Not The Kid's Dad, But Still Jailed For Not Paying Child Support
I was hoping, when snakeman sent me this paternity fraud link with a note about the guy doing a stint in jail, that it was a case I'd already blogged or read about. It's not. This guy is homeless, and he's done over a year in jail for not paying child support for a kid who...is not his!
In the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Bill Rankin writes:
Frank Hatley has languished in a South Georgia jail for more than a year.The reason? He failed to reimburse the state for all the public assistance his "son" received over the past two decades.
The problem? Hatley is not the biological father -- and a special assistant state attorney general and a judge knew it but jailed Hatley anyway.
"I feel bad for the man," Cook County Sheriff Johnny Daughtrey said Tuesday. "Put yourself in that man's shoes: If it wasn't your child, would you want to be paying child support for him?"
Daughtrey said he hopes a hearing Wednesday will resolve the matter. Hatley has been held at the county jail in Adel since June 25, 2008, costing the county an estimated $35 to $40 a day.
Even after learning he was not the father, Hatley paid thousands of dollars the state said he owed for support. After losing his job and becoming homeless, he still made payments out of his unemployment benefits.
Hatley's lawyer, Sarah Geraghty of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said two independent DNA tests -- one nine years ago and one just a few days ago -- prove he is not the biological father.
"This is a case of excessive zeal to recover money trumping common sense," she said. "What possible legitimate reason can the state have to pursue Mr. Hatley for child support when he does not have any children?"
And get this -- it hasn't ended. A bit from the end of the AJC story:
When he is released, the order said, Hatley must continue making payments to the state at a rate of $250 a month.
Okay, so a bank is robbed. You aren't the one who robbed the bank, but you were waiting to make a deposit when it happened, and somebody should pay for the crime, so, hell...why not you?
thanks, snake - via abovethelaw
More developments.
Remember this about health care or any other government program. If the proper form is filled out, any remaining problem is all yours.
Including jail.
Radwaste at July 16, 2009 2:06 AM
Insanity.
Gretchen at July 16, 2009 4:27 AM
Who is running the insane asylum?
Jim P. at July 16, 2009 5:37 AM
This happens every day in America to millions of men and it will continue to happen so long as women are employed by the Child Support divisions in each state in this nation……which means it will happen forever……..
Frog Prince at July 16, 2009 5:42 AM
Thanks for publishing this story.
I tell people that we have men in this country that are forced to pay child support for kids that are proven not to be theirs and people don't beleive me.
They look at me cock-eyed like I have a screw loose or something.
They think this doesn't happen in America.
It happens if you are part an unpopular political segment of AmeriKa, such as being a man. (I intentionally spelled Amerika with a "K" in the second use)
David M. at July 16, 2009 6:20 AM
Glenn Sacks has documented many cases of this. The system is all about getting money for the state, and the rules are cleverly designed to sidestep due-process Constitutional provisions.
Cousin Dave at July 16, 2009 6:41 AM
Sometimes I wish I did believe in hell, because surely the morally bankrupt imbeciles behind these cases would end up there.
Debra at July 16, 2009 8:04 AM
It's criminal, what's happening to this man, and to others, who have to pay for children that aren't even theirs! I thought that paternity and DNA testing was supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening!!
Flynne at July 16, 2009 8:28 AM
"I thought that paternity and DNA testing was supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening!! "
In a sane legal system it would. What we have is a legal fossil called the irrefutable presumption of paternity. It means that the husband of a woman is presumed to be the father of all the children she bears while in the marriage. This is why, under our legal system, a wife's infidelity is a much buigger deal than a husband's.
This legal principle is intended to protect children and ensure that they have a father in their lives, because a father is so crucial in the growth of a child. The fact that family law in a thousand places denies this principle does not make it go away when to comes to making sure a child is provided for. Well, not quite, because there is no provision in any of these laws to ensure that CS money is in fact spent on the child.
