Dad Wrong
Imagine being accused of sticking up a bank you didn't actually stick up. Imagine proving that you were nowhere near the bank at the time of the robbery. Imagine going to jail for robbing the bank anyway. That's the kind of "justice" being advocated for men who didn't father children, but were fingered anyway for child support. Cheryl Wetzstein writes in the Washington Times:
A child-support agency is asking the California Supreme Court to stop a ruling in which DNA tests voided a man's obligation to pay child support from becoming a legal precedent.Fathers' rights groups cheered a state appeals court ruling for Manuel Navarro as a victory for "paternity fraud" victims, but their celebrations may be short-lived. The Los Angeles County child-support agency has asked for the appellate court ruling to be "depublished," or omitted from official records, so no other man can use it to overturn his child-support order.
The child-support agency says the June 30 appellate ruling is "creating confusion" in trial courts and that is why it should be decertified.
Santa Ana lawyer Linda S. Ferrer, who represents Mr. Navarro, says the agency wants the ruling off the books because it stands to lose a lot of money if more men use it to get their child-support orders overturned.
"That's the only thought ó money," said Ms. Ferrer, whose client had been ordered in 1996 to pay $247 a month in child support for two boys.
The Navarro case has broad implications because the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District was so blunt in its ruling.
Mr. Navarro said he was never properly served child-support papers and was assigned child support in absentia. He recently underwent a DNA test that proved he was not the father of the boys.
When he went to court with his proof, however, the trial court ruled that Mr. Navarro still had to pay the child support because he did not protest it in time.
Mr. Navarro appealed and, on June 30, the appellate court handed him a victory, reversing the trial court decision and declaring that Los Angeles County "should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded."
There's more.
Child-support orders, once established, are not easily overturned. Advances in DNA testing, however, have exposed cases in which mothers ó intentionally or accidentally ó have named the wrong men as the fathers of their children for purposes of child support.Yet many child-support officials are not sympathetic to the men, contending that losing a putative father's support is likely to be detrimental to the children. "At what point should the truth about genetic parentage outweigh the consequences of leaving a child fatherless?" Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and Social Policy asked in a 2003 paper.
How about we declare you the father, Paula, of the next "fatherless" child who passes through your center? It's about as just -- and makes just as much sense.
Amy,
I am so glad you are on the side of reason and common sense on this issue. It is beyond absurd to make a man pay child support for offspring he did not father.
It's too bad all of the social agencies and child-welfare advocacy groups are so flummoxed by the new technology of DNA testing that they cling to antiquated 500 year old English paternity law in place of any modicum of modern logic and sense of fair play.
What they forget is, if it isn't this guy's DNA, well gee, it must be some other guy's DNA. I guess governmental laziness precludes going out and finding the actual sperm donor, or, god forbid, making the woman track him down. No, it's easier to spend tax-payer dollars in court to force some poor schmuck who they KNOW isn't the father to pay child support!
Jeff R at August 24, 2004 11:08 AM
I can't understand how anybody can advocate anything so patently, flagrantly unjust. That woman should not only lose her job, but be made to beg to be hired as a santitation worker at a raw sewage plant...then, if hired, be given a small shovel and a toothbrush.
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2004 11:14 AM
I know you are referring to the conniving mom in your comments, but can we include Paula Roberts in your sanitation workforce scheme? Paula and the social welfare crowd running roughshod through the halls of family court have served up plenty of steaming piles that would justify her being the head shoveler. Real fathers need to pay up certainly. But non-dads? And has that poor guy been paying child support since 1996? Plus the attorney's fees. I hate these kind of stories. Rile me up way too much.
allan at August 24, 2004 8:57 PM
I actually meant Paula. What an evil woman. Almost makes me wish I were a trannie.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2004 12:12 AM
Want to tell Paula what you think of her? I did -- at the center which employs her. Here's the link for comments:
http://www.clasp.org/Help/Contact_Form
And here's my message (left, of course, with my own full name and email address):
"Paula Roberts is evil. What happened, honey, man leave you?"
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2004 12:17 AM