Somebody Has To Pay...Why Not You?!
That's the State of Michigan's notion in the case of Gary Harper and his back child support...for the child who isn't actually his. Ann Mullen notes in her story on WYXZ.com that DNA tests even prove it. But, never mind that. He's still on the hook for tens of thousands in child support and might get sent to jail for non-payment:
Dorothy Hoose is Harper's former girl friend and the biological mom to a young man, Thomas Matero, who was born in 1988. When Hoose signed up for state aid she gave Harper's name as the father and that was it. The state considers Matero Harper's son."I don't think it's right, not at all, not one bit because he's not the father. He's not. I thought he was, but he's not," says Hoose.
All this went down when Harper was behind bars. When he got out in 2003 the state said if Harper could prove he wasn't the father, he would be free and clear. But Harper didn't have the $500 at the time for a DNA test. He had the test done years later.
"I thought it was pretty neat. I wouldn't mind to know who my father was and everything," says Matero, who Harper tracked down in Florida and who agreed to a DNA test. The test proved what Harper suspected.
"I found out that he wasn't my father," Matero says.
But none of this matters to the state. The law gives a limited window for a paternity test to be done. Harper was too late.
"...it feels like I'm being punished again, you know what I mean, all over a technicality," says Harper.
I know stories like Harper's are true -- I get them from readers and read them all the time in the newspaper -- but it's hard to believe this sort of thing is allowed to happen, and over and over and over again, in our country.
Justice anyone?
I didn't know this sort of thing could happen. With all the real dead-beat dads in this country, these people are pursuing one who isn't even sharing DNA with this kid? WTF? I also didn't know that promiscuous women who don't have a clue as to who their "babydaddy" is could just name any Joe Blow wo they happen to have a name and address for. If an innocent man can be forced to support a child he didn't father, it's no wonder this country is going the way it is.
Jess at July 14, 2010 1:25 AM
Tony Pierce had something like this happen to him once.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 1:33 AM
I wonder, that we haven't had another American revolution over shit like this?
Robert at July 14, 2010 3:56 AM
Harper, and other "dads" out there like him should file a civil suit against the mother alleging fraud and seeking damages in the same amount as the child support he owes. The discovery process after the suit is filed would include mandatory depositions and compelled DNA testing. If she fails to answer the suit, a default judgment would be taken against her for the total sum of damages sued for.
A judgment against her would at least give Harper an "offset" on the child support he "owes".
This is an expensive option for a man who was not at fault to begin with, but it insures that he has a legal basis to pursue remedies against the woman who caused all the misery.
Nick at July 14, 2010 7:07 AM
The guy is guilty until proven innocent.
Oh! Well I guess even after he is proven innocent he is still guilty.
I mean he's a guy he deserves it right?
David M. at July 14, 2010 7:07 AM
It's the continuation of shit like this that just reinforces my argument that every baby should be DNA tested at birth.
Problem solved.
Ann at July 14, 2010 7:12 AM
I know California is notorius for this.
I have long advocated that girls who want to get paid should name Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steven Jobs etc... on the birth certificate. Theoretically if they don't answer the summons they will be assumed to be the father and be forced to pay.
I see some women have started doing this with celebrities I think Brad Pitt, John Stamos. There maybe some others.
Actually naming guys like, Buffett, Gates and Jobs may wake up the sytem because they would never force these guys to pay for a child that's not theirs.
David M. at July 14, 2010 7:13 AM
You all miss the reason why this keeps happening and never gets fixed.
The state gets a cut of every child support payment.
Get the middleman out of the equation, and the problem will be solved quickly. Once there are no longer opportunities for graft, politicians have to do what's right to save their phony baloney jobs.
brian at July 14, 2010 7:59 AM
I don't think that's true, Brian. My wife gets child support, from her ex-husband through the state of California. Sometimes he's told her how much the state had taken from him for a particular payment, and every time, the amount she received from the state matched his account exactly.