"It's criminal, what's happening to this man,"
Debtor's prisons used to be considered barbaric.
"who have to pay for children that aren't even theirs!"
I don't blame you if you don't believe this next bit, but I swear it's true - I have seen women on comment threads actually castigate men for complaining abuot this situation, saying the men need to be responsible for children - all men, for all children - blatant hypocrisy, since they are not calling for all women to support all chldren, whether theirs, someone else's or no one's, at the same time.
Jim at July 16, 2009 8:52 AM
Fucked up.
Where's the real dad, anyhow?
NicoleK at July 16, 2009 9:05 AM
This is a travesty of justice. This man should be freed of any further responsibility for any payments or this child. His right to life and the pursuit of happiness is being abridged. How could he pursue a career or even hope to have or support a child OF HIS OWN while saddled with debt from this child NOT of his own. The person being jailed, harrassed for payments, and left destitute should be the woman that lied to this man. Her kind give women a bad name and I have no sympathy for them.
LaFawn Davis at July 16, 2009 9:45 AM
Debtor's prisons used to be considered barbaric.
And still are for any debtor not "presumed" to be a father and not making support payments.
Betcha you'll never see any other debtors in jail today, like, for instance, the guy who spent more than he had on goodies, and now can't pay off his credit cards.
Can anyone actually wonder why fair-minded Americans are getting angrier by the day?
cpabroker at July 16, 2009 10:49 AM
"In the 1980s, Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison, who became pregnant, had a baby boy and told Hatley the child was his, according to court records."
Unless it was some sort of immaculate conception, Morrison knew that Hatley was not-- or at least, there was the possibility that Hatley was not-- the father of the child. She was screwing around with someone else at the time and she lied.
So, what legal action has the state made against Morrison for her fraudulent assertion? And/or, what legal recourse can Hatley make against her for essentially destroying his life?
Let me guess: zip, zilch, nada on both counts.
just another lurker at July 16, 2009 11:32 AM
Cpabroker, don't forget about that guy in PA who was just released from Jail for 14 years on contempt of court charges for not "coming clean" on where his hidden money was that he owed his ex-wife. A judge finally ruled that the money he supposedly had really wasn't in existance anymore (if ever).
This is another example of "where have all the good men gone?". They're runnin far away from the family court system that treats them as second class citizens. Though as this case here shows, the homeless guy wasn't even married to the mother. Look up the Navarro case in CA for another great example. He won finally.. ON AN APPEAL!
Good article on Reason here:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html
Sio at July 16, 2009 11:35 AM
Where is the injustice? Hatley agreed to pay child support between 1989 and 2001 and, from what I can tell, only paid about a third of what was required. Both of these human interest stories make him out to be a great guy, but he simply did not live up to his side of the contract, which was made in good faith by both parties. If he had paid all the money required (by my calculations, on the order of $26,000, assuming that he made no payments before '95), should we then clamour for this money to be paid back to him? Why not throw the baby mamma in jail for fleecing this guy (assuming she did it intentionally)?
If people are so inclined to make babies with random women and then figure their responsibilities only extend to a monthly donation (which they then don't pay), I don't have a lot of sympathy.
I know this will be an unpopular opinion. But unless he can prove that the hoochie deliberately lied about the paternity, I don't see the injustice here. It sucks, for sure, but please don't make this guy out to be Albert Schweitzer. He fucked up in a lot of ways.
Oh, and as far as I know, you can indeed go to jail in France for unpaid debt. As you should. This kind of mentality might have prevented the craphole we find ourselves in today.
liz at July 16, 2009 12:09 PM
Lurker said: Morrison knew that Hatley was not-- or at least, there was the possibility that Hatley was not-- the father of the child. She was screwing around with someone else at the time and she lied.
Yes, that is true, and I stand corrected.
liz at July 16, 2009 12:12 PM
An additional comment on the "family" justice system.
