Child Support Hell -- And That's Putting It Mildly
This is a piece from November, but I just read about it in brief in the May print edition of reason. It's an absolutely sickening story about yet another case of mistaken identity child support injustice, and the extent of the hell this guy went through is, tragically, not very unusual. States, including my own state of California, seem to care much more about sticking some guy, any guy, with child support payments than about seeing that justice is done. This is a travesty absolutely beyond belief. Pete Shellem writes for the Patriot-News about one of the victims:
When Walter Andre Sharpe Jr. signed for a certified letter from Dauphin County Domestic Relations in 2001, he didn't know he was signing on for a seven-year nightmare.Since then, the Philadelphia man has been thrown in jail four times, lost his job, become estranged from his four children and spent more than $12,000 to support the child of another man.
It finally stopped in May 2007 when a judge reversed a finding that he was the father.
But the same judge has since ruled that Sharpe is not entitled to any compensation, not even the money he was forced to pay to support the child.
Sharpe's attorney, Tabetha Tanner, said the county Domestic Relations office "stole" Sharpe's identity by exchanging his date of birth, address and Social Security number for that of the father.
The agency fought Sharpe's attempts to have DNA testing and said it determined he was the father "after reasonable investigation."
Yet it took The Patriot-News less than an hour to track down the real father, Andre Sharpe, who said the girl that Walter Sharpe has been paying support for has been living with him for the last four years.
But in court papers, Domestic Relations blamed Walter Sharpe, a former trash collector, for not filing the proper motions in court to "disestablish paternity."
"What type of investigation were they doing if you can track this guy down in less than eight hours?" Walter Sharpe asked. "It just pisses me off. I tried my best to clear myself of this case, and it fell on deaf ears. It's like I'm guilty until proven innocent. I'm just another man crying, 'I don't know this person. I don't have their kid.' It's a routine they're just used to."
Again, if feminists were truly against injustice and for fair treatment for all they'd be on the front lines protesting this and other cases like it -- and this happens far too often, especially to guys who are overseas in the military.
And finally, after all this man has been through, a judge has ordered a criminal investigation of his case.
Feminists really don't care about this at all. They're too afraid of shifting the spotlight from their own entitlement efforts.
Anyone notice the huge uptick in vascectomies? Hmmm, wonder why that's going on . . .
metalman at April 19, 2009 6:26 AM
The only man I've ever seen feminists stick up for was some guy named Bill who sexually harrassed countless women and used his job to cover it up. What was his last name? Clinton?
Trust at April 19, 2009 6:35 AM
metalman,
Keen observation. I think I am about to burn my Feminist card and just stick to being a lady.
Amy,
A friend of mine was under the yoke of oppressive levels of child support a few years ago. Still recovering from it. His judge did not care how much he was taking care of his only child, he was going to pay the mother over 25% (something like that) no matter what! He had his son about half the year too.
I am just rediscovering your column after several years away from it. I don't see how I survived without it all this time!
Completely unrelated, a guy friend is writing a book set slightly in the future. Sending him a link to your site. The main characters read Reason too. Your blog or advice column might be a good fit for the couple.
How do you get the "Remember personal info?" thingie to work?
Suki at April 19, 2009 6:44 AM
Again, if feminists were truly against injustice and for fair treatment for all they'd be on the front lines protesting this and other cases like it -- and this happens far too often, especially to guys who are overseas in the military.
Absolutely. Instead we get all sorts excuses for this injustice....
jerry at April 19, 2009 7:29 AM
How do you get the "Remember personal info?" thingie to work?
Not sure -- you kind of have to fool with it.
And thanks for the nice words on my column. If it doesn't run where you are, I hope you'll request it --either from the editor of the alt weekly or the features editor of the daily.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2009 8:42 AM
Suki, if you figure it out, please post a comment. It's never worked for me either.
kishke at April 19, 2009 9:14 AM
Amy,
Thank you! Sorry for not usually picking up the pulp papers, but will see what is around here and will do as you ask.
Got a lightning quick response from John on adding you to his book. Check the link on my name. Remember, it is set in the future, so you and Tammy Bruce* might be leading a positive women's movement and that Ezra Klein guy may have gotten a clue too :)
Suki
*Did not see a link for her in your linkies.
