Man ordered by court to pay child support for 27-year-old child that isn't his

DiNyc3st · November 1, 2014, 2:45am

Damn not even Maury could save the poor man!

Raz0r · November 1, 2014, 2:53am

Did you read the story? Not the short shit on Speed Reads, but the Detroit ABC-affiliate who reported it. I don’t think any of you have.

The STATE wants its money back. It’s not asking the guy to pay the mother. It has erased that debt years ago. The state wants to recoup its losses from fraudulent child support so they are going after him. Those loses amount to $30,000.

I don’t understand why they aren’t going after the mother of the child, but yeah. That’s the story.

CHIEfy · November 1, 2014, 3:00am

Born in this state and still living here.

To Hell with this place and its bipolar weather.

SF2GuileX · November 1, 2014, 3:04am

I think the woman should put her efforts into locating the real father. She really had no business writing down any guy’s name without knowing for sure. I mean at what point (considering the child’s age) did she decide to seek support and GUESS who the father might be? She didn’t think about this when she had the child? Maybe I’m missing something because she needs to be held accountable to some of this. This “I HAD” to put his name down to get support is a joke.

Raz0r · November 1, 2014, 3:15am

Well, the story says she looked for support in the 1980s, so I assume the point was back then. The real father is also in the picture.

Okay, here’s the link guys. It’s RIGHT IN THE STORY.

Sigh, none of you will read it anyway.

ElderGOD · November 1, 2014, 3:28am

I think you’re missing the point that a guy can do nothing wrong and a state can steal $30,000 from him.

SF2GuileX · November 1, 2014, 3:31am

If they know who the real father is, make him pay instead.

ElderGOD · November 1, 2014, 3:35am

State of Michigan appears to be engaging in criminal activity from what I see.

I want to see a Federal investigation for this issue.

Raz0r · November 1, 2014, 3:55am

Show me where the state is committing a crime. It’s abhorrent, yes, but illegal? You gotta show paperwork for that.

Darklightjg1 · November 1, 2014, 5:37am

He has to pay for other people’s lies in something that should have absolutely nothing to do with him (including the lie of the person who delivered the summons). Damn shame. Take that judge off the bench. She has poor judgement.

Missing_Person · November 1, 2014, 6:02am

Raz0r’s link makes it sound even worse.

Basically, he is no longer paying back child support but playing back the assistance she received. Again, pussy on pedestal mode activate.

Lord_Raptor · November 1, 2014, 6:54am

That’s not even close to what it is, if they could get her they would.

Missing_Person · November 1, 2014, 6:57am

They could, so why aren’t they?

They know who she is, obviously.

thurst · November 2, 2014, 11:36am

IglooBob:

Dignified_Fighter:

Well… it’s a bit of a “I spilt coffee and it was hot, so I’m gonna get away with suing for it”, situation. I just can’t figure out how any sort of system allows for such sheer stupidity to happen.

you should actually look into the facts of that case. I’ll just post them here.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued McDonald’s and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.

Typical reaction: Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot? And McDonald’s didn’t pour the coffee on her, she spilled it on herself! Besides, she was driving the car and wasn’t paying attention.

Now for the facts:

Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

Here is some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial:
McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.”

That’s because those jurors were able to hear all the facts — including those presented by McDonald’s — and see the extent of Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. Ask anyone who criticizes the case as a “frivolous lawsuit” that resulted in “jackpot justice” if they have done the same.

most of the time you hear about frivolous lawsuits like “woman burned by hot coffee and sues McDonalds” or “robber falls while breaking into school and sues the school and wins” odds are very good you aren’t hearing the whole story. the media reports only a part of the story, the story catches on and is retold, and by the time you hear it the facts that the case relies on are all forgotten and all you hear is “damn some idiot got burned by McDs coffee and sued and won. doesn’t that dumb bitch know coffee is hot??” if pays to be curious and go look up the details yourself.

McD’s lost that case because for whatever reason they decided against settling and paying for damages as they had done in numerous cases that were pretty much identical to that one and thus seemed callous. The fact of the matter still is that the woman spilled steaming hot coffee on her lap (possibly her fault, but shit happens whatevs) and then sat there with it literally melting her skin for like 2 minutes (definitely her and her son’s fault).

As for the coffee being too hot (which was the first of it’s kind), the coffee brewing associations made a point disseminate the knowledge that coffee that wasn’t “dangerously” hot doesn’t actually brew properly, a fact that essentially blows up the whole idea that McD’s was just making coffee hot for no reason.

McD’s lost that suit because of questionable legal strategy beforehand (not settling with a severely burned woman) and then getting tooled by her lawyers.

Ash_Crimson · November 2, 2014, 2:21pm

Missing Person do you believe in dick privilege