a breaking point. You never know where it is, or exactly what it will unleash.
Justice would rely on remedies against the mother would they not? The child did not perpetrate the fraud.
The ancient reason for marriage was to have and raise children. Ancient societies, heck even our own until the leftist took over, wanted more people because populous countries tended to be more powerful. Even Russia and Poland are today starting to enforce pro-natal policies.
So the laws were written as to what was best for encouraging women to have children. Mission accomplished.
We make sure a women is compensated for having a child no matter the circumstances and no matter who pays. The husband, the bio dad, or uncle sugar (me and you as tax payers) will pay her.
The billions of dollars that could have supported the MRAs who are fighting paternity fraud made expensive prostitutes and abusive pimps rich instead.
Case by case, in a society where marriage is strong there are going to be some hard cases. This particular one is one of them but it's a bad idea to alter a foundational construct because of hard cases.
100%
He should sue the real father for recompense
Dna tests should be required at birth, or before. That would help put a stop to this crap.
You can't make this up.
The judge refuses to enforce his parental rights. The judge is more than willing, however, to enforce his responsibilities.
Such an unjust situation cannot last, nor should it.
I suspect those such as you with a traditional view of men's responsibilities would disapprove of the society you would deny helping to create.
This is just one reason (but an excellent one) why marriage is dying. Birth control, unilateral abortion and no fault divorce have changed the rights and responsibilities of women. Their roles have evolved for greater options and less responsibility.
Yet you would leave men stuck with traditional responsibilities, locked in the same old roles. This makes marriage an irrational act for men. Some will be guilted by talk such as the nonsense about refusing to grow up, but that number will shrink.
One need only see the roles played by the men...the biological father, who wants no part of the responsibility for his child...and the responsible if naïve husband, who gets to listen to those such as yourself lecture about irresponsibility...to understand this forces us to a place of which you would disapprove.
Reward irresponsibility and punish responsibility, and see what kind of society results. You're responsible.
He could try suing the biological father for partial remuneration...now that would grab some headlines!
A good friend of mine had to pay support for a kid that wasn’t his as well. He had been separated from his wife for 5 years and she called him to finalize the divorce because she wanted to marry another man. So both parties show up for court as well as the future husband and all their attorneys. The judge looks up and notices that the woman is pregnant and said that changes everything, even though all parties and thier attorneys spoke up that the child was not his. This was in Idaho about 30 years ago
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.