TX Judge Lets Men Challenge Paternity - TX Attorney General Is Pissed

[Rage for Order]

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-04-03/news/family-court-judge-sheds-light-on-unfair-child-support-practices-in-texas/

snip

Over the next 18 months, Antonio tried to visit his children, but his wife wouldn't allow it. There were more fights—his wife claimed he hit her and slammed her against a car, which he denied. She moved and he couldn't find her. Then, last summer, shortly before his wife filed for divorce, Antonio received a letter from the Texas Attorney General's Office, the state agency charged with enforcing child support obligations. The letter instructed him to go to a Dallas County child support court where in August 2007, he faced making monthly payments equal to 30 percent of his take-home pay, which was around $1,500.

Antonio (not his real name) requested DNA testing. If what his relatives said was true, he argued, why should he have to support a child who wasn't biologically his? He would later learn that under Texas law, a man is presumed to be the legal father of any child born during his marriage to the child's mother, and if he questions his paternity, he has only four years to challenge it. All of Antonio's children were older than 4 by the time he and his wife went to court.

What happened next focused attention on the growing availability of DNA testing and caused a legal uproar that ricocheted from the halls of the Dallas County family courts to the Austin headquarters of Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott. On January 14, family court Judge David Hanschen ordered Antonio and both of his daughters, ages 5 and 7, to undergo paternity testing immediately. The next day, lawyers within the attorney general's office who represent the state on behalf of the mother and children—asked the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas for an emergency order halting the testing. These lawyers cited the four-year statute of limitations and argued that because Antonio was already the legal father, he had no grounds to request DNA testing and dispute that he was the biological father.

The Court of Appeals agreed and ordered that no testing be conducted. But it was too late: On January 16, the lab released the results, which placed the probability of Antonio fathering either of the girls at zero percent. On January 25, appeals court Justice Carolyn Wright ordered that the test results be sealed and kept from the children. This was followed in March by the court's written opinion that slapped Hanschen for ordering the testing in the first place and ordered the DNA results destroyed. Hanschen refuses to comment on specific cases, but says that in certain situations, a court's denial of DNA testing may violate a father's constitutional right to equal protection and the legal system itself may be condoning fraud. "In my court, the truth does not have a statute of limitations," he says. "It's just the truth, and if we have the means to know the truth, we should."

Much more at the link

Paternal fraud is a huge issue, and it's way past time family court catches up to the available technology and ensures that the man who fathered the children is the same man who is paying for their support.

[Rage for Order]

1. More from the article...

But there is much at stake for the attorney general's office. A powerful state bureaucracy accustomed to getting its way, the office touts its dogged pursuit of deadbeat dads and casts itself as an advocate for children. The office's Child Support Division is a prized component of Attorney General Abbott's administration. The office has been nationally recognized for leading the country in child support collections, with a record $2.3 billion for its 2007 fiscal year. Since his election in 2002, Abbott has made child support a major focus of his office and used it as a rallying cry in his 2006 re-election campaign.

But to critics, the office's unwillingness to acknowledge that some of its practices may railroad poor, uneducated men into financial hardship is evidence of more sinister motives. The office receives federal funds based in part on the amount of child support that it collects and distributes, giving the Child Support Division a budgetary incentive to close as many cases as it can, no matter whose rights it might trample.

Hanschen has also drawn criticism, with some observers saying he "sets himself above the law" and legislates from the bench. But his supporters counter that he's merely shedding light on the problematic laws that govern the messy matters of sex, fidelity and truth in paternity matters. In fact, lawmakers and fathers' rights activists have been lobbying across the state and the country for changes to a body of laws that are crucial for assisting women and children but can also saddle the wrong men with onerous child support obligations, seized assets and even jail time.

As a judge, Hanschen's first problem with the practices of the attorney general's Child Support Division occurred in February 2007, shortly after he had taken the bench. Because he knew he would be hearing many appeals from the IV-D courts, he decided to learn how things were being done there. He noticed that when a man arrived, an assistant attorney general would ask him if he had a lawyer. If he said no, as most did, the attorney simply told him to sign in. Hanschen glanced at the signed papers and discovered that the forms were actually appearance sheets. After the lines for name, address and phone number, a paragraph at the end stated, "I wish to avail myself of the jurisdiction of this court and hereby make my appearance in this case for all purposes." By signing it, Hanschen says, the men were giving up their right to challenge the court's jurisdiction over them.

[Hugabear]

2. It may not matter anyways

I've heard about cases where DNA tests proved that a man wasn't the father of the child in question, but was still forced to pay child support. The reasoning is that even though the child may not be his, if the man took part in raising the child, then he still had an obligation to that child.

