Appalling Child Support Injustice: Man On The Hook For $30K In Support For Kid Everyone Agrees Isn't His
From WXYZ in Detroit, yet another case of paternity injustice. Or rather "paternity" injustice, since this man -- Carnell Alexander -- ordered to pay tend of thousands of dollars in back child support, did not father the child in question.
If he doesn't pay, he'll go to prison -- which is absolutely disgusting and sick. De facto debtors' prison.
Alexander learned of the child support order in a traffic stop:
"I knew I didn't have a child, so I was kind of blown back," said Alexander.The state said he fathered a child in 1987, and ignored a court order to pay up. It was the first Carnell had heard of the court order. He'd never even met the child.
"And when you were telling them in court - that it was not my child?" "They told me it was too late to get a DNA test," said Alexander.
It also was not easy to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help.
He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.
Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right.
Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his.
The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved.
"Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby," said Alexander.
Even though he was in prison when the summons came.
Even though the actual father is in the kid's life. Even though the mother admits that he is not the father. It doesn't matter to the court.
It's the lawmakers who made this possible who should be in jail.
This is slavery under another name, and if it were happening to women, there would be an outcry and "ribbons."
Men? We've decided they're disposable.
(Tell me again about "male privilege"?)
RELATED: Father still paying child support for 3-year-old son he says died 25 years ago.
via @overlawyered
I've seen the one about the dad who's still paying for his late son. Tommy Sotomayor did a video about it. This is just another sick and twisted way that men are exploited. My own stepfather, human garbage that he was, at least made sure his child support for his son from a previous marriage was paid EARLY (this is back when actual cash or check was given from the father to the court and the mother came down to pick it up). Even so, every two or three years the mother would show up in court saying he didn't pay, then the court would assess him in absentia for a couple thousand dollars and arrest him. Then it would be on my mother and grandmother (who thankfully kept flawless records and receipts) to go up to court and prove the judge wrong so he could be released. The last time she did this (right before the kid turned 18) the judge fined him $5000 and this time WOULD NOT overturn it, all proof be damned. We went hungry a lot that year but the only other option was him going to prison. Child support needs a major reform. As Amy said, where's that "male privilege"?
bellflower at October 30, 2014 12:05 AM
It goes both ways though. My mom didn't see a dime of child support from her first husband after he left her no matter how many times she hauled him to court for not paying. The judge said "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip." Perhaps not, but he worked and was ordered to pay a certain amount but wouldn't. She couldn't get his wages garnished either. So it's not like the courts only screw men when it comes to correctly assessing and enforcing child support. I don't think any of it is fair.
Meanwhile, who wants to bet the state was keeping all that money and not paying it to the mother, calling it administrative fees, fines, etc.
BunnyGirl at October 30, 2014 1:33 AM
I have an acquaintance who has a story to tell here. A mother said that she didn't remember the name of her baby-daddy, but she did know his SSN. She went to court with nothing but the SSN, the court declared the owner of this SSN liable for child support, and passed judgement.
Only at this point was the owner of the SSN notified that they owed child support. The court never contacted them during the process. Nonetheless, because they had failed to present any countervailing evidence during the hearings, no appeal would be possible.
As it turns out, the person was able to get out of paying child support, but probably only because the person travelled to the state where the judge held court, confronted the judge personally and asked just how the devil she was supposed to have fathered a child. Had the owner of that SSN been a man, he would have been screwed...
a_random_guy at October 30, 2014 3:09 AM
After reading up on this particular case, it would seem that the money he's on the hook for now isn't the actual child support (that was dismissed). It's the fees and fines BunnyGirl mentions that makes up the money 'owed' to the state.
Other municipalities and states have done similar things, dismissing fines but still requiring penalties and such because the original (often incorrectly-assessed) fines were never paid.
Even (most) banks forgive fees and penalties on monies they weren't entitled to in the first place.
DrCos at October 30, 2014 7:56 AM
Does anyone have any updates on the 2000 Tony Pierce case from California? (He'd never met the woman in question.)
More importantly, have they done anything in 14 years to make it a lot harder in California for such a fraudster to pick a stranger's name from a phone book and steal his money?
lenona at October 30, 2014 5:46 PM
Every time I read stories like these, I want to go hand out birth control on every street corner.
Pirate Jo at October 31, 2014 4:08 PM
Judges come up for re-election, but they never publish candidate statements. Maybe it's time for us to start challenging their qualifications each November.
Judges can also be recalled.
Last and certainly not least, in any court hearing, a defendant has the right to challenge a judge who might hear his case, and be assigned a different (not necessarily better) judge.
jefe at November 1, 2014 4:04 PM
At some point, victims of this sort of thing are going to have to be willing to go to prison and stay there rather than subsidize this injustice. Because as long as the bad guys profit, it will go on.
jdgalt at November 9, 2014 11:36 AM
Leave a comment