Child support for an imaginary child, eh?
A man who paid $20,000 in child support for a baby that did not exist has been awarded more than $1 million in damages by an Albuquerque jury against the DNA testing company that gave him the phony results.
A jury on Friday awarded Steve Barreras $1.2 million after Mobile Blood Services issued a false paternity test to him.
That test led to child support payments to Barreras’ ex, Viola Trevino.
Trevino remains in federal custody for lying about having a baby on her tax forms.
You still can thwart good science by inputting phony information. In this case, the scam artists used DNA from another daughter – in collusion with an employee of the blood services company.
Details of the case aren’t easily available online. This poor bugger spent over 2 years trying to prove he hadn’t fathered a non-existent child. All the “family services” and law enforcement in NM only took this mother’s word that she had a kid.
huh. in pre-science days, I have no doubt that the woman was required to present both children to the judge BEFORE there would be a paternity finding and order of support, not some time after.
this sounds like the result of a court system on autopilot.
“All the “family services” and law enforcement in NM only took this mother’s word that she had a kid.”
I love bureaucracies. Reality is nothing but correct forms, properly filled out.
he should have sued the bitch too
3–Generally speaking, there is no profit in suing people who don’t have any money.
Again, generally speaking, companies are not responsible for the criminal acts of their employees.–have to prove additional lax quality controls and such.
What do you expect after the women’s movement — women are always the truth telling victims. DNA and science has helped disprove that some, but this goes to show; how, some women have manipulated that too
The women’s movement suckered many so called smart people into developing attitudes and habits that “assumes” women are always the victims and never lie. To further their cause, any “need” the accused claims, such as; the ability to confront or examine a witness or facts, is claimed as further violence to the victim.
With this in part, Americans have created a society that bows it’s thinking energies to theories and feelings and harshly banish counter facts and truths.
The result in part, vehement public attacks on science (global warming, evolution education …) and public support for bogus elective WARS.
>>Generally speaking, there is no profit in suing people who
>>don’t have any money.
Tack it on to the primary suit. If she’s got $125 in the bank, she should have to pay $125 for being such a scheming, dishonest, vindictive cunt. And they could garnish her wages. While I despise deadbeat dads, women who do this sort of thing are every bit as despicable.
Why this isn’t more common a crime, bares thinking about. Here in NZ, a man cannot challenge a paternity claim with DNA evidence without the consent of the mother, and they can take away his passport until he pays.
6–Mustard, I’m with you in spirit “but” most lawyers good enough to win against a large corportion regarding employee criminality will not waste their time on vindictive/no money elements of a valid claim.
7–I assume you are twisting NZ law way out of shape==or leaving key facts out, like the guy was married to the mother at the time of birth??? If so, you kinda act just like the women in this case.–hiding and misrepresenting facts for motives of your own?
#6,
The notion of some sort of problem with ‘deadbeat dads’ is a myth. Numerous sociological studies have confirmed that. However, women’s personal problems have become a sort of third rail of liberal politics, so if the women’s movement says that deadbeat dads are a problem, then it become de facto reality. When in actuality the bureaucrats benefit from perpetuating that myth because they get block grants from the federal government for child support enforcement. It has created a culture in the courts designed to make divorce as divisive as possible, because that maximized child support payments(which increases federal funding).
Overwhelmingly when a dad becomes a ‘deadbeat’ it is because he is unable to pay, or the woman has systematically driven him out of the children’s life.
This case is only the tip of the iceberg for the nasty tactics that women use in divorce to get revenge.
Also, I think you need to google imputed income and child support before you reply to me.
#9, GregA,
The notion of some sort of problem with ‘deadbeat dads’ is a myth. Numerous sociological studies have confirmed that.
They have ??? Hhmmm, news to me. Would you care to cite a few?
Also, I think you need to google imputed income and child support before you reply to me.
Oh, so that is why you didn’t post any citations. But you are the one who knows these Numerous sociological studies exist.
I’m not so sure All the “family services” and law enforcement in NM only took this mother’s word that she had a kid. is an accurate representation. After all, the woman fraudulently presented evidence that there was a child and that the child was her former husbands.
