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

[Nick H. Supervisor]

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.

Perhaps it is the way you've phrased yourself here, but rather than agree with the information provided in the article you're choosing to assume that the father was intentionally trying to dodge supporting his child just because of previous experiences.

[Rippleman]

but rather than agree with the information provided in the article you're choosing to assume that the father was intentionally trying to dodge supporting his child just because of previous experiences.

 

No, I agree to the what has been agreed to as fact from both parties. Yes I assume (based on probability) of him trying to dodge supporting his child. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Could I be right? Probably.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

I have not disputed that. Can you quote me?

 

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

 

"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."

 

You've disputed everything and provided only your personal experiences as proof to support you position.  A position you made up, and not based on anything in the article.

[Open Minded]

You owe... you pay. It's simple. Even if you give up your parental rights, you STILL have to pay. So many people do not realize or accept the financial responsibility for a child.

 

Yes, but in this case, the mother took the fathers rights away.  Seems he didn't have any say in the matter.  IF that's really the case, he shouldn't have to pay a penny.

[FloatingFatMan]

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.

 

You're implying that it's more likely for a dad to be a deadbeat than not, which is rather insulting to the far greater majority of estranged fathers who would LOVE to have contact with their kids, if their ex-wives weren't such evil <bleeps!>.

 

How about instead of presuming guilt, go with what little evidence there IS in this story, and either have no opinion, or accept the evidence there IS available (the foster home's admission of fault).

[Neu B]

I have not disputed that. Can you quote me?

 

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

Ok. I'm talking to a wall.

[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."

 

You've disputed everything and provided only your personal experiences as proof to support you position.  A position you made up, and not based on anything in the article.

I have disputed what can be disputed and not what can not be disputed. I also am not claiming anything to be true, just the likelyhood of my position. Don't like it? Thats fine.

Yes, but in this case, the mother took the fathers rights away.  Seems he didn't have any say in the matter.  IF that's really the case, he shouldn't have to pay a penny.

 

Laws work different ways in different countries, but here in Canada, EVEN when your rights are taken away, you still are required to pay.

You're implying that it's more likely for a dad to be a deadbeat than not, which is rather insulting to the far greater majority of estranged fathers who would LOVE to have contact with their kids, if their ex-wives weren't such evil <bleeps!>.

 

How about instead of presuming guilt, go with what little evidence there IS in this story, and either have no opinion, or accept the evidence there IS available (the foster home's admission of fault).

 

I am not. I am suggesting the probability of the likelihood of a particular situation based on similarities from other most other cases similar in nature. Nothing more.

Ok. I'm talking to a wall.

 

wouldn't that be your opinion? (and if it is your opinion, remember you stated you are not supposed to share it on a forum?!) 

[FloatingFatMan]

I am not. I am suggesting the probability of the likelihood of a particular situation based on similarities from other most other cases similar in nature. Nothing more.

 

Sorry, but you have clearly said, several times, that the more likely scenario is that he's a deadbeat dad, despite all evidence being to the contrary. You're letting your personal experiences colour your objectivity; never a good thing.

[Rippleman]

that the more likely scenario is that he's a deadbeat dad

 

Quoting my own comment "I am suggesting the probability of the likelihood of a particular situation based on similarities from other most other cases similar in nature.

 

Yes I am saying that there is a higher possibility, however, I am not saying this to fact, just more likely than the opposite scenario.  Could I be wrong? For sure. I do not think its obstructing my objectivity since there I typically fall in the devil's advocate position. Maybe the grammar difference is throwing off the meaning I am trying to make since so many are objecting to my assessment, sometimes that happens from country to country.

[FloatingFatMan]

Quoting my own comment "I am suggesting the probability of the likelihood of a particular situation based on similarities from other most other cases similar in nature.

 

Yes I am saying that there is a higher possibility, however, I am not saying this to fact, just more likely than the opposite scenario.  Could I be wrong? For sure. I do not think its obstructing my objectivity since there I typically fall in the devil's advocate position. Maybe the grammar difference is throwing off the meaning I am trying to make since so many are objecting to my assessment, sometimes that happens from country to country.

 

From the article itself, we have the homes OWN admission that they knew where he was and never tried to contact him, and the dad's own statement that he'd been trying to find his daughter since his ex took her away, 16 years previously.  From that, you somehow managed to get that he was a deadbeat dad and not someone who'd been trying to find his little girl for a long long time.

