Father gets $7,800 bill after reuniting with long-lost daughter

[HawkMan]

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

 

 

Just stressing the "have-to-pay" part no matter what the person tries to use as an excuse to try not to.

 

your kid, your money. unless you are suggesting you support fathers/mothers not paying for their kids? OR are saying that if your power company doesn't send you a bill for years and years you are not obligated to your responsibility to pay for your power? Amazes me all the time to see how parents try to find any way out of paying for their children. just shocking.

 

 

They not only not sent him a bill and he had no idea where to send money, they knowingly withheld his kid from him, possibly in order to get money from the state. 

 

and then after all this they have the guts to send him a bill for keeping his daughter away from her father for 16 years... it would be in their best interest to not send a bill before they get a lawsuit that's going to cost them a LOT more than that bill.

 

also your power bill example depends on the circumstances, but in many cases, no you wouldn't be obliged to pay. 

[HawkMan]

but he didn't order one drink... he had a child that cost taxpayers for years. Why would the taxpayer have to foot his bill? Those years existed whether or not he participated or not.

 

 

If they had done what they where supposed to and contacted the legal guardian and FATHER, whom they had the contact information for, not only could they have gotten their money, right away, they could have taken care of another kid as this one could have gone home to her father. but hey, I guess we should reward this kind of negligence. heck it's not even negligence since they chose not to contact him and to rob him and his daughter from knowing each other as she grew up and her from having a family. 

[Praetor]

this case is so shody that it's amazing. So the foster home didn't contact the parent, but only after father and daughter reunite they send him a bill?

And for 16 years nobody found an ALIVE parent?

 

i'm i missing something?

[123456789A]

If he pays the $7,800, it should go to upgrading whatever database the foster home was using. They need a better way of keeping in touch with people.

[Rippleman]

I don't buy this for  a second.  Why would it be just now that he find his daughter? Could it be that he thinks now that shes 18, its safe to contact her since he assumes he won't have to pay? I have seen this dozens of times and heard of hundreds more (my sister is in family law). I am not a gambler, but with this case,  I would make a HUGE cash bet this is 100% a responsibility-dodging deadbeat. It doesn't matter if his name is on file... or even his number/address for that matter... if he avoids contact, there is nothing anyone can do. Goes on daily in deadbeats society. Don't believe it? See if you have a friend in family and ask them how these guys dodge (think they dodge) child expenses.

[HawkMan]

I don't buy this for  a second.  Why would it be just now that he find his daughter? Could it be that he thinks now that shes 18, its safe to contact her since he assumes he won't have to pay? I have seen this dozens of times and heard of hundreds more (my sister is in family law). I am not a gambler, but with this case,  I would make a HUGE cash bet this is 100% a responsibility-dodging deadbeat. It doesn't matter if his name is on file... or even his number/address for that matter... if he avoids contact, there is nothing anyone can do. Goes on daily in deadbeats society. Don't believe it? See if you have a friend in family and ask them how these guys dodge (think they dodge) child expenses.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, the home ADMITTED they did not try to contact him and that he did now have a clue where she was.  and NO ONE has argued this fact in the article. also it's very hard to find under age people, it's hard enough to find people over 18. but she lived in a home where rules are very specific to protect the people living there from people looking for them.  And the home get money for the kids they have, losing her meant losing their money for her. a far more likely scenario with far more supporting evidence than the scenario you just made up with no evidence to back it up. 

[Rippleman]

Meanwhile in the real world, the home ADMITTED they did not try to contact him and that he did now have a clue where she was.  and NO ONE has argued this fact in the article. also it's very hard to find under age people, it's hard enough to find people over 18. but she lived in a home where rules are very specific to protect the people living there from people looking for them.  And the home get money for the kids they have, losing her meant losing their money for her. a far more likely scenario with far more supporting evidence than the scenario you just made up with no evidence to back it up. 

 

I respectfully disagree on your position. Sorry.

[Flawedspirit]

I don't buy this for  a second.  Why would it be just now that he find his daughter? Could it be that he thinks now that shes 18, its safe to contact her since he assumes he won't have to pay? I have seen this dozens of times and heard of hundreds more (my sister is in family law). I am not a gambler, but with this case,  I would make a HUGE cash bet this is 100% a responsibility-dodging deadbeat. It doesn't matter if his name is on file... or even his number/address for that matter... if he avoids contact, there is nothing anyone can do. Goes on daily in deadbeats society. Don't believe it? See if you have a friend in family and ask them how these guys dodge (think they dodge) child expenses.