Suki at April 19, 2009 10:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/19/child_support_h.html#comment-1644009">comment from SukiI like Tammy, and was on her radio show pretty much weekly for a while.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2009 10:25 AM
The states/county officials often have a major motivation to not solve these "misunderstandings". It is called federal government subsidies. The feds kick in .66 for every $1 a state collects. Hmm, good way to bring in extra revenue there.
Hopefully Mr. Sharpe sees some justice done but I doubt it. It took an years and an appeal to get justice for Navarro in California.
Sio at April 19, 2009 10:39 AM
"No one gives a shit about men."
Tyler's older brother, quoted sometime earlier this decade.
Tyler at April 19, 2009 11:30 AM
I like Tammy, and was on her radio show pretty much weekly for a while.
Awesome! I hope you like the way John mentions you. Not sure where he is mentioning you in the book. He got me listening to Tammy and I think it jarred a memory molecule about your column.
:)
Suki
Suki at April 19, 2009 11:41 AM
I wonder if he can sue the real father for back child support.
NicoleK at April 19, 2009 12:28 PM
So when you say these cases aren't at all unusual, can you tell me how frequently they actually occur (I'd also love a number for the women scamming pregnancies -- if it's so epidemic surely there are studies). I think one case is too many, but I'd still like real data. Also, I just want to point out that a MAN (the real father) actually lived with the girl (and I imagine her mother) and was only too happy to take money unscrupulously from another man. He must be one of those evil feminists too.
JulieA at April 19, 2009 12:45 PM
Cases like this always have me amazed that there arent more courthouse shootings
lujlp at April 19, 2009 1:04 PM
Suki,
"that Ezra Klein guy may have gotten a clue..."
Can you explain this a bit? Klein seems way too involved in the politically correct wing of the liberal party to ever get a clue, and I say that as a usual member of that wing of that party. More though, Klein got his start blogging at Pandagon (pre-Marcotte) but with such a close associating with Amanda over the years that I would find it hard to believe he will be able to get a clue.
But I'd love to be enlightened,
jerry at April 19, 2009 2:37 PM
Interesting. FUBAR. A lot of things.
We get the government we deserve though. The states officials are elected by the people, if the people don't pressure elected officials for changes in the law, changes in the law won't happen.
When people aren't lazy, things change, when people are lazy, things change for the worse.
Robert at April 19, 2009 2:45 PM
jerry,
Suki,
"that Ezra Klein guy may have gotten a clue..."
Can you explain this a bit? Klein seems way too involved in the politically correct wing of the liberal party to ever get a clue, and I say that as a usual member of that wing of that party. More though, Klein got his start blogging at Pandagon (pre-Marcotte) but with such a close associating with Amanda over the years that I would find it hard to believe he will be able to get a clue.
But I'd love to be enlightened,
I have not seen the text yet, but from the way John handles these things I am thinking it will be like one of those epiphanies, like Ariana Huffington, that he mentions in the Patricia character bio when he noted Ann Coulter in the future.
Not like what I know of Tammy these days. She sounds like she has been the same way and her posse abandoned her.
Sorry of this is babbly, I am out with beloved having a few pints, but we are NOT too cuddly for polite public company, as much as I may dislike it ;)
Sorry about giving the nook website all the time too. If the silly remember thingie would be a good pet it would be my bebo profile url.
Yea, I know that is more typing than the url.
Suki
Suki at April 19, 2009 4:15 PM
Robert,
We get the government we deserve though.
On a similar note I noticed during the November election the Ron Paul supporters complaining about the "strangers" who were supporting him. I just thought that the candidates get the supporters that they deserve.*
Was 'vindicated' when some Conservative reporter woman wrote much the same about the same thing.
*I am a total dumbass for voting Obama and he deserves me.
Suki
Suki at April 19, 2009 4:24 PM
The government made a huge mistake years ago when they started providing money i.e. welfare/Public assistance to women having children out of wed lock. This became an entitlement program for women. The government dug itself a hole but can't risk upsetting the feminist political base. What to do? Demonize men and make them subsidize women instead of the government. Men have become the default welfare and public assistance programs for the government, for all of these wonderfully independent women.
The government doesn't care if it's the guy's child or not as long as someone pays. Through feminism, men have become an unpopular group, that can be exploited by the government without much of a peep from anyone.
David M. at April 20, 2009 4:52 AM
Frankly sometimes I think the only way the system will change is when mothers & fathers are forced to ask..."What system do I want my son to live under?"