 

You have a REALLY weird way of coming to "conclusions", dude.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Maybe the reason people are objecting to your assessment is because your are claiming it is a probability, in your opinion, based on your experience and has nothing to do with the article that others are discussing.  Claiming grammar differences is just backpedaling and a cop-out.  And as far as your "devil's advocate" position, even playing that requires objectivity at least based on fact and not "if this, then that scenarios" based on personal experiences.

[HawkMan]

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

 

 

Seems to beat "I made up a bunch of stuff to support my made up story" though ?

[Rippleman]

You have a REALLY weird way of coming to "conclusions", dude.

 

chaulk it up to knowing how it typically is.

Maybe the reason people are objecting to your assessment is because your are claiming it is a probability, in your opinion, based on your experience and has nothing to do with the article that others are discussing.  Claiming grammar differences is just backpedaling and a cop-out.  And as far as your "devil's advocate" position, even playing that requires objectivity at least based on fact and not "if this, then that scenarios" based on personal experiences.

 

are you suggesting it's not a probability?

Seems to beat "I made up a bunch of stuff to support my made up story" though ?

 

I hear these stories every other week... it follows a pattern. Patterns become predictable. It's always more likely than not in situations like this. Is he in the wrong? That's not my claim, my claim is the odds.

[HawkMan]

From the article itself, we have the homes OWN admission that they knew where he was and never tried to contact him, and the dad's own statement that he'd been trying to find his daughter since his ex took her away, 16 years previously.  From that, you somehow managed to get that he was a deadbeat dad and not someone who'd been trying to find his little girl for a long long time.

 

You have a REALLY weird way of coming to "conclusions", dude.

 

 

and that's where the law might(depending on state/country) be making it impossible/illegal for them to collect, as they had the information required to contact and collect from him, but never made a conscious effort to try to collect or even contact him.  This in many and even most places makes them lose the right to collect. 

[HawkMan]

 

I hear these stories every other week... it follows a pattern. Patterns become predictable. It's always more likely than not in situations like this. Is he in the wrong? That's not my claim, my claim is the odds.

 

 

Your odds are wrong since you're basing them on the stories you hear about. the thing is no one writes or talks about good fathers who take care of their children. So you're talking about one sided, but you yourself are using one sided stats where you only use bade examples to fortify your "stats" while ignoring the vast majority of stats that are good because you don't hear about them, and you don't hear about them because people only talk about the bad ones. 

 

so sorry, you need a better excuse than that. 

[Rippleman]

Your odds are wrong since you're basing them on the stories you hear about. the thing is no one writes or talks about good fathers who take care of their children. So you're talking about one sided, but you yourself are using one sided stats where you only use bade examples to fortify your "stats" while ignoring the vast majority of stats that are good because you don't hear about them, and you don't hear about them because people only talk about the bad ones. 

 

so sorry, you need a better excuse than that. 

only way to find out for sure is to follow the story... i know i am interested.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

chaulk it up to knowing how it typically is.

 

are you suggesting it's not a probability?

 

I hear these stories every other week... it follows a pattern. Patterns become predictable. It's always more likely than not in situations like this. Is he in the wrong? That's not my claim, my claim is the odds.

 

What???!!!??   Nothing I said in any way shape or form suggests that, how in the world do you come up with this nonsense?  Perhaps you're taking things out of context, please read and re-evaluate what I wrote.

 

I seriously have come to believe, based on your responses, that there is a very strong probability you have reading comprehension difficulties.   This is also based on my extensive experience with you in other threads.

[Rippleman]

because your are claiming it is a probability, in your opinion, 

 

This here suggests you deny its a probability.  And if you do think so, then you are in agreement with me that this is a probability? IF yes, what are you disagreeing about?

 

To all those who are curious: Watch his interviews from more than one source, he says he watched her grow up on facebook.... but never reached out? odd isn't it? He also says he didn't have money for a lawyer... in cases like this (when it started), no lawyer is needed. The judge listens to the parties and asks the questions he wishes to ask. The only time a judge will NOT grant you access is when you are a danger to a child, or have the possibility to bring danger to the child. He just didn't bother and let it go. Sound like a caring father to you? Finding children are easy enough to,  police themselves will help you locate missing persons. Social services had to find mine for me. They couldn't force her to come back to my province so I traveled 1600 miles to go see them every couple months until it was til to go to court and get custody. Remember, I am not saying what he is saying ISN'T true, but it's a possibility that he is sugarcoating/excusing everything he can to the media to POSSIBLY get out of paying what he legally owes.

