Defrauderhood
Yet another man who isn't the father is being made to pay child support for a child who has no genetic relation to him -- because some woman gamed the system, and the system is ripe for gaming, especially in the paternity fraud department.
Jarrel Wade writes in the Tulsa World Herald of a guy who got back a DNA report that there was 0.00 percent chance that he was the father of the child he was paying child support for, and he believed his debt for the child would be forgiven...but it wasn't -- and won't be, according to Oklahoma law:
In child support cases, the burden of proof is on the alleged father -- the accused -- according to Oklahoma statutes.An alleged father must appear at a child support hearing to request a paternity test. If he does not appear, he is legally designated as the father and child support is established in most cases.
Once designated as the father, that person is financially responsible for the child until he or she is 18 or adopted with a few stipulations for petitions which may vacate the original order, according to Oklahoma statutes.
DHS records show that Samuels was served papers to appear for his child support hearing in 2001, but Samuels said he was working in Texas at the time and could not have received the notice.
Wagner said by Oklahoma law someone can be legally served if the subpoena is put into the hands of someone 15 or older who lives at the same residence as the person.
But Samuels said the documents never touched his hands.
Regardless of the outcome of the DNA test, which Samuels spent three years trying to get, it was already too late.
Samuels was ruled the default father in 2001, and legally, DNA has no bearing.
"If you got me on default, you should still have to prove that I'm the father," he said.
This is the second recent story in the media of a default father being forced to pay child support in a bureaucratic nightmare with DHS.
The first, reported by The Oklahoman, was about Micheal Thomas of Tulsa, who had shown that he had never even met the mother and that he had DNA evidence that showed he wasn't the father. Still, he became a default father after missing his initial court hearing.
DHS does not keep statistics on the number of established fathers or default fathers who are not genetically related to the child they are responsible for, Wagner said.
In the eyes of the law and DHS, once paternity is established, there is no difference.
I've been posting stories like this for years. Enough already. Think about how you'd feel if you were, for example, paying car payments on a brand new Jag every month -- but it isn't your Jag, and, in fact, you're driving an aging Ford Taurus. I mean, who would put up with this? These men are made to, and it's sick, and it's wrong, and I'm sick of posting these stories because it means legislators are doing jack shit about the injustice...still.
Why isn't it a crime to steal from men in this way?
via ifeminist
"Why isn't it a crime to steal from men in this way?"
oh won't you think about the defenseless women? |(
I don't even look at it that way, because for every guy paying for kids that aren't his, there is a guy knocking women up and then leaving. Looking at the woman's responsibility in that appears to be a non-starter publicly, and no amount of screaming in public will change that currently.
The root cause of the travesty is a bit different.
It's not that the law is bad per se, it's that the law isn't applied to the right people. As with child support law in general, and divorce law as well, the people most at fault are the ones that never pay. There are guys out there that jackrabbit at the first hint of responsibility, and they will never be made to pay.
The catch is that the laws also apply to the conscientious people. As you make the punishments more severe against the scofflaws, it is the normal guy who gets caught in that because they aren't figuring out how to better catch the scofflaw. Like the parson who parks across 2 spaces is unlikely to care about the ticket. When they don't care, they just fill the glove compartment full of them. So you make ever more draconian child support and divorce law to punish the deadbeats, but you never try harder to catch them.
The reasons for that are numerous but one stands out: They prolly don't have any money anyway. Follow the money. The conscientious are far more likely to be that way for everything. They probably have a steady job, they are likely to try and do the right thing. When you nail them, you can show a victory for women and children everywhere. You can also sell how the men that run are evil, and put even more ugly laws on the books to punish them, while not catching them.
Everybody feels better bacause someone is forced to take responsibility. Or everyone except that guy. The fact that it would be simple to have a DNA test done is irrelevant. The important part is to find someone to PAY, not to find the RIGHT person. If it isn't easy to find the right person, they cannot be made to pay.
It is easier to shoot fish in a barrel, than to shoot fish in the sea. The fish in the barrel can't get away. The people who never have the problem in the first place can't see what the fuss is, they believe that anyone who ever has a problem with family probably doesn't have moral rectitude anyway. Sometimes they will even tell you that to your face. It's really hard not to smile grimly when that person's marriage falls apart...