The state doesn't even get a cut in the form of taxes. Child support, unlike alimony, is neither taxable (on the recipient) nor tax-deductible (to the payer).
Rex Little at July 14, 2010 8:57 AM
Yup, Brian has it. Its all about money at this point, no matter what excuse the child "protection" agencies/government groups claim. Look up the Navarro case in CA. A recent one in Ohio had a man paying for a kid not his simply because they had a similar name (middle was only different).
IIRC, the Fed Gov. kicks back to the states 2/3 of every dollar they collect. Incentive you see for them to go after "deadbeat dads".
The Navarro case was the worst, he won his innocence on appeal in state court and then IIRC had child support groups begging the CA judiciary to not list the case on the books so it doesn't set a precedent.
From the reason article linked above:
"Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn't, he is presumed guilty." Due process indeed!
Sio at July 14, 2010 8:58 AM
I feel bad for someone who doesn't have $500 to take a DNA test that could clear him, but what led up to him questioning it and why did it take so long?
Kristen at July 14, 2010 9:17 AM
Horror story on custody/support and divorce hell:
http://www.hurleymustgo.com/
Sio at July 14, 2010 9:33 AM
Amy,
This seems like a good opportunity to mention that your Glenn Sacks link has been broken for quite a while. He's good on this stuff.
--
phunctor
phunctor at July 14, 2010 9:42 AM
"Justice anyone?" Amy
what makes you believe that has anything to do with anything?
on the other hand? dunno that all states get money from the feds... My support goes directly to my ex, not through the state {Colo}
SwissArmyD at July 14, 2010 9:48 AM
Thanks - asked Gregg to fix.
I wonder if civil suits against the mothers would work? Any lawyers want to weigh in?
Also, I don't care if the guy's a fuckup and took eons to file this; he shouldn't have to pay for a kid who isn't his.
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2010 9:49 AM
Reading the story at the link, the young man was born in 88. Harper was released from prison in 2003, after 18 years, so he went in in 85. Unless she visited him in prison, which we don't know if she did or didn't, how could he be the father?
As well, since he was in prison when the child support case started, and the state knew that, they were, by law, obligated to notify him, and provide the paternity/DNA test. They didn't.
Welcome to the hell that is child support in this country.
Steve at July 14, 2010 9:51 AM
Not only allowed to happen but encouraged. A bill that said the father wouldn't have to pay if he could prove it wasn't his was killed in the Tennessee general assembly ( I think it was tennessee) last year or the year before. The republican senator that killed it was all proud of himself saying it was an "anti-family" bill.
It seems to me our laws are based on a reality that is 150 years old, when women had few options and truly depended on the father of their children. That is no longer the case. Women have many more options, and no fault divorce has changed the landscape. Our laws need to be updated since society has moved on.
plutosdad at July 14, 2010 10:13 AM
I though Glenn Sacks and Glenn Beck were the same guy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 10:43 AM
>>IIRC, the Fed Gov. kicks back to the states 2/3 of every dollar they collect. Incentive you see for them to go after "deadbeat dads".
Sio,
Do you have any link at all for that?
(I can certainly see how it would worsen an already dire situation for a wrongly-named "father").
Jody Tresidder at July 14, 2010 11:47 AM
Jody, I don't recall 2/3 being the number, but there is such a federal program. Let me see if I can dig up the link.
Cousin Dave at July 14, 2010 1:51 PM
I know the guy that works on the child support computers in Nebraska. He said the state gets seven percent reimbursement from the feds for every child support dollar they collect.
Even for a small state like Nebraska I heard they collected 43 million last year.
