[ivansirko]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...child.html

http://kdvr.com/2016/07/27/man-forced-to...t-results/

Some gems out of this one.

Quote:

He 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 said, “Maybe, but I don’t feel bad about it, I really don’t.”

So really its the milk train she is after.

Quote:

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," he said.

There is no fraud protection against this kind of woman.

Quote:

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.'”

It would be unfair to have the biological father pay child support because he has his own family. So lets go after the money train and not feel bad about it.

Quote:

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.

Lucky for him the judge is an ass hole.

So for those of you who originally didn't want kids but now met "the one" this could happen to you. Those of you outside of the US this is our reality. He should be able to sue the state of Colorado and the "woman" for fraud and back child support for a child not his.

This reads like a "Protect your Ass from paternity fraud" article on ROK.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Time for a reframe. The subject line should really be: "Why men should NEVER defend themselves in a court of law."

"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."

He who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. He tried to do things on the cheap and got burned.

The reason I think this should be the subject of this thread is that I've seen dumbasses do this and do jail time for things they could have gotten off on, like simple DWI offenses. I used to sit in on courtroom proceedings as a reporter and my mind was boggled at the amount of stupidity that went on with average citizens who didn't hire lawyers.

Here are seven reasons you need a lawyer:

1). Judges are an impatient lot. When they see bumbling defendants attempt to be their own lawyers, they get pissed very quickly. You don't want a judge pissed off. You start to lose the battle right there.

2). The legal profession is a profession. Going in with no lawyer demeans the field and says "Anyone can do this! Who needs school?!" This is not the signal you want to send to people who have spent a lot of money on an education. Again, this sort of thing angers judges.

3). A lot of mentally ill people refuse legal representation. So...even if you're smart as a whip, when you go in with no lawyer, the general feeling is "This guy probably doesn't have all his marbles." This is not how you want to be viewed.

4). Lawyers know stuff you don't. Unless you're in courtrooms regularly, you wouldn't believe the technical sh*t lawyers get into. Remember Bill Clinton's 1999 testimony when he said something like "It depends what the definition of 'is' is?" Well, this is what lawyers do. They break down words and meanings. Good ones do it so well they get decisions overturned a precedents set. 99.999 percent of laypeople can't do this.

I once saw a really great lawyer get a drunken driver off because when he perused the testimony of the officer, he noticed a few words were out of order when the officer read the defendant his rights during the stop. The lawyer made the case that because of that it was an illegal stop and the judge agreed. They went back-and-forth over the officer's phrases during the stop for 90 minutes. Laypeople don't know to do this -- and if they do, they can't do it nearly as skillfully.

5). You need to send the message that you're serious. When it comes to women, if you ignore a birthday you're in the doghouse. But if you even make the most MINIMAL effort -- like a homemade card and a Snickers bar -- she won't be angry at all and may just be happier. That because you made an effort. Simply hiring a lawyer says "I'm making an effort." Even an obtuse lawyer is better than none.

6). "A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge." Most judges have relationships with both prosecutors and defense lawyers. Go in with a good lawyer and even if you're totally in the wrong, some deal, somehow, will likely be cut. And if you're in the right, you'll probably win because the prosecutor and judge don't want the stress of dealing with a great-but-angry defense lawyer time and time again in the future.

7). Prosecutors will eat you alive. When up against a good defense lawyer, many prosecutors fold or simply want to cut deals so they can go home or go to lunch. BUT... when up against a defendant who doesn't know the law, they get like sharks. They'll not only chop you to shreds, they'll take joy in watching the blood spill. Never put yourself in this position.

The guy in this story is paying child support because he didn't think he needed a lawyer. The guy down the street is sitting in two feet of water because he didn't think he needed a plumber. Meanwhile, another guy somewhere is dead on the floor because he didn't think he needed an electrician.

Our civilization has professionals for a reason. Make use of of them. It'll cost you a few bucks, but it'll make your life easier in the long run.

Addendum: I probably don't need to say this here, but another thing I saw as a reporter was people showing up to court in sweats and jeans. Wear a suit if you go. That actually goes a long way in showing you mean business. I'd even recommend going so far as asking the lawyer what kind of suit and tie you should wear.

[ivansirko]

All of those are good points. I will update the subject line per your request. (Update: as much as i am able to) However do you believe the judge would have ruled in his favor?

Quote:

“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," he said.

That was also my understanding in paternity cases. "Bring forth the father who will willingly take care of the child and your wish is granted"

[Quintus Curtius]

@DOBA:

You're a man after my own heart.

I wish more people understood what you said in your last post. But sadly, many have to learn the hard way.

[armenia4ever]

I got to say, that's a great nugget right there from DOBA on why hiring a lawyer is a smart thing to do in court, especially with those kinds of stakes. +1