To persuade a Children’s Court judge to order the child support payments, Trevino concocted fake DNA evidence and forged documents to obtain a Social Security number and birth and baptismal certificates, court records show. …
Snip
… In December 2004, state District Court Judge Linda Vanzi ordered Trevino to physically produce the child in court.
Sometimes the wheels of justice move slowly. That does not mean they didn’t move. The woman is on the hook for the $26,000 he paid in legal fees and child support.
So how about the next time you complain how slow justice can be in this country then why not support more money for courts, Judges, and staff.
#5, Noname,
What do you expect after the women’s movement — women are always the truth telling victims. DNA and science has helped disprove that some, but this goes to show; how, some women have manipulated that too
By implication you are suggesting that men in Family Court always tell the truth? But then it seems you liked it better when women were subservient to men. Like “god” planned it.
To further their cause, any “need” the accused claims, such as; the ability to confront or examine a witness or facts, is claimed as further violence to the victim.
Can you cite an example of a court that refuses either party in a civil suit to question any witness or evidence? I personally am unaware of any court that allows harassment of a witness either during discovery or while on the witness stand which is a totally different thing.
Mr Fusion, I know you are reflecting on your own lack of veracity when you assert “By implication you are suggesting”
Let me be clear, so a dense clown like you can understand; NO I AM NOT and NO IT DOES NOT -By implication you suggest-
There again, you are trying to feed false words into other peoples comments.
I made no comment as to the veracity of men. My statement, in no way, leads to or supports your assertions. Where did you study logic, CANADA?
Unfortunately you are perfect testament as to just how stupid man can be.
Admit it your an old clown, get over it, you fart.
Oh, before I forget, for your 2nd question, can you say DUKE RAPE CASE.
Silly broad brush sexist arguments above.
Case by case.
#6 – thats exactly what I meant, but you said it sooo much better than I did 🙂
#13, Noname,
Sorry buddy, but your post is very convoluted and difficult to understand.
Mr Fusion, I know you are reflecting on your own lack of veracity when you assert “By implication you are suggesting”
I made no statement of fact for which you might challenge my “veracity”. For you, IMPLICATION means suggesting something without saying it directly.
Let me be clear, so a dense clown like you can understand; NO I AM NOT and NO IT DOES NOT -By implication you suggest-
There again, you are trying to feed false words into other peoples comments.
So, pray tell, what the eff is your point???
Your original post said women lie to meet an end. In fact, you ranted quite vociferously about women in general being all beneath contempt (my summary of your post).
By not extending the same “fact” to men (the assumed other part in a civil suit) you imply men do always tell the truth. If you want to suggest men lie as often as women then fine, say so. If you think they lie less, then fine, say that. To remain mute on that aspect however, while ranting about the “woman’s movement” leads the reader to the conclusion that only women lie. That is the implication.
Next time you are so upset, please, take a few minutes before responding. Write you response out in a word processor, reread it, then cut and paste. I’m sure you have a valid point to make and from past posts I know you are an intelligent person.
Mr Fusion,
1st of all, I am not your buddy. I am sure you will find confusion in that statement too.
2nd, by what authority do you assert “For you, IMPLICATION means suggesting something without saying it directly.”?
3rd, talking of anger “So, pray tell, what the eff is your point???”; you really must be besides your self.
4th, to the contrary, “Next time you are so upset, “; you make me LOL!!!!
Next time you want to play TEACHER, get an education.
>>The notion of some sort of problem with ‘deadbeat dads’ is a myth.
I wasn’t commenting on the extent of deadbeat dad-dom; I was saying that there are SOME, and I despise them. Just as I despise scheming, dishonest, vindictive cunts who either lie for money, or drive fathers out of their childrens’ lives.
Personally, I have never met a “deadbeat dad”, and I don’t know anyone who has met one either. Everyone I know who is not part of a “traditional family” pays their due. On the other hand, I HAVE met women who have lied for money and/ or driven fathers out of their childrens’ lives. All I can do is thank my lucky stars that my ex-wife was neither of those. In today’s post-libber society, if you’re a guy, you’re pretty much fucked in those cases.
#17, Noname,
Please read Mustards comments in #18. He put them very well and clearly. I don’t necessarily agree with his point, but he did make it well.