Robert at April 20, 2009 5:55 AM
The person receiving the child support has to know that the person paying is not the father. In this case, the actual father is living with the child and benefiting from the money. How is this not fraud?
In a country where a restaurant can be sued when a woman spills coffee on herself because she wasn't warned that coffee is hot, a lawsuit against the woman, Andre Sharpe, and the Dauphin County Domestic Relations dept. should be a slam dunk.
Steamer at April 20, 2009 8:15 AM
JulieA: If I understand the details of this case, the real father was not receiving the support money. The state was keeping it, in lieu of welfare payments. That's what actually happens in a lot of these cases.
Cousin Dave at April 20, 2009 9:42 AM
I'd love to know why the mother is filing for welfare/child support for this kid when the kid actually lives with the dad. (I can't tell if she lives with him as well, or not.)
ahw at April 20, 2009 9:48 AM
"Andre Sharpe, and the Dauphin County Domestic Relations dept. should be a slam dunk." No because the guy giving the money has a job and the son of bitch who took the money doesn't. You can't take what's not there. The county Domestic Relation department is a better target but we (the tax payer) are the ones who will be paying for it.
Walter Andre Sharpe can't get his money back from the mother because there is no money to get back. Also he's freaking dumb ass for just ignoring the summons. Someone said your the father of their kid and you just write it off??? What he never heard of people using the system to screw each other?
If you have no dignity being a poor welfare mother is great. No worries you get all you shit payed. Free medical, rent etc. What was a noble concept turned into a free ride by the people not the state, the state just helped.
Stop blaming feminism for shit that has more to do with people being lazy and greedy. This is some person wanting a free ride and a system that in the guise of compassion created a huge loop hole that is just too big to close. Leaving lazy mothers starving is going to be seen a racist (most welfare mothers a minorities). As of course your starving them because they are (inset minority here) and not lazy sacks of shit.
"In a country where a restaurant can be sued when a woman spills coffee on herself because she wasn't warned that coffee is hot," No she sued for 40k in medical bills because they made their coffee too hot as per FDA rules. The jury decided to award shit loads of punitive damages. The jury (the people) were the assholes here not the system.
There isn't a system on earth that can not be gamed. That's pretty much what these lazy bastards are doing. The system is failing because the average citizen is self interested jack ass. The I'm getting mine and fuck the rest of you attitude is the root of all this. The only problem with the law is the father permanence crap. Once the guy has been clearly shown to not be the father let it go.
vlad at April 20, 2009 10:25 AM
You're missing a lot of stuff, as usual.
Jeff Y. at April 20, 2009 11:19 AM
"Another problem is the lack of presumptive joint custody. Another problem is the inflexibility of child support payments as father's income levels change. Another problem is the presumptive fatherhood of husbands, even when the child isn't his. " Ok cum bucket which have a bearing on this case how?
"Take some more Riddlin, dumbass. " Sorry your mother stole it in lieu of payment.
"But feminism is the philosophy which is used to justify this kind of greed and sloth." So welfare is only given to women. Men don't' get SSI. Try checking you facts before opening you hole.
vlad at April 20, 2009 11:34 AM
"you hole." Sorry should be "your hole" Jeff's mom has my Ritalin.
vlad at April 20, 2009 11:40 AM
Vlad, I would agree that people being lazy and greedy is the elephant. Feminism is merely the crazed, red-eyed monkey sitting on its back, goading it, and screeching with delight as traditional family structure is trampled into near oblivion.
Thanks to all the reasonable folks here, starting with Amy, who are starting to ask "what's that smell?" coming from the feminists' camp. At least some are starting to wonder when some of that good ol' gender equality and justice is going to start "trickling down" to men, who, in the main, have supported feminists' professed goals over the years, and who certainly have tried to be supportive of women.
Jay R at April 20, 2009 12:39 PM
"Feminism is merely the crazed, red-eyed monkey sitting on its back, goading it" I agree that feminism is more about male supression and needs to be addressed but I don't see the feminism here.
vlad at April 20, 2009 1:07 PM
"Feminism is merely the crazed, red-eyed monkey sitting on its back, goading it" I agree that feminism is more about male supression and needs to be addressed but I don't see the feminism here.(vlad)
______
The feminism you don't see here is that women make accusations against men that don't have to be proven. Their word is enough to convict a man whether it be paternity, domestic violence or rape. There is a presumption that women are angelic mother figures that would never lie. Typically, the only thing that will free a man against the word of a female is DNA evidence.