David M. at July 14, 2010 2:06 PM
Cousin Dave,
It is Title IV-D section 455 HERE
Steve at July 14, 2010 2:09 PM
Thanks, Steve. I also found this tidbit, which the Web site says is excerpted from a House Ways and Means Committee publication: "The 1993 reforms also revised the mandatory paternity establishment requirements imposed on States by the Family Support Act of 1988. The most notable provision increased the mandatory paternity establishment percentage, which was backed up by financial penalties linked to a reduction of Federal matching funds for the State's AFDC (now TANF) Program (see Audits and Financial Penalties section). The welfare reform law of 1996 further strengthened the Nation's paternity establishment system. More specifically, the new law streamlines the paternity determination process; raises the paternity establishment requirement from 75 to 90 percent." So there is a "daddy quota" that states must meet, or they lose those precious Federal matching funds. Money, money, money. Everybody involved makes out like bandits, except for the "non-protected class".
Cousin Dave at July 14, 2010 2:15 PM
Yeah, I've not found where I read/heard the 2/3rd's number, twas why I said "IIRC". I'll retract it now. As others have posted, CS is a major money maker for states and I'm firmly convinced thats the main motivation for them now to push the laws, certainly not thinking of the children.
Sio at July 14, 2010 4:40 PM
Your welcome Dave. While I'm in full support of taking care of your children, when there is a financial incentive, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it will likely be abused. Any wonder why it is so difficult to get a downward modification (rhetorical)? The longer they delay that modification, the more federal matching dollars the state gets, and the deeper in the hole that the person paying CS gets. It's beyond ridiculous.
What is the most disgusting thing, is when a parent (usually the father), is jailed because he can't meet some outrageous CS amount. They calculate the CS off of the Gross pay, but of course, that amount comes out of the Net pay, so he has a lot less.
As well, one of the things that needs to change, is that it should be a requirement that the parent receiving the CS should have to account for where and how that money is spent. Either that, or in this day and age of "equality", there should be a presumption of shared custody (barring proof of unfitness), and each parent should be required to pay for the costs that are incurred when the child is with them. Items such as medical care, school costs, etc. (and this isn't an all inclusive list), should be split 50/50 by between both parents.
Steve at July 14, 2010 4:56 PM
You people are forgetting the fines and interest.
Thousands of dollars which when, excuse me if, paid off DONT go to the ex or child
lujlp at July 14, 2010 6:02 PM
I don't know about fines, but interest does go to the custodial parent. I know this first-hand from my wife's case.
Rex Little at July 14, 2010 8:44 PM
Since when is it a crime to shoot a thief that is engaged in an active attempt at robbery?
Robert at July 14, 2010 8:49 PM
Robert, when the thief has the government behind them. Change that thief to a privateer.
I want to shout out this rule I have been finding out in my own life, thru not connected with child support is
The rule thus is DO NOT EXPECT LOGIC when dealing with governments and bureaucracies. It is amazing how stupid governments can get.
John Paulson at July 14, 2010 9:51 PM
The government wants a man, any man, named as the father so they can soak him for the money and limit the likelihood of paying WIC, food stamps and/or welfare for the woman and baby. So there's not much incentive for them to make the system better for men.
On a semi-personal note, my brother received a notice at work some years ago from the state. It was a support order for some baby up in northern CA. They were going to garnish his wages! He had never even BEEN to that county, let alone met the woman in the claim. When he called to dispute it, he found that the woman had claimed that the man who fathered her baby had the same name as my brother and several dozen other men in the state, so the state just hit them all up for support.
Needless to say, my brother successfully disputed the case and doesn't pay for a kid that's not his, but he had to deal with the embarrassment of being hit up for child support while he was married and just had a baby with his wife.
Peggy C at July 15, 2010 12:52 AM
This doesn't surprise me in the least. Its nothing but thievery on the part of the state of Michigan. Then again, many of these cases are nothing more then another way to extract money from someone with any excuse they can come up with.
Also don't get me wrong, I am not against child support, alimony, etc...if they are legitimate claims then yes the money should be paid and both parents should do their part.
however what is going on here is criminal, and if it isn't it should be. This is totally not fair to any of the parties involved at all.
Ron at July 15, 2010 10:58 AM
Horror story on custody..
Istanbul at July 15, 2010 11:21 AM
When I learned about law every professor stressed that in any civil or criminal action, truth is an absolute defense. I guess that doesn't apply anymore.