SwissArmyD at October 17, 2008 4:53 AM
Proper response: have the mother declared unfit and take the child from her.
She expects you to pay for it, you may as well make sure it gets raised properly.
brian at October 17, 2008 4:53 AM
Paternity Fraud... ya mean like Taron James, Dylan Davis, Bert Riddick, Steve Barreras, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
It's an embarassingly long list of men who have been legally converted into an ATM for a... hmmmmmmmmm... irrewsponsible ... errrrrrrrrrrrr... mother and a ehhhhhhhhh... corrupt... bureacracy.
But I'm sure Amy will attest this is a topic I can speak long and loud on.
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at October 17, 2008 6:36 AM
Why isn't it a crime to steal from men in this way? Because it's a woman doing the stealing. The law infantalizes women. Reproductive, family, and criminal law relieves women of their responsibilities at the expense of men.
How does it happen? Every time a woman sheds a tear or throws a temper tantrum, we get a new law to "protect" women. In short, we treat women like children in adult bodies. That's how we get stupid laws like this.
When will it change? When men start telling women "no" and when women stop throwing tantrums.
In other words, it'll change when men grow a pair and when women grow the fuck up.
Jeff at October 17, 2008 6:42 AM
In the matriarchal legal system that we have, it isn't suprising that men are, and have been, getting screwed this way.
farker at October 17, 2008 7:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/17/defrauderhood.html#comment-1598124">comment from farkerElected strikeofficials accessories to these crimes like Sheila Kuehl say they don't care where the money for the kids comes as long as somebody pays it. In that case, hell, why not Sheila?
Amy Alkon at October 17, 2008 7:30 AM
I'm with brian sue for custody.
In the meantime if your going to sit in jail for not paying child support you may as well sit in jail for shooting a few child support officals
lujlp at October 17, 2008 7:31 AM
And another thing, how the hell is it leagl to have criminal sanctions for violating a civil court order?
lujlp at October 17, 2008 7:36 AM
Working in the legal field, I think there is some chance this whole situation could be worked out in the guy's favor with a decent lawyer who could prove that he never got the subpoena, however...that is just ANOTHER way this poor guy gets screwed - legal fees that he shouldn't have had to pay in the 1st place. The law needs to change. Period. Turn it around & prosecute these women - make them pay all the support back AND pay the victim's legal fees. I'm a single mom who has made it on my own for 14 years and, shockingly, I never felt the urge to stick it to a stranger who has nothing to do with my daughter.
Ddub at October 17, 2008 7:50 AM
Ddub - I've read where in California it doesn't matter if you get the subpoena or not, if you don't respond in 30 days with an affirmative defense (and merely ignoring it as bullshit doesn't count) you're now legally dad.
brian at October 17, 2008 8:07 AM
Once again, Guilty until proven innocent...oh yeah, and you don't get to try to prove your innocence.
This guy should sue her for violation of his civil rights as well as violation of the 13th amendment. I would think this would be a slam dunk for any competent attorney.
But then again, he is a man, so what does it matter? /sarcasm for those sarcastically challenged
wolfboy69 at October 17, 2008 8:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/17/defrauderhood.html#comment-1598148">comment from brianDdub - I've read where in California it doesn't matter if you get the subpoena or not, if you don't respond in 30 days with an affirmative defense (and merely ignoring it as bullshit doesn't count) you're now legally dad.
This is absolutely correct. Search Matt Welch's name in the search box to the left. He did a piece for reason about this that was really terrific. Local blogger Tony Pierce was one who was roped in.
Amy Alkon at October 17, 2008 8:51 AM
I thought such lunatic decisions only occurred in Canuckistan. Makes a fella worry about ever having sex again!!
Robert W. at October 17, 2008 8:55 AM
I thought such lunatic decisions only occurred in Canuckistan. Makes a fella worry about ever having sex again!!
You could be a flaming, totally gay, cross-dresser with no testicles that has never touched a woman and never met the mother. As long as you have a Y chromosome they can nail you for it.
Jim P. at October 17, 2008 9:59 AM
A I reading this right? A woman claims a guy is the dad, he misses a court date he was probably not aware existed, and now he has to pay? Insane.
