Lonnquist? My ex changed her name to Lonnquist? Because that sure sounds like the ever-greedy, morally bankrupt, woman I escaped from. "I don’t feel bad about it. I really don’t ".
Greed is the root of all evil.
Right, but isn’t nullification something a jury could use if the defendant is technically guilty (by law) yet should be innocent because that law is unjust?
1 Like
I) He went in without a lawyer 8 years after a divorce judgment - which included judgment on A) paternity (likely this was automatic as the child was a child of the marriage and he did not contest it at the time). B) custody (he has custody and visitation rights) C) Support (which is for the child, and established based on cold equations about time spent with each parent and what each parent makes). Now I understand lawyers are expensive and scary - but overturning judgments is a serious business, and it should be - think about how impossible it would be if there was always a chance to legally shout “backsies!” even long after you’d dragged something through many years of litigation or signed off on an agreement.
II) He seems to have filed a custody/support action saying he wanted to change custody and support. I don’t know exactly how CO handles these things but this generally requires a change in circumstances - e.g. I lost my job and can’t pay that much anymore or I moved closer to the kid and want to spend more time with them. He’s not really talking about changing custody and support - he’s talking paternity and enforcement.
III) So when he shows up in court arguing a paternity case after filing a custody case, judge is confused. He’s making two arguments A) I want to have my custodial time, and am being prevented by the other parent - this is a contempt action. B) I don’t want to pay child support as I’m not the real dad - this is a parentage action. Judges in my experience don’t like making orders that can be overturned - and striking down another judge’s paternity order in the wrong kind of case is the sort of thing that gets overturned (let alone there may be some crazy statute of limitations issues). Certainly it’s not happening without a full trial type hearing, which support/custody modifications usually aren’t.
IV) He appeals with a lawyer and the appeals court is like “Appeals are about errors of law, you’re complaining about factual issues”. That is to say there’s no way the appeals court is hearing a paternity and or contempt case when what’s being appealed is custody and support.
Now all that said there may be some seriously unfortunate events here - there may be a Statute of Limitations for overturning the judgment of paternity - and it’s sure as heck not longer than eight years. If there is a way around it it’s gonna be tricksy because he’s likely going to need to prove that he only recently had cause to think the child wasn’t his daughter, tolling the Statute of Limitations perhaps (I don’t know it’s CO). By prove I mean with evidence and testimony and such.
The thing though is that what really has him cranky (and this may be to the man’s credit) is that his ex is withholding his visitation time. He’s doesn’t seem to mind paying support, and seems to consider the girl his daughter, so really what he wants is a court order on custody that maintains the parentage order previously made. Unfortunately there’s only a pretty clumsy and dysfunctional method for litigating that, but given that the power of the state is really a bad tool for making people work out their parenting problems (civil contempt penalties for custodial gate-keeping is like killing gophers with a bazooka - the lawn/child’s life will be reduced to a smoking crater even if the problem is solved). To my mind this isn’t about bad laws and judges it’s more about bad people and an over reliance on judges and courts to solve personal issues.
11 Likes
Yup. It’s possible that this guy is an exception to the not 100% bullshit, but a local news human interest article isn’t going to necessarily sway me.
Your nuance is worth much more than the posts calling her a bitch or claiming that this is evidence of the downfall of society.
The DNA test just seems trashy if he wants to spend MORE time with his daughter. I don’t understand the context of that submission at all.
2 Likes
Doesn’t he have grounds to bring some sort of action if he’s telling the truth that the mother is ignoring the court order to allow visitation?
1 Like
Yes. But what I meant to point out was that nullification is an explicit blind spot in the legal system, not a right which deserves protection in the same sense as paternity is.
There we go! Proof that everything an MRA has to say about women is 100% legit. I knew their trilbys would lead them to the promised land eventually.
2 Likes
You don’t get to claim the moral high ground when I asked you a question, and you ignored it in favor of insults.
4 Likes
Juries do not have the right to nullification, for some pretty good reasons. (Historically jury nullification was often used to let white guys get away with openly murdering black people.) The problem is that the court isn’t allowed to stop jury nullification–no one is allowed to require a jury to explain their reasoning, or punish them for the “wrong” verdict, also for very good reasons.
So there’s a loophole there where a group of twelve random people can unilaterally decide what is and isn’t a crime. That’s great when the law is actually unjust, but it’s not a great principle to build a legal system on.
6 Likes
That’s what a lawyer is for. Do you really want your judge to act as a plaintiff’s attorney if the person suing you is too ignorant to do it correctly?
3 Likes
Well, maybe he couldn’t fucking afford one?
7 Likes
He found the means after he realized he was in over his head, but it was too late. Take-backsies is a difficult courtroom manuever, and it is often frowned upon.
1 Like
That’s a pretty bold statement. I suspect we are getting exactly one side of this story and that there may in fact be at least one other side to it. And while I have no great love for state court judges as a class of people, I am willing to presume that this state court judge, who is likely at least glancingly more familiar with the other sides of this story than the internet comments section to a local news report, acted appropriately.
2 Likes
[quote=“Random_Tangent, post:53, topic:82354”]
That’s what a lawyer is for. Do you really want your judge to act as a plaintiff’s attorney if the person suing you is too ignorant to do it correctly?
[/quote]I served as an alternate juror for a civil case in which a man represented himself. The judge was extremely patient and frequently paused the proceedings to explain the rules to the plaintiff (who lost anyway because he was a total nut who had no case). “Making sure everyone understands the basic rules” does not mean “taking sides.”
12 Likes
I’m not your friend.
The fix is hiring a lawyer. It’s the primary reason that lawyers exist.
Not that bold. I’m talking about procedural leniency for pro se litigants in family court.
1 Like
Hey, remember two posts ago when you called wysinwyg a dick? Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, tough guy.
10 Likes
“Not your friend”
Get over yourself.
And I’m sorry that I’m not on board the Full Lawyer Employment Program of punishing the poor for not being able to afford decent representation.
6 Likes
The third word of your “question” was fuck. What moral high ground is that, then?
2 Likes
It’s weird because child-support laws only exist because we acknowledge that biological relation is not the same as being a good parent.
Here that legally recognized reality comes into conflict with the privileges still accorded biological relation by another part of the law.
This reminds me for some reason of the struggle to have LGBTQ relationships legally recognized for the purposes of visitation. Maybe it’s the codification of old relationship patterns interfering with healthy modern relationships?
1 Like