This kind of crap is really going to blow up in somebody's face someday. Once the belief that "you can't get a fair trial" percolates through the culture, the more violent elements will start falling back on the maxim that, "If I know I can't get a fair trial at least I can have an unfair gunfight."
parabarbarian at July 15, 2010 12:44 PM
"If I know I can't get a fair trial at least I can have an unfair gunfight."
Two words for you: Raoul Moat
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/07/14/after-rampage-raoul-moat-becoming-cult-hero/
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2010/07/13/opposing-views-of-raoul-moat-divide-the-nation-72703-26842076/2/
And his celebrity is unsettling to some in Britain. Good.
Jim at July 15, 2010 4:06 PM
I dislike innocent deaths.
But I empathize. A woman I loved emphasis on past tense, who had never displayed the slightest hint that this was her character, once threatened during an argument over some trivial thing that:
"I'll call the police and claim you hit me, I can pretend to be really scared..."
I'll leave out the rest of the "diatribe" out of it.
I'm a behemoth, she was this petite elfin sized pretty woman, I knew all to well whom the police would believe.
So...given the circumstances...lets think about this.
A man whose life is destroyed over false violence accusations, has WHAT reason not to be violent for real?
I doubt I'll ever be able to trust a woman again. I make a point of not falling to hatred for all women, that does not mean I will be easily able to trust one again, if ever.
So yeah, to some this guy is a hero to people the syste has done wrong, why is this a surprise?
The system, such as it is, is continuing to get worse.
And what happens when you have a large portion of the population disposed of dignity or justice?
Men are largely solitary people by nature, with some exceptions, but as this kind of word spreads amongst men...this is how overthrows start.
Robert at July 15, 2010 9:00 PM
Peggy C has it correct.
This was originally about empowering women to not be stuck as the sole provider for children of relationships gone bad. Instead, the government stepped in and said they will provide so the children will not suffer. However, normal human behavior to "free money" happened and state governments (gasp!) discovered women found out they could be setup pretty well in terms of government assistence by just having a kid and were taking advantage of that fact. The government will pay for an apartment, food, child care, and you didn't even have to work for it. So the numbers of those "needing" this support went up well beyond what was originally planned. Costs went up. What to do? Label the FATHER (never the mother) as "deadbeat" so they can be held accountable for the costs. If you ask what is the difference between the woman simply holding the father accountable using existing laws to force child support payments and the state holding fathers accountable to REIMBURSE for the state costs, it is simple. By inserting themselves into the mix, the state can demand the father pay all costs the state deeems necessary. Whether or not the father can afford them, the state is now demanding a minimum be paid. This is no longer about fathers supporting children but has become state enforced wealth transfer from males to females. That is why the fact the male is not the father does not matter. The only thing that matters is that the money flows away from males to the state to be redistributed to women.
LoneStarJeffe at July 16, 2010 5:22 AM
"A man whose life is destroyed over false violence accusations, has WHAT reason not to be violent for real?"
I's called "women's proxy violence", Robert, and remember that term the next time you hear some feminist moan about women's lack of "insitutional power" - what a lie - they have the full weight of the coercive power of the state to enforce their whims.
Harper Lee wrote a novel about it 50 years ago.
Jim at July 16, 2010 10:41 AM
Harper Lee wrote a novel about it 50 years ago.
_______________________
And why do I have the funny feeling that, given similar circumstances (hint: crippled arm) but with the same skin tone all around, there's NO way the man would have been found guilty? Then OR now?
lenona at July 16, 2010 2:25 PM
leona, do you have any idea how many men(of every skin color) have been freed from prison due to the innocence project proving their innocence?
How many of those cases had simmilar red flags the jury ignored because of the word rape?
lujlp at July 16, 2010 2:58 PM
Found guilty of what lenona? Are you refering to Raul Moat?
Robert at July 16, 2010 8:58 PM
Robert said: "A man whose life is destroyed over false violence accusations, has WHAT reason not to be violent for real?"