Assuming his daughter was even just in the same city, Montreal city is huge, not to mention the surrounding conurbation. It's gonna take a long time to figure out where a specific person is if you have zero information as to their whereabouts. It'd take me years just to track down one specific person that I know nothing about in my own city (approx. 300,000 people), not to mention a place like Montreal (10x bigger in both population and surface area).

 

EDIT: Where's the implication in this article that this guy was being a deadbeat? Because I don't see it. If this place had called him immediately, he would have picked up his daughter and raised her like any other person would have done, and "paid his bill to society." That's the story I read.

[Luc2k]

I get it, but I question the need for the bill altogether. If they had his contact information the entire time she was missing and they didn't bother simply because they didn't have his birthday. That's all kinds of stupid and messed up. There would have been no bill if they had done about 5 minutes of due diligence 16 years prior. 

 

All they had to do was call him and ask. Instead not only did they rob this man of 16 years of time with his daughter they now want him to pay for it too. All because they didn't have his birth day.

 

The problem is theirs and not his.

I think it's 6 years, not 16. She was with the mother until 12.

[NightmarE D]

$8,700 also seems a little small for 6 years. Something shady about the place if a small thing like a birthday kept them from contacting the guy. I bet they brought in more money having her there.

 

Why not contact the guy once at all or make any attempt to get his birthday to confirm? Can't argue that that's not shady. Unless you're Rippleman I guess. Who sounds more like they have anger towards a possible deadbeat parent that left him. Having a connection to someone in family law doesn't make you an expert and you're way too fast to judge the guy while ignoring the FACT that the place knew where he was the entire time, but a small issue like a birthday kept them from contacting him. Why keep track of where he was if they weren't 100% positive it was him? That's shady and you can't deny that.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Wow, talk about trying it on. Clearly they're just trying to see what they can get out of the guy.

They had the details, but chose not to contact him. When he got in touch and they could try it in, they billed him a sum that wouldn't even cover a year, let along the whole time, seems to me it's a sum they thought they could probably get away with, rather than risking asking for tens of thousands and having it blow up in their face.

Tell them where they can stick their bill.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I respectfully disagree on your position. Sorry.

Alright then, what article are you reading? Where are you getting your information from?

[simss]

Foster homes are lucrative business. It would not be the first time when they

[trag3dy]

I think it's 6 years, not 16. She was with the mother until 12.

 

Well it did say he was searching for her for 16 years. But the video in the article says she was in foster for 6. 

[HawkMan]

I respectfully disagree on your position. Sorry.

 

good argument, except for the lack of ANY argument. 

[Torolol]

Foster homes are lucrative business. It would not be the first time when they

[Luc2k]

Well it did say he was searching for her for 16 years. But the video in the article says she was in foster for 6. 

 

There would have been no bill if they had done about 5 minutes of due diligence 16 years prior. 

 

All they had to do was call him and ask. Instead not only did they rob this man of 16 years of time with his daughter they now want him to pay for it too.

This implies that the foster home had her for 16 years and that they robbed him of that when they only had her for 6.

[Neu B]

remember, I am not saying the he is at fault... I am only saying regardless of whose fault it is, the cost must be paid. he could even have a lawsuit on his side for all we know. I only speak of what I know about the system from stories from colleges who are on both sides of the fence and even my own experience. (example: I got divorced with 2 kids. The mother took off. I put money in her bank account regardless of not knowing where they were are if I would see them again until the courts found her. It was almost a year before I found her and sued for custody. Luckily, because i paid money to her monthly, they court's seen that I was paying on my end even without getting the benefits.). In the end, a father/mother is the financial bearer if the ability exists.

 

while you were posting this, I actually was writing that he could possibly sue if what he claims is factually true.

 

remember, you are only hearing one side of this. Everything you are accepting as fact could be fabricated to benefit only the side telling the storey.

Than maybe you should keep your opinions about this to yourself since you're only hearing, as you said, "One Side of This" 

[Woelfel]

Rippleman, it seems that you are presuming that this guy is "guilty" of something that he had no control over. I don't think you'll find a lot of people agreeing with your assessment. Maybe because of our circumstances that you shared and others that you've seen, you are making emotional presumptions to this event. I'm not saying that your expectation isn't a possibility...but it's very improbable given the evidence.

