"Frank O" seems like a bad guy to me

[lawcom]

To "Frank O" (and his misguided sympathizers):

You dumb, dumb, dummy.  You wrote earlier that you think your Ukrainian wife may be pregnant and that it may be your child.  And now you write that your atty "took care of all that" so she can't even "try to enforce anything" on you relating to your paying child support?  Well, guess what dummy...if the child is born or conceived during your marriage (which it was in this case), Texas law says you are presumed to be the father.  One of the questions you will be asked during the "prove-up" of your divorce in front of a judge is whether or not any children were born during the marriage and whether or not a child is expected at this time.  You will be under oath and you must tell the truth and say she is pregnant (but based on the lack character you have displayed, you will probably lie to the Court and commit perjury).  Because you write in this forum that you believe the child may be yours, then the way you would overcome that presumption is through a DNA test...right?  But you're not gonna do that.  The judge should inform you and your atty right then and there that you that you cannot finalize your divorce in Texas until the child is born so that the parent-child relationship may be established and adjudicated.  If you think you are clever and that you may be able to just avoid the issue by lying to the Court, she (or the child) may still come back to Texas one day and seek enforcement against you in the Court of continuing jurisdiction (the Court where you filed) and you WILL owe back child support for all those years...PLUS INTEREST.  In Texas, she may seek pre and post natal medical expenses, as well as child support from the time the child was born.  At 20% of your total net resources for 18 years or more (plus interest), you may end up paying her BIG.  I hope she knows this and I hope she plays her cards right.

Aside from your LEGAL responsibility, you should also be concerned with your own MORAL responsibility.  If you do have a child with her...you should be talking less about evading enforcement of child support and begin thinking more about fulfilling your responsibilities to your unborn child.  Do you think a child is just some kind of mutt that can be tossed aside?  If that is the way you think, she was right to treat you like the scum you are...and dump your ass!

[Michael B]

... in response to "Frank O" seems like a bad guy..., posted by lawcom on Jun 30, 2005

[This message has been edited by Michael B]

Frank, I'm not going to call you a bunch of names or such as that. However, the above poster is right about one thing--You (could be) in a heap o trouble, boy.

Texas Family Code:

   § 160.204.  PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.  
        (a)   A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
      (1)  he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;
      (2)  he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born before the 301st day after the date the marriage is
terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or
divorce;
      (3)  he married the mother of the child before the birth
of the child in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted
marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born
during the invalid marriage or before the 301st day after the date
the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of
invalidity, or divorce;
      (4)  he married the mother of the child after the birth
of the child in apparent compliance with law, regardless of whether
the marriage is or could be declared invalid, he voluntarily
asserted his paternity of the child, and:
         (A)  the assertion is in a record filed with the
bureau of vital statistics;
         (B)  he is voluntarily named as the child's father
on the child's birth certificate;  or
         (C)  he promised in a record to support the child
as his own;  or          
      (5)  during the first two years of the child's life, he
continuously resided in the household in which the child resided
and he represented to others that the child was his own.
   (b)  A presumption of paternity established under this
section may be rebutted only by:
      (1)  an adjudication under Subchapter G;  or                                  
      (2)  the filing of a valid denial of paternity by a
presumed father in conjunction with the filing by another person of
a valid acknowledgment of paternity as provided by Section 160.305.

Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 1.01, eff. June 14,
2001;  Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 610, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 2003;  
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1248, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

[Art]

... in response to Look out, Frank, posted by Michael B on Jul 1, 2005

Seriously.  Go over there and enjoy the culture and be a tourist.

Man, look at that last post about those Texas Laws...Which are clearly not in your favor.  Scarey stuff.

[Ray]

... in response to Look out, Frank, posted by Michael B on Jul 1, 2005

Are you asserting that Texas law applies in this case, even though the marriage took place in a foreign country, the baby was conceived in a foreign country, the baby is born in a foreign country, while the mother and baby live in a foreign country? Talk about the long arm of the law!