[Horse with no Name]

3. After 4 years

there is more than a "blood bond" between a Dad and his kids.
This bond should NOT be severed because the relationship doesn't work out with their mother after that period of time.
By all means, contest it before that if there is a reason to believe that you might not be their father.
But after four years of kids emotionally bonding and attaching to a father-figure?
Sorry. I hope the courts stay in the favor of the kids in this.

[Rage for Order]

5. I'm guesing you don't have to forfeit 30% of your NET pay each month?

And you don't send the money to a woman who lied to you, insisted she was faithful to you when you were married, but got pregnant by your best friend, a neighbor, a co-worker, or a one night stand she met in Vegas? Honestly, how many men are going to request a paternity test from hospital staff prior to signing the paperwork given to them in the hospital after their wife has just given birth?

[Horse with no Name]

6. I can do you one better than that

I am raising and financially supporting my grandchild without ANY support from the dead beat father. 100%.

[Rage for Order]

7. Yes, but it's YOUR grandchild

And you KNOW it's your grandchild because your daughter gave birth to the child. This is the opposite situation. It would be as though you were raising your son's child without any support, only to find out that he isn't actually the father of that child. I'm all for keeping symbolic fathers, i.e. men who were lied to and led to believe they were the biological father, involved in the lives of the children, but any financial assistance from him should be voluntary, not mandated by the state.

[Horse with no Name]

9. I'm sorry, this is one argument I won't concede

I value kids rights more than I do that of deadbeat, good-for-nothing parents who want to do everything they can to shirk their responsibilities.
If this man stayed in the relationship without questioning anything until AFTER he decided to leave that relationship, there is zilch credibility. He doesn't want to pay for these kids who he has raised and who he has acknowledged to be his.
I think the 4-year window is fine. There was a point that he was more than willing to overlook the obvious.
His chances to set the record straight have come and gone.
He should pay.

[U4ikLefty]

17. Do you belive that they should ALSO be able to get support from

the biological parent as well?

[Horse with no Name]

18. Support isn't the key issue here

the key issue is that this man had FOUR years to "question" the paternity of these kids.
By his own admission, his own family said she cheated on him. Therefore, he had probable cause to justify DNA testing and could have, at any time when he was with this woman, taken their hairbrushes down and had a test done so he would know for sure if this was a paramount issue to him.
However, as long as he was getting his dick serviced by this woman who was in his bed being his wife, he was willing to overlook it.
The second his dick quit being serviced...he wants to cry foul.
I'm sorry.
That doesn't float.

As far as your question--if that WERE the motivating factor--no. There should only be one non-custodial parent paying for the kids.

[U4ikLefty]

20. Which non-custodial parent should pay in this case?

BTW, all this sexist BS about getting his dick "serviced" is beyond reason.

[mondo joe]

21. Since you think it's about gtting a dick serviced, how about the dick that impregnated

the mom actually paying up?

[Horse with no Name]

22. why didn't the guy speak up before he decided he didn't want to pay child support?

the evidence was there all along.
It was okay to "play house" as long as he had fringe benefits, but now something he knew back then is suddenly important?
I don't buy it.

[mondo joe]

32. I couldn't possibly know enough detail about their lives to answer that. The one thing I

do know for certain is this:

Legally the person who is the biological father of a child is typically obliged to pay for the child's expenses (with the obvious legal exceptions like adoption), and that's true whether the bio father wanted a child or not.

This guy was tricked into an obligation that properly belongs to someone else. Had he chosen to accept this, it would be like adoption in that he knowingly accepted a responsibility and relationship.

Since he was deceived I give him significant leeway in his own feelings, as well as his own life choices. He could choose to remain in their lives as a father or not - but it ought to be his choice.

The children have rights as well - including the financial support of their parents. Their biological father ought to pony up, whether the deceived guy does or doesn't. He bears that responsibility and I can see no legal justification to shift it on to some poor sap who was tricked into carrying it for him.

[Rage for Order]

35. I'm guessing you didn't actually follow the link

From the beginning of the story:

The problem began the night his wife didn't come home. He had left his construction job, then fed their kids. He put them to bed, watched TV and tried to sleep. Often his wife worked past midnight at an Arlington restaurant, but it was 4 a.m. and she was still gone. Another few hours passed. Finally, she called. She'd been out with friends. Could he pick her up?

Antonio grew suspicious. Had she been with another man? No, of course not, she told him. But in his mind, it was the first crack in a marriage that continued to crumble.

