Way to go Richar'

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Governor: Investigation into Trevino case nearly over
 
Gov. Bill Richardson, right, shakes the hand of Shelly Barreras, Steve Barreras' wife, as KrightsRadio.com founder Richar' Farr watches.


Last Update: 03/11/2005 10:42:44 AM
By: Todd Dukart
Video

There was no baby, a judge said. And now an investigation into why the "father" of the child had to pay $20,000 in support is nearly finished.

Steve Barreras was ordered to pay child support to his ex-wife, Viola Trevino, for a daughter she said she had.

But when Trevino was ordered to produce the 5-year-old girl, she apparently took another woman's 2-year-old girl into the courtroom several hours after the deadline. That's when the judge ruled the child never existed.

In December, Gov. Bill Richardson ordered an investigation into why Barreras had to pay for so long.

Richardson announced Thursday that the investigation is nearly over. That was welcome news to Richar' Farr, an advocate for non-custodial parents who runs the Internet radio station KrightsRadio.com.

"In fact, they're taking one whole aspect - the non-custodial parent - and many times running them into financial ruin and not allowing them to be with their kids as well," Farr said.

Richardson said he was outraged when he heard of Barreras' case.

"It's pretty outrageous what happens," Richardson said. "We should have definite proof of the existence of the child at the very least."

State courts hearing child support cases will require a photo of the child starting in about a month. That rule is being put in place as a direct result of the Trevino case.

Farr has organized a rally for the rights of non-custodial parents. It's scheduled for Friday at noon outside Albuquerque's district courthouse.

link

[Warcod]

State courts hearing child support cases will require a photo of the child

Goodness me what a rigorous burden of proof.

It must be really difficult to get round that rule.

How about a Birth Certificate?

[MacKenzie]

^Birth certificates can be forged more easily than a picture.

[Warcod]

I think my point is that you can get a picture of any child and take it to court.

In fact I'm certain that is my point.

[neonsamurai]

Warcod, in a moment of self realisation said:

I think my point is that you can get a picture of any child and take it to court.

In fact I'm certain that is my point.

Or how about a picture, birth certificate and lock of hair (DNA sample)?

It seems that the poor guy who had to put up with this was paying for a child that didn't exist, therefore it wasn't right to ask him for child support. Why not take it a stage further and check to see if the real child is even the fathers'?

[Alpha Male]

That would be ideal but you are never going to see that. Feminists and the social service groups wouldn't want the man to be able to have access to DNA material. We've already read it hear multiple times. He musn't be allowed the opportunity to prove anything contrary to their agenda. Must protect the women - must protect any lie she perpetrated to protect the "best interest of the child"/"the 'healthy' marriage"/"our ability to recoup a portion of the welfare from the 'father'"/insert BS justification ad nauseum here.

The moment something like this happened the "state" should have mandated the DNA test. Either side should be able to refuse the test lest we become more draconian than we already are. However, should you refuse to test you relinquish your claim. A woman who refuses to allow the child to be tested may not pursue child support from the alleged father. A father who refuses to prove his non-paternity leaves himself open to the pursuit.

In this case, where the child did not even exist, the woman on top of paying back what she defrauded the man of, should have had to pay for all his legal expenses since he wouldn't have incurred them except for her lie. Then she should have to pay punitive damages congruent to the amount of money the state wasted pursing matters based on her lie.

There should be consequences when the court can establish that you *knowingly* lied. You wouldn't catch all the liars but there would be more of a deterent to this sort of fraud. People shouldn't be allowed to walk away shrugging their shoulders saying "Oh well. It was worth a shot."