Fatherhood In Checkbook Only: State-Supported Paternity Fraud
Joe Vandusen hasn't even seen his wife for about two decades, but because they never divorced and she's had a baby, he's on the hook for child support.
Charley Haley writes in the Des Moines Reg:
Joe Vandusen, 45, received a letter earlier this month from the Iowa Department of Human Services notifying him that he would be required to pay child support for his estranged wife's child, even though he is not the father, Vandusen told The Des Moines Register Friday evening.Vandusen and his wife have hardly talked in 15 to 17 years, aside from an occasional phone call or Facebook message, he said. "I was married to my ex a couple of years, but we didn't see eye-to-eye, so we split up," without filing for an official divorce, Vandusen said. The child Vandusen is expected to help support is about 1 year old, he said.
Vandusen contacted the Department of Human Services' Child Support Recovery Unit to say he's not the biological father of his wife's child, and he offered to take a paternity test to prove it -- but he was told it didn't matter, according to state law, he said.
"They said since I'm still legally married, I'm going to be responsible for the child support," Vandusen said.
...Vandusen was recently laid off from his job, so he doesn't have the money to pay child support, he said. He also doesn't have the money to pay for an attorney to file for divorce and to fight in court against the child support requirement.
Yes, obviously, it's important to legally detach from somebody you're no longer with, but this man should not be paying for a child of a woman he hasn't even seen for decades.
And most importantly, the child is not his.
Legislators, like California's Sheila Kuehl, who vote for measures that support paternity fraud against men like this (where even a DNA test showing you're not the father won't get you out of paying), should be voted out of office (in lieu of putting them in a public place in stocks and pelting them with rotten fruits and vegetables).
Aside from "It's not fair." where's the beef?
They are married in the eyes of the law. Period.
How could it be any different?
Financial obligations, health/medical concerns, and yes child support are all part of WHY IT IS A BIG DEAL TO DO THINGS RIGHT.
What! These people (are they special?) get to decide what/when/where their obligations start and end despite what is legally required in their State?
He should talk to Johnny Depp over a few beers. They have a lot in common.
Bob in Texas at June 5, 2016 7:03 AM
It is the typical "other people's money" situation: we have children that need support so we are going to make someone pay for it.
In county prisons, a major portion of the inmates are men who fell behind on child support. Of course going to jail causes them to lose their job which will not result in more child support. While deadbeat dads is a problem, the solution is also a problem. It amounts to debtor's prison.
Craig Loehle at June 5, 2016 7:36 AM
I have to agree with Amy. Yes, he should have gotten divorced, and yes, it's not fair.
What I'm wondering is, what if they were together and she cheated on him, and he, disgusted with her infidelity, got a divorce. Would he still be on the hook for someone else's child?
If not, then why not divorce now, and let the child's father pay for it?
Patrick at June 5, 2016 7:58 AM
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 5, 2016 8:24 AM
"she cheated on him, and he, disgusted with her infidelity, got a divorce. Would he still be on the hook for someone else's child?"
Yes, in many if not most states.
markm at June 5, 2016 8:29 AM
Another reason for men not to marry, then.
Patrick at June 5, 2016 8:33 AM
If one them had won the lottery and had to share would it be fair?
Stupid. My step-daughter ran (not rolled through) a stop sign near our home. I said WTF! and her reply was "Well usually no one is coming." and of course she was correct as it was a rural area.
Of course her luck ran out and eventually someone was coming. Her back hurts to this day and the other driver (speeding on hilly road, no license, no insurance) had some jail time. Stupid.
Divorced and paying child support for someone else's child. Hell yeah let's fight that battle.
This one?
Bob in Texas at June 5, 2016 10:16 AM
He's out of work you say?
File for divorce, ask for full custody and alimony and half her assets.
Then sue the guy who got her pregnant for tortuous interference, after all marriage is a contract
lujlp at June 5, 2016 10:34 AM
It amazes me in this day and age that any man would want to get married, after hearing things like this.
Daghain at June 5, 2016 10:44 AM
Regarding the reference to California laws, here's something, for what it's worth (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything here):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.support.childfree/california%7Csort:date/alt.support.childfree/_yxoLpIMqL8/lk1vgJTdJAAJ
Excerpts:
Robert Franklin (Texas family attorney): "In 2002, the California Legislature passed a law called the California Paternity Justice Act that would have required the state to get the right man when establishing paternity. But despite its passage by the legislature, then-Governor Gray Davis vetoed it. Why? Because, had he signed it into law, the state stood to lose some $40 million a year in federal funds."
Moe DeLoughan: (RF probably never read this response) "A nice conspiracy theory - and like all such, it is based on a selective rendering of reality. Here's Davis's statement to the state legislature as to why he vetoed the bill..."
RF: "So the California Paternity Justice Act would have improved the lives of countless men and children in the Golden State..."
MD: "No, it would have put many children in a state of financial limbo while the paternity challenge was ongoing. It would have permitted men who didn't want to be named as fathers to easily avoid service to determine paternity. It would've prevented a filing to establish
paternity if the mother of the child was unable or unwilling to cooperate."
RF: "But surely there's nothing wrong with establishing who a child's father is, right?..."
MD: "Right. And that's why the governor asked DCS and the legislature to work out recommendations to address paternity fraud.
"Ironically, Rod Wright, the legislator so, so concerned about paternity fraud that he authored the California Paternity Justice Act,
was later convicted of felony fraud and perjury and banned for life from holding public office. Another example of the adage: It takes one
to know one."
lenona at June 5, 2016 3:14 PM
Leave a comment