David M. at April 20, 2009 2:02 PM
"Their word is enough to convict a man whether it be paternity, domestic violence or rape." She did not accuse him of being the father. The state did and then the state refused to back off. She put the name of her boyfriend who was the father and living with her. They just happened to be similar enough for the state to screw up.
vlad at April 20, 2009 2:12 PM
Don't see the feminism?
Women are worse child-support scoff-laws than are men statistically, but when did you ever hear the phrase "dead-beat mom"? When did you ever hear of any woman being jailed for failure to pay child support? The child custody and support industry is designed to prey on the male of the species -- and basically ignore the female, except as a presumed recipient of benefits.
If you don't see feminism's influence in the development and maintenance of this one-sided war on men and fathers, you simply are not paying attention.
Jay R at April 20, 2009 3:45 PM
@Jay R: "Women are worse child-support scoff-laws than are men statistically, but when did you ever hear the phrase "dead-beat mom"? "
______________
We usually don't know about dead beat moms because they get out of it by making dead babies (abortion). Besides, nowadays it is almost sacreligious to say anything that may seem negative about women. Men are fair game.
Trust at April 20, 2009 5:12 PM
"In a country where a restaurant can be sued when a woman spills coffee on herself because she wasn't warned that coffee is hot, a lawsuit against the woman,"
I will never stop defending the merits of this case. Read on for the facts -
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
That woman, who suffered significant injury, ended up with a just and fair private settlement.
snakeman99 at April 20, 2009 5:14 PM
@Jeff Y: "But feminism is the philosophy which is used to justify this kind of greed and sloth. Feminism has become a philosophy of female supremacy. People are right to blame it for shit."
_______________
You nailed it. Feminists are quite sexist, and discriminate against men far more than any men discriminate against them. Ironically though, I think feminism has done more harm to women than the (so called) "patriarchy" ever did. (In fact, if you realize how much sex bad men get as a direct result of feminism, you wonder of Ms. Steinham was a secret agent for the dread patriarchy)
P.S. If you are the Jeff I got into it with on Dr H, I apologize for misjudging you. I've felt bad about it for a long time (in case you haven't seen my posts on it there). If you aren't that Jeff, the ignore this P.S.
Best,
Trust
Trust at April 20, 2009 5:17 PM
Well snakeman, I wonder HOW you can defend the merits of that case.
Lets take your source:
"Liebeck placed the cup between her knees"
Who the FUCK puts HOT beverages there and thinks its a good idea?
"attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap"
Think about this for a moment. We've all opened those containers before, is there ever NOT any spillage with a full cup? This is up there with smoking while soaked in gasoline.
In all probability the "entire contents" in question spilled on Stella not because of a problem with the cup, but because when the few drops that popped out due to the little bit of force from motion of the top removal struck her, she reacted with an instinctive violent reaction, which resulted in the spillage of the entire cup.
"McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992"
And how many cups do you think they sold in 10 years genius? 1 million per year? 10 million? 100 million? Its coffee, millions upon millions buy it, drink it, enjoy it, and never burn themselves. 700 cases out of 10 million means 700 people doing something stupid...like putting a hot beverage between their knees.
"consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste."
Yes...and...gasp...that is NORMAL. The coffee association of America (or was that coffee lovers) recommended at that time, that very temperature range. Not sure about now, but I'd wager it hasn't changed.
Lets assume that most people DO drink the coffee while driving. Most of millions of cups per year...yet only 700 accidents in 10 years?
No, stupid people do not deserve large cash settlements for being stupid, no matter how painful the injuries that result from their stupidity actually are. Its stupid ass settlements like that which actually result in MORE injuries, because people stop looking at warning labels.
The idea that "someone must pay" is NOT a sound basis for justice in tort law. Stupid people who do stupid things should be the only ones to bear the price for their stupidity.
Yes coffee is hot, no it is not smart to put hot beverages between one's legs, knees, or anywhere but a FLAT surface, and nobody is responsible for those actions except their doer.
Robert at April 20, 2009 6:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/19/child_support_h.html#comment-1644201">comment from RobertI don't think you should get to sue people blind because you're a moron -- which is my assessment of what you are if you drive with hot coffee between your legs.