A guy I met through a friend is an anesthesiologist. He makes a good six figure income. He married a woman with 2 little girls. His wifes second marraige. They were married approximately 2 years when his wife says "you're such a great guy if anything happens to me I want you to take care of the girls. Will you adopt them?" He being an honorable guy wanting to do the right thing and caring for the girls says "sure."
A month and a half after he signed the adoption papers he caught her having an affair.
She promptly divorced him and asked for child-support for the two kids. Because he had adopted the girls he has to pay child-support. When he would go for his visitation to see the girls his ex-wife would bitch at him there not even your kids, I don't know why you come and pick them up.
Pretty soon she frustrated his visitation so much he gave up trying to see the girls. He still has to pay child support.
It was quite a calculated move on her part to get him to sign the adoption papers, when all indications are she was probably having the affair already.
David M. at July 16, 2009 12:23 PM
David M,
Shoe is on it:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3964
"Oh, and as far as I know, you can indeed go to jail in France for unpaid debt. As you should. "
Also in France, supposedly, they do not have the Common Law principle of the presumption of paternity. A man, or a court, must formally recognize child before it becomes his. as it should be. In these days of DNA testing, he has science to inform that decision. Not sure how the wives like it, but that's not really the point here.
Jim at July 16, 2009 12:40 PM
Folks, this is SO easy!
Just remember, women have reproductive rights, men have reproductive responsibilities. (Which puts women in the same category as others who have rights, but no responsibilities, like children, and the retarded.)
It's all part of that great "equality" we've been hearing about from the feminists for so long.
Jay R at July 16, 2009 12:41 PM
But unless he can prove that the hoochie deliberately lied about the paternity, I don't see the injustice here - liz
He did, he got a paternity test which proves the kid isnt his - which means she lied about other prospective fathers
lujlp at July 16, 2009 1:03 PM
And liz's comments proves Jim point from his 852am post.
Sio at July 16, 2009 1:51 PM
I woulda said "if you want peace, then live alone" but, by appearence your name can be pulled out of the phonebook, and viola, in dire straights or in jail. nice.
you find that the average person never believes how much the wheels of government can flatten you if you do the wrong thing or don't do what the government wants. until it happens to them.
SwissArmyD at July 16, 2009 2:03 PM
"you find that the average person never believes how much the wheels of government can flatten you if you do the wrong thing or don't do what the government wants. until it happens to them."
---------------------------
The good part about all of this is since more people are getting "flattened", especially in the recent decades, the average person is just beginning to think that there might be something wrong............
SM777 at July 16, 2009 4:45 PM
The problem has many sources aspects...but to get to the root of it, look in the mirror. A harsh assertion perhaps...but it is we the voters who decide which politicians stay or go, rise or fall.
The power to protest, to get off our chairs and away from the internet, organize, and petition the government for redress of grievances at every level.
If you feel your elected officials will do nothing, then I ask you why you still vote for the same damned ones over and over again?
Then I must ask, why not begin a grass roots action, force the passage of a law via public referendum that will place the burden of proof upon the mother and the courts with regards to child support, and ban payment requirements that do not show DNA paternity.
Fearful that the government has a tendency to seize property unfairly for the "public good" in order to hand it to private companies instead of pursue public projects? There is no power held by the government that does not come from the people, and there is no power held by the government that cannot be REVOKED by the will of the people. I do not say that it will be easy, it is the nature of governments to seek to hold on to power, even good governments, that much more so bad ones.
No public official is immune to accountability to the public, they are OUR servants, not we theirs.
There are of course some of you who disagree with what I have said. Or whom think it to hard to change things, but this I will say in response and in closing:
Our ancestors overthrew an entire system and built a new one atop it, not once, but several times, some of those times had a blood price, and more than one city passed through periods of intense corruption, to be changed by incorruptible people for the better. If you are less than they in worth and ability, that is your only excuse, anything else is laziness.
And the end result...is that you get the government that you deserve.
Rant over.