If she were to apply for U.S. citizenship for the child at a U.S. consulate abroad, her chances of success would be slim and none without his cooperation.

Ray

[Michael B]

... in response to Does Texas even have jurisdiction?, posted by Ray on Jul 1, 2005

Sure it does. Texas is where he filed the divorce, isn't it? Now, maybe the soon to be X neither realizes this nor cares about getting child support. I'm certainly not going to be the one who tells her. But, if she figures it out (or especially if some dogooder society hears of her situation and decides to represent her) then Frank's lawyer better be a magician or he's going to be paying for a long time. And even if it takes her a long time to figure it out, when/if she does, the court can and WILL make it retroactive.

[TwoBitBandit]

... in response to Re: Does Texas even have jurisdiction?, posted by Michael B on Jul 1, 2005

.

[TwoBitBandit]

... in response to Does Texas even have jurisdiction?, posted by Ray on Jul 1, 2005

Ray,

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

But, I'm fairly certain that if she showed up in Texas a year from now seeking a child support order, I'm fairly certain she'd get it.  The father lives in Texas and the wife never lived anywhere in America except Texas.  That's probably enough to give a Texas court jurisdiction.

Like I said, I ain't no lawyer.  But, I think that Frank is leaving himself wide-open for an enormous bite on the ass.

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Does Texas even have jurisdiction?, posted by TwoBitBandit on Jul 1, 2005

But the child has no visa and wouldn't be elligible for one unless Frank petitioned him/her...

Since he is already paying a Texas attorney, I think he should ask her if his ass is biteable.

[Frank O]

... in response to Re: Re: Does Texas even have jurisdictio..., posted by Ray on Jul 1, 2005

Her advice was to send her home & NOT to sleep with her. That was not happening anyways so it's a moot point. I'd like to think she knows what she is talking about. If not she'd have a LOT of explaining to do for the top $$ I paid her. The other thing to consider is just how stupid my ex wife is.

[Frank O]

... in response to I DID take my atty's advice., posted by Frank O on Jul 1, 2005

my wife could VERY seriously have an abortion. She DOES NOT want a kid. She was even in denial about the whole pregnancy issue. Abortions are VERY common over there. I would NOT put it past her as in her own words she is not good with children & being pregnant would "make me look fat & ugly" & the child would be an "inconvenience" to her. It sounds ugly but man that's what arrived in Bush Intl man. Definately not the girl I thought I married.

[TwoBitBandit]

... in response to Re: Re: Does Texas even have jurisdictio..., posted by Ray on Jul 1, 2005

Yes, but that's a separate issue.  The child may not need to come to the US for the mother to file a child support petition.

[Frank O]

... in response to Look out, Frank, posted by Michael B on Jul 1, 2005

most of those what if scenarios. Not to mention once again she's over there & I'm here. I sure am NOT paying for her to come back here. So unless she can fork out her own cash to get over here with no legal SPOUSE...well let's say I've moved on. Like I said my atty took care of me. That's what I paid her for after the tongue lashing she gave me.

[TwoBitBandit]

... in response to Well the baby ain't born so that elimina..., posted by Frank O on Jul 1, 2005

Frank,

The one true thing people can say about this world is this: ya never know what's gonna happen.

Frank, this clause:

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(2) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born before the 301st day after the date the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;

Is enough to put you on the hook.   Even if your divorce was final today, you'd still be presumed to be the father by virtue of this clause, since the baby will be born before 301 days after today.

Don't be naive.  This could still bite you on the ass in an enormous way.

[fathertime]

... in response to "Frank O" seems like a bad guy..., posted by lawcom on Jun 30, 2005


Hey bonehead, way to selectively choose facts to fit your case!  Based on the way you selectively forgot many of the pertinant facts in this situation, I can see how you are such an outstanding attorney and man.

[Frank O]

... in response to "Frank O" seems like a bad guy..., posted by lawcom on Jun 30, 2005

in the end I'm the one who "dumped her A$$" & made sure she got on a plane to Kiev with her divorce papers she was served. Fat chance on her coming back.