I did know that signing the kids birth certificate makes you legally the dad whether or not a paternity test later proves you are not at least in some states. Also, at least in some states, you are legally responsible for all kids born to your wife while you are married, once again whether or not they are yours genetically. Those 2 I can kind of see making sense for the kid-the guy they know as dad staying in their life and making sure they are provided for is important. But in those 2 situations the "dad" knew the kid and mom, and took responsibility for the kid in some form at least.
momof3 at October 17, 2008 10:40 AM
momof3 -
Also, at least in some states, you are legally responsible for all kids born to your wife while you are married, once again whether or not they are yours genetically.
My partner was married (not to me) when our first was born. She had made a series of really bad decisions to get there and the hubby disappeared, refusing to go along with the divorce. It wasn't until the friend of the court found him and hit him up for child support that he finally agreed (ironically, he was still stuck with the hospital bill - I went ahead and covered it for him).
But until that happened, I could not get on my son's birth certificate. DNA test wouldn't have been enough, they wanted confirmation from the hubby that their relationship was over before I could actually legally become the father of my child.
So while it may make sense, it is a bad idea.
DuWayne at October 17, 2008 11:11 AM
"Also, at least in some states, you are legally responsible for all kids born to your wife while you are married, once again whether or not they are yours genetically. Those 2 I can kind of see making sense for the kid-the guy they know as dad staying in their life and making sure they are provided for is important." momof3
except for the part where you are trying to divorce her because she's cheating... or when you find out after the kid is born that it isn't yours and that starts the divorce off. A buddy pays a whole lot of childsupport and alimony to his ex over this. And it all happened while they were not living together. He found out about it when he tried to get legal separation to start the divorce. In the divorce they would have just split everything and gone their separate ways. But since she's a mama now, she got the house, a load of childsupport and alimony. And the newguy cohabitating with the ex? Isn't the kids father either. She seemed pretty stable when they married, and for several years everything seemed OK, but once she was cheating, I guess she couldn't stop. AND she claims he was violent, even though he lived in another state, and so even if he WANTED to try and father the kid, he cannot see him.
as for trying to get a mother declared unfit, it doesn't work unless she is pretty much certifiably crazy. It doesn't work if it's just a matter of opinion. AND it is far more likely that the kids end up in foster, if the mom or family hold a grudge. All she has to say is that the might be abusive, and the court will assume he is.
SwissArmyD at October 17, 2008 11:19 AM
"Also, at least in some states, you are legally responsible for all kids born to your wife while you are married, . Those 2 I can kind of see making sense for the kid-the guy they know as dad staying in their life and making sure they are provided for is important." momof3
Question for you, momf3 - your husband gets a woman pregant and dies, disappears, whatever - do you agree to pay for that kid until she's 18 just because it's important that the kid be provided for. After all, it's your husband's kid - why shouldn't you be liable for all your husband's kids, "once again whether or not they are yours genetically"?
The point being, that kid isn't your kin, any more for that matter than your husband, or a wife, is.
Jim at October 17, 2008 11:30 AM
I didn't say it was important the kid be provided for, I said supported, meaning emotion as much as money. By the person it's been calling dad. The intent behind those laws was that the kid not suffer the consequences of an adults actions. Can you really shut off feeling for a kid you've raised for 13 years, who's called you dad, because you find out he's not genetically yours? Some could. Many can't. And it's unfair to ask the kid to do so. That was my point in saying I thought those 2 laws had some sense.
A kid my husband fathered would not have called me mom for X years and would not be emotionally dependent on me. There's a difference.
momof3 at October 17, 2008 12:14 PM
Hmpf, a simple injustice to fix...and no legislature trying to fix it.
Won't happen to the people make it a big deal.
Robert at October 17, 2008 3:01 PM
"I've read where in California it doesn't matter if you get the subpoena or not, if you don't respond in 30 days with an affirmative defense (and merely ignoring it as bullshit doesn't count) you're now legally dad."
I have no experience with paternity law, but I know from previous civil cases that obtaining a default judgment against a nonresponsive defendant is not a simple task. Its not rocket science, but it does require significant attention to detail and weeks of diligence. Even after defaulting, the defendand has ample opportunity to respond and appeal. One time, a judge congratulated me on obtaining the judgment and getting it stick, telling me that its like "getting an act of Congress passed." Forget possession, providing adequate notice really is 9/10ths of the law.