Robert at July 16, 2009 5:38 PM
And the end result...is that you get the government that you deserve.
No, we all get the government the majority deserves. That quote is high on my list of most banal, stupid and annoying.
For fun here are a couple more:
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Sure, unless it makes you weaker, dumbass.
Or the classic Keynes quote, In the long run we are all dead.
True, but it's sorry piece of misdirection in what was supposed to be an economic argument.
I liked most of rest of your rant, though, Robert and that quote does bring to mind one of my favorites from Will Rogers,
It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.
Shawn at July 16, 2009 6:58 PM
No public official is immune to accountability to the public, they are OUR servants, not we theirs.
And should you run out of leagl option there is always the old man with a gun in a clock tower route
Quite frankly with all the shit that goes on I'm supprised there arent more "random" shootings.
makes me wonder if the flouride i the water consipracy theory isnt true
lujlp at July 16, 2009 7:22 PM
I began in 1984 to refer to child support collection goons as "slave chasers."
To understand this, read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.
When I counseled divorced fathers, from 1984 till 1993, it took me a long time to fully understand why men hate paying child support.
They will give you different explanations but for the most part their self-analysis has failed. Human beings aren't real good at self-analysis as a rule, which is why Amy is here.
It is inherently against the nature of men to send money in the mail for kids. So much so that Margaret Mead wrote, I think in her book MALE AND FEMALE, many years ago that she knew of only one society which ever managed to convince men to support any child except that of his current lover, period. That one society was a jungle tribe of no major consequence which taught men to support their sister's kids.
When something has always been a certain way, or at least through recorded history, it is irrational to assume there is not some basic principle at work, rather than just a few people of ill will -- as the feminists would have you believe.
Here is why men really hate paying child support.
Women, I am told, really hate being raped. Any disagreement here?
This is because how women relate to their bodies. Few women want to share their bodies with someone when they don't want to.
Imagine the outrage if women were ordered to have sex with their ex-husbands three times a week.
MEN DON'T RELATE TO THEIR BODIES THAT WAY.
Men can feel raped. Not too long ago, a man came out of the closet and told about the time he was raped. It wasn't the sex he minded as such. It was being told by a pregnant woman if he resisted, she would accuse him of rape, and that was a very harmful thing to him. Did he get sympathy from you women? Hahaha.
But, in general, men don't view their bodies in the same way at all, which is why male rape is not a major topic, unless it involves minor children.
SO WHAT DO MEN RELATE TO?????
Anyone who understands men at all can tell you. MOST MEN RELATE TO THEIR JOBS PRETTY MUCH AS WOMEN RELATE TO THEIR BODIES.
When you force a man to share his income with someone other than his current lover, to use MM's terms, the psychological effect on him is EXACTLY THE SAME AS RAPING A WOMAN IS ON A WOMAN.
By the way, let me add a thought here. It took me years to figure this out. I finally got it because I noted men were using some of the same terms to describe trips to the CSRU to pay support as women use to describe being raped. Demeaning; stuff like that.
My experience has been when something took me years to figure out, and I explain it to people WHO HAVE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT, within 2 to 10 seconds, they 'realize' I am wrong. My know-it-all brother was even faster than that; he interrupted before I finished to tell me I was wrong. Hee, hee.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't especially care if you make fools of yourself. I am in Mexico to get away from the stupid people who make slaves out of men, and men who don't resist en masse.
Women should care, because your orneriness is why many of you cannot find decent men.
irlandes at July 16, 2009 8:34 PM
irlandes,
oddly enough, your rant above makes some sense...I never really thought about it that way. I hated paying child support and tried to bury that hatred by saying "its for my son"..Of course, on the other hand, I knew the money was all going to mom's student loans...
Of course, NOW, when the shoe is on the other foot (I finally won custody when she tried to relocate), guess who does not have to pay child support?