Amy Alkon at April 20, 2009 8:28 PM
From the Stella Awards site--
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
'# Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson (she was 79 at the time-crella)was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
# Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.'
crella at April 21, 2009 3:48 AM
"Their word is enough to convict a man whether it be paternity, domestic violence or rape." She did not accuse him of being the father. The state did and then the state refused to back off. She put the name of her boyfriend who was the father and living with her. They just happened to be similar enough for the state to screw up.
________________________-
I'm assuming she was getting a child support check. And said nothing about the wrong father. If not this case there are others where women with no conscience take child support money from men they KNOW are not the fathers.
Why do they take it? They think their entitled due to feminism.
David M. at April 21, 2009 3:57 AM
"And said nothing about the wrong father." Neither did the actual father with which she was living. So two people take advantage of the system to some poor guys detriment has what to do with feminism?
"If not this case there are others where women with no conscience take child support money from men they KNOW are not the fathers." Right but we were talking about this case.
"Why do they take it? They think their entitled due to feminism." Having affairs outside of marriage that resulted in babies believed to be the hubbies is a 20th century phenomenon?
Modern feminism is responsible for a whole slew of legitimized social injustice towards men. However it did not invent false rape allegations, extra marital affairs, etc. Know what you enemy is guilty of and when.
vlad at April 21, 2009 7:06 AM
For Vlad- I will try to make this more clear.
Feminists have been demonizing men since the 1960's.
This demonizing has transferred and/or infected our judicial and political systems, so that it is basically corrupt man versus innocent woman in any legal case, as in the one above.
Feminism has convinced many women that due to some real and some imagined mistreatment by men in the past, that todays women are entitled to preferred legal, political, and educational treatment.
Feminism supports a conscience of entitlement,
that is used and played out everyday in our courts, like in the case above.
Things like this do not happen to women.
David M. at April 21, 2009 8:04 AM
I tend to agree with Vlad on this one. I don't really see alot of Feminism on this one. Basiclly I see a Goverment Agency failing to do its job properly. Yes, mabye the attitude of the Agency was influenced by the prevailing Feministic attitude that prevades in alot of these things. But, it really all comes down to laziness and stupidity on the part of the Agency.
Matt at April 21, 2009 9:28 AM
vlad at April 21, 2009 10:09 AM
Moral:
The State is not your friend.
brian at April 21, 2009 10:49 AM
I can only do this one more time.
The courts have been influenced through feminism to assume that the woman is automatically the victim and the man automatically guilty, and make their judgements in that regard.
Things like this don't happen to women but many times happen to men, especially in the state of Californis where they have a default judgement process.
David M. at April 21, 2009 11:27 AM
> I can only do this one more time.
I googled for a few seconds to find a quotation about strength or perseverance to make fun of this with, but life's short, and I'm pretty sure it looks silly enough merely by being repeated.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 21, 2009 11:59 AM
vlad at April 21, 2009 12:26 PM
She never said Walter Andre Sharpe Jr. was the father.
And when she was raking in the payments, with the real father living under the same roof, she didn't say he wasn't either.
While I agree, you can't lay this case directly at the feet of feminism, they have contributed greatly to the entitlement attitude that a great many people in this country have. My thought is that she should be prosecuted for fraud and thrown in jail. The CPS idiots should be fired and prosecuted for fraud as well.
wolfboy69 at April 21, 2009 2:01 PM
Trust wrote "We usually don't know about dead beat moms because they get out of it by making dead babies (abortion)."
Well thank goodness for all those dead babies in the blenders of the abortion mills because otherwise I'd have nothing to spread on my toast besides the cases of Vegemite those worried Aussies keep sending me every time they read about how America collapsed the day Bush abandoned the country by refusing to commit a military coup to stop the Muslim President from taking over and committing genocide against white people.
Whew. I didn't think I could get all that paranoid tripe in one sentence, but I made it!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 21, 2009 4:40 PM
@Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 21, 2009 4:40 PM
Huh?
Trust at April 22, 2009 5:13 AM
The states/county officials often have a major motivation to not solve these "misunderstandings". It is called federal government subsidies. The feds kick in .66 for every $1 a state collects.
Amy,
Per Title IV-D (42 USC I think it is) it's dollar for dollar. Why else do you suppose courts no longer let dad send the money directly to mom? They order dad to send it to the state so the state can report it as CS collected thereby entitle themselves to a seat at the oh so yummyilicious DC Tax Pie!
Gunner Retired
Gunner Retired at April 28, 2009 12:19 PM
Leave a comment