Which is why I'm always shocked to hear about these kinds of situations where procedure fails with horrifying results. I'd love to hear from any actual family law attorneys who might have some firsthand experience to share.
snakeman99 at October 17, 2008 4:02 PM
Snake - the stuff I've read, and no, I don't have links handy, so they may be bullshit, but it was implied that there was no appeal available.
That's what makes so much of "family law" so fucked up. There's no appeals process for a large part of it. At least not an appeal to a higher court. You're pretty much stuck with the family law courts, and how often does any court reverse itself without being whacked in the head by a higher court?
brian at October 17, 2008 8:12 PM
Take it to civil court then. If you can prove you're not daddy -- and this dude can -- there's at least a slim chance you could win.
I know it's not much of a yardstick but I'm a fan of court TV. I've seen Judge Judy give a couple of award to male plaintifs for this. Of course, Judge Judy's nature is very logical and straightforward. But she did work as a NY family court judge from 1972 to 1996 (when she retired). I don't know how much she's kept up on the law since she retired but, given the lady's nature, I'm willing to bet she has.
BTW, go to her website! I just did to check the facts on her and -- coincidentally -- she's got a poll up on if paternity testing should be required for child support judgements. I clicked yes in a mad hurry and so far that's 81% of the poll. Up it! judgejudy.com
T's Grammy at October 18, 2008 11:22 AM
I'd like to claim some woman - a rich one, perhaps - is the mother of my child. Can I do that and claim support?
Norman at October 18, 2008 2:42 PM
Sorry for the following heavy dose of sarcasm, but it seems to me as the way that family law is constructed in practice.
It is not only that women are favored over men, it is that everyone has their role in the larger social fabric. There is no individual right in practice; the law is supposed to be arbitrary. It is working just as intended. The high legal principles seem OK, but the law is implemented through the "unfortunate loopholes".
The legal attitude toward fathers takes the "bigger" view, the socialist view. Children are a resource to society and they need support. Men have a role as a group to support the children. Mothers have a role to raise the children. An individual man may not be the father of the child and mother which he supports, but that is insignificant within the wider social consciousness. The legislature rises above the petty resentments and individual relationships that drive the common man. Our leaders rise above the squabbles and manage the sea of humanity.
It would be inconvenient to assign responsibility to individual actions. Who would support the unassigned children? They need the money, and some man is nearby to supply it. We are all part of the bigger social fabric. It takes a village to raise a child. Men are the resources of that village. They should be proud to participate, however remotely.
Like all socialism, this is a bit of hell on earth, with individuals treated like cogs in the government machine. From the lofty perch of the courts and the legislature, these ill effects are just the problems of the worker ants.
Andrew Garland at October 18, 2008 6:18 PM
Sometimes, there's legal stealing from men even when they ARE the father.
I have an older friend who mortgaged his house to help his son-in-law pay off a child support claim that was true. The SIL had had an affair before he ever met his wife. He had NO IDEA that the woman had gotten pregnant. Now, almost 20 years later, the kid wants to go to college and the mom suddenly realizes how nice it would be to have some help send him there. So, she sued for child support a man who never knew he had a child, for a child that was no longer a child. She was awarded 120,000$ that had to be paid in full.
How fair is that?
Karen at October 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Momof3,
Got it. That part makes sense. Of course no one is going to be able to cut a kid off like that. Besides, the kid needs all the support he/she can get, with a mother like that anyway.
Jim at October 20, 2008 1:56 PM
1. Look up the Navarro case in CA for another example of the insanity except that case has a somewhat happy ending. The guy won his case against LA (iirc) county. I think in that case the county actually tried to serve the "daddy" via the US Mail. I mean seriously...
2. Learn these words, for they are what rule the "family" courts: In the best interests of the child.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Don't matter as its "for the children". Child conceived via rape/stat rape/sexual assault? The victim should pay support, if the victim is a man anyway. There was an actual case out in, I think Alabama where a man lost his case to be relieved of paying for a child that was conceived while he was passed out drunk aka he was raped by the mother.
Sio at October 21, 2008 2:57 PM
Leave a comment