Oh well, who cares. I have a great job with a great salary and I don't have to give any of it to anyone but my son! I have my son with me and she can see what it feels like now for the next 10 years.
The courts are starting to come around, not only on child custody, but also in false rape and abuse allegations. Common sense is starting to kick in.
mike at July 17, 2009 4:58 AM
I doubt you'd hear women ranting about giving of their bodies FOR THEIR KIDS, irlandes. Stay in Mexico. Or better yet, don't want to pay for the kid?? DON"T MAKE IT!!!
Now, when it's NOT your kid, obviously different story.
momof4 at July 17, 2009 7:08 AM
irlandes is talking about slavery. it shouldn't be controversial that men resent slavery.
Women work damned hard and they don't like the proceeds being stolen either. (I'm sure they hate being slaves just as much as men.) But I don't think they define themselves by their work as much as men do. Does a women feel like less of a woman if she loses her job? I know they seldom are ashamed of being supported, and there isn't a lot of snide remarks aimed at a woman out of work, for instance - although it may be that a lot of the griping we hear is really a system of dodges and ego shields that are a reaction to shame. I wonder if anyone has studied depression rates among unemployed men and women and run a comparison.
Jim at July 17, 2009 7:46 AM
Sorry. I think men need to contribute to their kids' well-being. I'm not going to agree with those who say that they should be able to dump their kids and run merrily off to screw the next woman that comes along.
Having said that, I also think non-custodial mothers need to pay child support. You made a child, you support it, whether you are a man or a woman, period.
Think it's unfair? Well, if you don't pay for your kid, we the taxpayers have to... and THAT is unfair.
Paying for the kids you made is NOT slavery.
Of course, I will agree that paying for the kids you DIDN'T make/adopt IS slavery and fucked up.
BTW, there are two Nicoles posting today. I'm only one of them. With a K.
NicoleK at July 17, 2009 12:45 PM
Oh, and I think Mike's quite right... child support shouldn't be going to Mom's student loans. To the KIDS education, sure. Not to Mom's.
NicoleK at July 17, 2009 12:46 PM
Obviously this case is horrible and I have a lot of sympathy for the poor guy, but I don't understand why everyone is jumping all over the woman in the situation when it's clearly a case of bureaucratic ineptitude. Sure Morrison fucked up by failing to inform Hatley/the state that he was not the only potential father and providing a list of possibilities, but she wasn't the one who refused to accept the results of the DNA testing and prosecuted Hatley for years. And while Morrison's incorrect identification of the child's father could have been an honest mistake or wishful thinking, the state clearly had the information in front of them and refused to act on it. The law needs to be changed, and there is a clear and obvious way to do it: receiving child support should be contingent on a positive paternity test, which should be mandatory in all cases.
I'd also like to point out that the only person really benefitting from this situation is the child's true father, who is walking around scot-free while another man supports his child. And this probably isn't even his fault-odds are he doesn't even know that he has a kid. But for every man paying child support for a kid that isn't his, there's another man let totally off the hook for supporting his own child. So this really isn't a man vs woman situation-that's a silly and unproductive attitude to take. "This happens every day in America to millions of men and it will continue to happen so long as women are employed by the Child Support divisions in each state in this nation"...yeah, okay.
Shannon at July 18, 2009 10:17 PM
I am all for penalties for women who lie about paternity. I believe they should pay the money back, though in all likelihood, the only women the law will ever force to do so are those who never even had the baby in question - see the case of Violet Trevino in New Mexico. (I don't know what the update is on that case.)
And yes, the law needs to make it harder for a woman to lie so she can't just pick a name out of a phone book and be believed. (See the Reason article on Tony Pierce of California - you won't believe it.)
Child support paid by noncustodial mothers should go without saying.
However, I'm with NicoleK and Shannon when it comes to a man who didn't want to be a father but is. Better that he bear the burden than the taxpayer - and no, I don't believe that both should be let off the hook.