[trag3dy]

From the article itself, we have the homes OWN admission that they knew where he was and never tried to contact him, and the dad's own statement that he'd been trying to find his daughter since his ex took her away, 16 years previously.  From that, you somehow managed to get that he was a deadbeat dad and not someone who'd been trying to find his little girl for a long long time.

 

You have a REALLY weird way of coming to "conclusions", dude.

 

Nevermind that he has 2 other kids as well.

 

And if you watch the video you can see their home and it looks nice and they look like they're doing okay. Do all those things mean he is not a deadbeat? No. But it doesn't suggest that he is, either.

 

I'm not sure how the conclusion can be made that he's a deadbeat.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Based on this, it would seem that you don't think its a probability? And if you do think so, then you are in agreement with me that this is a probability? IF yes, what are you going on about?

 

To all those who are curious: Watch his interviews from more than one source, he says he watched her grow up on facebook.... but never reached out? odd isn't it?

 

And as I said,"Perhaps you're taking things out of context, please read and re-evaluate what I wrote."   Basing your responses on snippets is not an intelligent way to understand things.  I made myself clear, it is you that wants to misinterpret what is being said.

 

here's a link to a video of him explaining what he went through and about Facebook - http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/06/02/dad-reunites-daughter-bill-retroactive-parental-fees-pkg.ctv

[Rippleman]

And as I said,"Perhaps you're taking things out of context, please read and re-evaluate what I wrote."   Basing your responses on snippets is not an intelligent way to understand things.  I made myself clear, it is you that wants to misinterpret what is being said.

 

here's a link to a video of him explaining what he went through and about Facebook - http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/06/02/dad-reunites-daughter-bill-retroactive-parental-fees-pkg.ctv

 

Since we don't see eye to eye, lets try this from a different angle.  In Canada, the law is very clear that even if you don't see your kids, you are STILL obligated by law to PAY for your offspring. Let's pretend for a moment he is 100% clear of ANY responsibility of "finding" his daughter. Doesn't change a thing. It's his daughter, he is legally obligated to pay and yet he still doesn't want to. If, after paying, if he wishes to pursue legal measures against the agency, then he can, but that is a separate issue completely. Ask yourself again... WHY doesn't he want to pay?

I'm not sure how the conclusion can be made that he's a deadbeat.

 

It was not a conclusion, just a possibility.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Since we don't see eye to eye, lets try this from a different angle.  In Canada, the law is very clear that even if you don't see your kids, you are STILL obligated by law to PAY for your offspring. Let's pretend for a moment he is 100% clear of ANY responsibility of "finding" his daughter. Doesn't change a thing. It's his daughter, he is legally obligated to pay and yet he still doesn't want to. If, after paying, if he wishes to pursue legal measures against the agency, then he can, but that is a separate issue completely. Ask yourself again... WHY doesn't he want to pay?

 

It was not a conclusion, just a possibility.

 

I give up.  I never said a thing about him paying or not.   You just are incapable of understanding other people's point of view. 

[Rippleman]

I give up.  I never said a thing about him paying or not.   You just are incapable of understanding other people's point of view. 

 

Giving up could be the best option for you.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Giving up could be the best option for you.

 

This is the first thing you have said in the entire thread that makes any sense.  Finally!!!!

[trag3dy]

Since we don't see eye to eye, lets try this from a different angle.  In Canada, the law is very clear that even if you don't see your kids, you are STILL obligated by law to PAY for your offspring. Let's pretend for a moment he is 100% clear of ANY responsibility of "finding" his daughter. Doesn't change a thing. It's his daughter, he is legally obligated to pay and yet he still doesn't want to. If, after paying, if he wishes to pursue legal measures against the agency, then he can, but that is a separate issue completely. Ask yourself again... WHY doesn't he want to pay?

 

It was not a conclusion, just a possibility.

 

Are you sure about that? Looks like a pretty definite conclusion according to your earlier posts where you were so sure you're willing to bet huge amounts of cash:

 

  I would make a HUGE cash bet this is 100% a responsibility-dodging deadbeat. 

 

The 100% is especially damning considering it gives no wiggle room one way or the other.