This is like saying, "A woman whose life is destroyed over rape, has WHAT reason not to go around falsely accusing men of rape?"
One would hope that people have reasons beyond just the threat of jail time to abstain from violence. You know, like character and morals. Does have your life destroyed give you the right to harm or destroy someone elses? In my opinion, no.
Robert, you also said that you would never trust a woman again because one woman threatened to call in a false charge of domestic violence. Again, that's basically the equivalent of a woman saying she can never trust a man again because one man threatened to beat her up. I guess it's justifiable, and you can't control the way you feel, but it's still an unfortunate outlook to have on life.
Shannon at July 17, 2010 8:38 AM
Found guilty of what lenona? Are you refering to Raul Moat?
Posted by: Robert at July 16, 2010 8:58 PM
I thought it was pretty plain I was referring to Harper Lee's novel, especially since I referred to one of the main reasons Tom Robinson should not have been found guilty. Maybe you didn't read the book? Or see the movie?
lenona at July 17, 2010 11:51 AM
I know the board tends to not favor government spending, but maybe there should be free paternity tests for people who are signing up for welfare benefits. To avoid situations like this. Might be cheaper in the long run... $500 is probably a lot less than the legal fees this guy costs.
NicoleK at July 17, 2010 1:05 PM
I know the board tends to not favor government spending, but maybe there should be free paternity tests for people who are signing up for welfare benefits. To avoid situations like this. Might be cheaper in the long run... $500 is probably a lot less than the legal fees this guy costs.
NicoleK at July 17, 2010 1:05 PM
ARGH! Forgive my double post.
NicoleK at July 17, 2010 1:08 PM
Robert said: "A man whose life is destroyed over false violence accusations, has WHAT reason not to be violent for real?"
This is like saying, "A woman whose life is destroyed over rape, has WHAT reason not to go around falsely accusing men of rape?"
---------------------
No, its not like that. In fact, that is patently the opposite of that. Real and imaginary things are different.
I'm quite familiar with character and morals thanks, "Does have your life destroyed give you the right to harm or destroy someone elses? In my opinion, no."
Right? No. INCENTIVE Yes. Keep that in mind.
"Again, that's basically the equivalent of a woman saying she can never trust a man again because one man threatened to beat her up." No, its not the same. The reason here is that you're treating violence with a legal recourse, the same as a lie that yields no good legal recourse.
If a man is threatened with a domestic violence charge, he is presumed guilty.
He is ostracized from his community.
He is almost certain to lose his job.
He is removed from his home.
In the divorce that follows, his property can be siezed, restrictions on visitation with children can be imposed or even visitation revoked. Don't even get me started about his potential for custody of said children.
A false accusation can ruin a man's life, and the burden of evidence for the charge is almost nonexistant.
If a man threatens to beat up a woman, he can go to jail. If he actually does beat her up, she has lots of legal recourses. See the difference here. Opposites are not comparable just because you use the words "that is like" before them. They have to have ACTUAL similar outcomes. Work on your metaphors.
But lets say that the man in question did beat up his wife...If that "one man" had been married to her for ten years, gone through thick and thin with her, if she'd given him children and hard work for all that time, and he'd never given a sign that he would do that to her...then yes, I'd call your comparison very apt.
It is an...unfortunate outlook, I'll agree with you. But once burned, twice shy.
the fact is that my hesitation is the only logical choice, because the law as it is, backs the party which is percieved to be weaker.
-----------------------
Nope, haven't read or seen it lenona.
----------------------
I like your thinking on this one NicoleK!
Robert at July 21, 2010 6:35 AM
Stars get every thing provided for them so readily but they wont look at the folks who are out here having financial problems, individuals getting killed evicted in jail even though they were given the whole world in they hands but just maybe people dont always fight their way for a better tomorrow where i stay at a tomorrow isn't always assured . And their boys and girls buy it so god damn not difficult and however ungrateful man i'd personally Murder for benefit.
Setsuko Fernsler at September 22, 2010 12:24 PM
Leave a comment