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.
“And the biological father has been found “
And the poor guy paying child support for a child not his, he should sue the DNA father.
There is no penalty for her trampish behavior. . .no disincentive at all.
So the female has no responsibility for her irresponsible behavior?
Git it.
Post 14. . .a winner.
If he hadn’t married her it would be different. Once he married her, her children were his. Societies have an interest in making it hard for a man ro leave a woman with children even if she is unfaithful. This particular aspect is the bedrock concept of marriage and why marriage exists.
They have been divorced for over a decade.
His enslavement is to the state, paying for a child not his.
I find it incredible that any right thinking person could find this situation acceptable.
You ought to be ashamed.
Female infidelity is a ‘bedrock’ of society and marriage. . .to allow females to be a tramp is why we have marriage (monogamy anyone?).
If you say so. . .but not in my world.
Birth control, abortion and no fault divorce are all very popular with the American people. They have damaged marriage and society but people want to fornicate and that's what created a situation like this one not proponents of marriage. That women have fewer consequences for a failed marriage is a mistake on our part. (btw the woman in this story seems to indicate the visitation problem really stems from the daughter not anyone else)
As far as marriage dying, fornication and the belief that it's not destructive has more to do with that. Character matters, virtue matters, ignoring those has consequences.
You last part makes no sense. Recognizing that someone has taken legal responsibility that can't unilaterally be given up isn't the same as calling someone “irresponsible”. The guy is the picture of responsibility.
Yeah that was badly written. Marriage is about making it hard for a man to leave a woman with children. Monogamy is the standard for marriage worldwide but there are two other forms that also work.
If he weren’t married and had been paying child support (I’m against this btw) then there would be an injustice. Because he married her, there isn’t.
Has he been wronged by her infidelity, yes.
Is that cause for divorce? yes.
Does that annul the marriage? no.
I find it too common that people think marriage is about a guy having exclusive sex. Marriage is a societal institution set up to make it hard for a man to leave a woman with children. Marriage is about children and the needs of children.
You could not find 10 men on the planet to agree with that nonsense.
And NONE of them are active on Free Republic.
A very interesting and profound statement...
I know some folks will have to look this word up in the dictionary...
"Courtship" was a means of revealing over time and walking though steps to see who was qualified to be a lifetime partner with you...
The hook up culture destroyed that notion
My bride of 36 years and I shacked up for about six months and realized we were doing it wrong...
We moved apart and I "courted" her for over a year until we were sure we were the ones God wanted to be together for a lifetime...
Yes, that meant no sex...Lots of cold showers...
That year was worth the 36 plus happy and joyful years we have had and will have until death parts
Your argument is that the fact of the marriage should be viewed as if it didn’t exist. I’m conservative and so I won’t ever agree with that. If there aren’t 10 men on FR that hold that view it just means this place isn’t as conservative as it used to be.
That’s a wonderful story. I knew a man (my brother in law who has passed on) who did that. He courted a woman who had teenage daughters. He slept in his car outside their house so they would know he was a Godly man and respected her. At his funeral those kids recounted about how they mistreated him when they were younger but as adults his example was their inspiration. Their tears told me how sincere they were. I’m not sure they ever actually told him that but he must have known.
This is a subject frequently discussed on FR. Lately it has to do with Brit media discussing how women don't have "acceptable" marital prospects. Men aren't growing up, etc. They don't want marriage.
Responsibility without rights is why. This issue is another brick in that wall. Men only have value, it seems, as a potential mate or father, and we'll draft him into the role if necessary...fairness or justice be damned.
Any unmarried guys reading this thread... understand this is the role you will be forced into. Consider getting a vasectomy, and think long and hard about whether marriage makes any sense at all.
No it's not.
My argument is that no man should be required to pay child support to a kid that's not his.
Under any and every circumstance.
No matter what you and the rest of the pussyocracy think of the matter.
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.
___________________
Responsibility is only for children born or adopted within a marriage. No court would take parental rights or responsibilities away from the bio father of children just because mom remarries.
I’m late to this post...Varda is either a married woman (not a second wife) or a naive man who has never had the pleasure of experiencing “family” court.
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.