[Rippleman]

Rippleman, it seems that you are presuming that this guy is "guilty" of something that he had no control over. I don't think you'll find a lot of people agreeing with your assessment. Maybe because of our circumstances that you shared and others that you've seen, you are making emotional presumptions to this event. I'm not saying that your expectation isn't a possibility...but it's very improbable given the evidence.

 

nope. I said he could sue. I am only suggesting what is most likely the most possible scenario.

Than maybe you should keep your opinions about this to yourself since you're only hearing, as you said, "One Side of This" 

 

Is this forum not for sharing opinions? Not sure why you think that.

good argument, except for the lack of ANY argument. 

 

argument is earlier posts.

EDIT: Where's the implication in this article that this guy was being a deadbeat? 

 

no where. Its just a possibility, and from my experience, the most likely possibility based on the my experience. Could I be wrong? I am not saying I am right.... I am only giving a probability.

Alright then, what article are you reading? Where are you getting your information from?

 

Reading the same article you are. I am giving no information other than what seems to happen more often than not.

[Neu B]

nope. I said he could sue. I am only suggesting what is most likely the most possible scenario.

 

Is this forum not for sharing opinions? Not sure why you think that.

 

argument is earlier posts.

 

no where. Its just a possibility, and from my experience, the most likely possibility based on the my experience. Could I be wrong? I am not saying I am right.... I am only giving a probability.

 

Reading the same article you are. I am giving no information other than what seems to happen more often than not.

Your lack of reading comprehension is disturbing

[Rippleman]

Meanwhile in the real world, the home ADMITTED they did not try to contact him and that he did now have a clue where she was.  and NO ONE has argued this fact in the article. also it's very hard to find under age people, it's hard enough to find people over 18. but she lived in a home where rules are very specific to protect the people living there from people looking for them.  And the home get money for the kids they have, losing her meant losing their money for her. a far more likely scenario with far more supporting evidence than the scenario you just made up with no evidence to back it up. 

 

Your evidence is a article? Kinda of a low bar isn't it?

Your lack of reading comprehension is disturbing

explain and give reasons please.

I am giving you real world everyday experience on how these things typically happen. I am not claiming this case is like that, I am claiming that the probability of it being the way I suggest is the highest probability of outcome based on the hundreds and hundreds of cases my sister has dealt with over the last decade and from the dozens of cases I have been involved with with my volunteer experience in the industry. Can the guy in the story be the victim? Yes. Its just typically not how it goes.

[Neu B]

Your evidence is a article? Kinda of a low bar isn't it?

explain and give reasons please.

I am giving you real world everyday experience on how these things typically happen. I am not claiming this case is like that, I am claiming that the probability of it being the way I suggest is the highest probability of outcome based on the hundreds and hundreds of cases my sister has dealt with over the last decade and from the dozens of cases I have been involved with with my volunteer experience in the industry. Can the guy in the story be the victim? Yes. Its just typically not how it goes.

Sure.

This is what I wrote earlier ---Than maybe you should keep your opinions about this to yourself since you're only hearing, as you said, "One Side of This"---

Emphasis on the large, thick letters

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Your evidence is a article? Kinda of a low bar isn't it?

Isn't an article discussing the situation worth more than an assumption based on previous unrelated cases? That's what makes it news, after all.

The article reports that the home acknowledged that they didn't contact him because of a piece of missing information. It also notes that the father agrees that he hadn't been contacted in the past. If both parties in this article are agreeing with the situation as it is reported, it just seems odd to say, "no, I don't believe that is what happened."

[Rippleman]

Isn't an article discussing the situation worth more than an assumption based on previous unrelated cases? That's what makes it news, after all.

The article reports that the home acknowledged that they didn't contact him because of a piece of missing information. It also notes that the father agrees that he hadn't been contacted in the past. If both parties in this article are agreeing with the situation as it is reported, it just seems odd to say, "no, I don't believe that is what happened."

 

I have not disputed that. Can you quote me?

Sure.

This is what I wrote earlier ---Than maybe you should keep your opinions about this to yourself since you're only hearing, as you said, "One Side of This"---

Emphasis on the large, thick letters

 

so... in your OPINION, people should keep their opinion to themselves in forums? lol. good one. Do you not see the irony?