If that seems so horrifically unfair, whatever happened to the idea that prevention is better than cure? I.e., why do we sometimes see men on TV demanding the right to abandon their own flesh and blood, but NEVER men on TV demanding the right to better male birth control?
(Not to mention that men using the new methods would be alerted to paternity fraud a lot sooner!)
Besides, as Katha Pollitt pointed out in 1998, any man could get out of paying support for an out-of-wedlock child by saying "she lied about being on the Pill, Your Honor." If we let him.
BTW, while I realize that Big Pharma has plenty of reason to believe that new male birth control methods will not be a hugely profitable industry due to STDs and the continued need for condom use, it just MIGHT think again if a lot of men's rights activists - and ordinary men - would be willing to go on TV and the radio and SAY that they really do want the new methods, will pay for them and use them, if only because they and their wives agree that they simply cannot afford more children in this economy and/or don't want them. But do they? No.
(For a nice long discussion on that, search for "Sorry ladies, the male birth control pill is not about you" by George Dvorsky.)
Oh, and for the record, I've asked both Marc Rudov and Bernard Chapin to speak up in their columns regarding new MBC methods and the benefits that would come from them. They both responded - and made it pretty clear they're not interested. This is inconsistent for both of them, given their continued emphasis on men's need to stand up for themselves, however uncomfortable it might be.
Finally, while men may feel much more deeply attached to their careers and their bank accounts than women do, there's still a reason the law tends to value bodily autonomy more than financial autonomy. That is, governments that don't are often the same ones that impose penalties such as chopping off the hand of a thief. Is that the sort of image we want? Of course, making mothers pay child support would hardly be on that level, so it's high time they started paying.
lenona at July 20, 2009 12:01 PM
"Morrison knew that Hatley was not-- or at least, there was the possibility that Hatley was not-- the father of the child. She was screwing around with someone else at the time and she lied."
She decided who'd she'd have a better chance of getting money from, and picked the dad. It's that simple.
liz, what the hell?
"Where is the injustice? Hatley agreed to pay child support between 1989 and 2001 and, from what I can tell, only paid about a third of what was required. Both of these human interest stories make him out to be a great guy, but he simply did not live up to his side of the contract, which was made in good faith by both parties."
The mother lied about paternity. The real father is off the hook, he's never paid a dime, he let this guy pay instead of him. Hatley paid until he became homeless, he did what he could. He paid until he lost everything he had, and is in jail, while the real father has been free for all these years. He was not jailed for non-payment, but because he could not pay the full amount every month. Child support payments are not geared to income...they should be reduced if a man gets laid off or his salary drops to half of what it once was, it's common sense that you can't pay what you're not making. However this is not the case...men still have to pay the full amount even if unemployed, unless they go to court again to get the amount changed, and how do you do that with no money? You can't see how impossible that is? How does jailing someone help them get out of debt? You don't think Hatley is a great guy, please do tell me your opinion of the real father...
Why don't these agencies try to find the real father !? Anyone will do! Grab any guy who's had sex with the woman in question and make him pay support. I've never seen ONE of these stories say that anyone is trying to find the real father to make him pay up. And, why are payments not adjusted for loss of income on the part of the father?
crella at July 23, 2009 5:30 PM
I know how this guy feels, because i too am paying child support for a kid that i didn't father..i've been paying around $400 a month for about 7 years now...child support officials say there's nothing they can do about it..and i can hire a lawyer to try to get it stopped, but after paying 400 a month i can't afford a lawyer..I took a dna test about 2 months after the order was taken out,that proved i am not the father, but was told the order was in place so it couldn't be stopped.
pete2006 at August 20, 2009 1:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/16/not_the_kids_da.html#comment-1663987">comment from pete2006Pete, I am so sorry to hear this. I hope you've discovered Glenn Sacks site, glennsacks.com - - you may be able to find some help there, or at least moral support. This is such a travesty.
Amy Alkon at August 20, 2009 1:43 PM
Leave a comment