Financial stress compounded their problems, causing terrible fights. The conflict reached a fever pitch in 2005. He left and moved in with his mother. Shortly after that, he got a phone call from a relative of his wife's. Your youngest daughter, he told Antonio, she isn't yours. She belongs to another man. Antonio refused to believe it. But after his mother heard similar rumors, even she began talking about how the little girl didn't look like their side of the family.

Over the next 18 months, Antonio tried to visit his children, but his wife wouldn't allow it. There were more fights—his wife claimed he hit her and slammed her against a car, which he denied. She moved and he couldn't find her. Then, last summer, shortly before his wife filed for divorce, Antonio received a letter from the Texas Attorney General's Office, the state agency charged with enforcing child support obligations.


Apparently he didn't have 4 years to test paternity since his wife wouldn't allow him to see his kids beginning in 2005. He wasn't "getting his dick serviced" by her since they didn't live together. And he didn't cry foul as soon as she "quit servicing his dick"...that would've been in 2005. He cried foul when he found out he'd been lied to.

[Ms. Toad]

16. And what does any of that have to do with

the man's relationship to his child - and biological ties or not, he is the child's parent. I would also oppose a woman being able to sever the child's ties with the father by requesting a DNA test to justify it once a paternal relationship is established. It is just not fair to the innocent child.

[MADem]

11. I think, in the long run, that a child is best served with the TRUTH.

If the "stepfather" (if you will) wants to maintain a relationship with the child and the mother isn't opposed to it, well, fine.

But a kid shouldn't be "deceived" nor should a man be forced to support, a child that isn't his. All you get there is resentment and anger, especially since it's an easy matter to get a swab from the kid and the father and send it off to a lab--Texas law or no Texas law.

Find the baby's father, and grab him by the wallet.

[papau]

4. "fathered" ihas nothing to do with who is the parent and who pays support - just when will all the

kids this fellowed fathered out of marriage be found by an order to do a DNA test of every American - just for "justice" purposes of course.

[flashl]

8. Part of this is about the creation of non-custodial parent (NCP) and billions in Fed grants ...

The amount of money the states receive in federal grant money under the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA) is based on number of paternity establishments.

[Firespirit]

10. This guy clearly doesn't love those kids

I swear I've seen better behavior from lowlifes on Maury Povitch who say they'll support the kid even if it isn't theirs. Whereas this guy, four years with them and he's now just using them to "punish" his ex for the affairs. They're better off without him in their lives, but still, ugh.

[MADem]

12. The children ARE better off without the guy, and with the TRUTH. The sooner, the better.

And that mother probably needs a little "guidance" herself. She must have an idea who "Paw" really is, unless she was too shitfaced to get his name first.

[Rage for Order]

13. Did you read the entire article?

From the last page:

To Antonio, who is now 30, the legal and political clashes between two governmental bodies are meaningless. The important thing for him is to somehow sort out what to do about his broken family and get on with his life. He wants the lawsuits to be over, but with the recent Court of Appeals decision and the fact that settling his divorce would mean accepting legal paternity for all three children, there's no end in sight.

On a recent afternoon, he sits in his lawyer's office and talks about the three children he once thought were his. He says he misses taking them to the park and hearing them call him Dad. The girls were just toddlers when he left, and even though he wasn't much of a "girly" guy, he misses playing dolls with the older one. When he was granted rights to see them early this year, his lawyer advised him against visiting the girls if he was going to contest paternity. It might re-establish their bond and hurt his case. It was a tough decision, but his bitterness at his wife's betrayal and the financial hardship of supporting two non-biological children swayed him. He would see only his son.

In January, father and son were reunited at a Chuck E. Cheese. It was awkward at first, but after a few rounds of skeeball, the 8-year-old loosened up and seemed to have fun. They see each other every weekend now, visiting Antonio's mother and going to the movies. The boy's 7-year-old sister, meanwhile, is heartbroken. She doesn't understand why the man she still remembers as her father visits her brother but not her. During a recent visit with his son, Antonio called his estranged wife to say he would be late dropping the boy off, and she told him the girl had been crying all day. Her mother put her on the phone. "She wanted me to buy her a toy, pick her up," Antonio says, his face somber and resigned. "I told her, 'Not right now.'"

For now, Antonio hopes that one day, the hearings and the waiting and the legal fees will come to an end. And as he strives to return to some semblance of normal life, he tries to remember the truth, and not to think about the little girl's tears or wonder how things might have been different.

[Firespirit]

15. He still wants to get out of supporting them and making damn sure they know

that he isn't their real father.

He hates his ex more than he loves the kids.

You are speaking to a person with a thoroughly messed up family situation, whose parents are in a long-term separation and live apart, but WILL NOT get divorced, and whose father makes twice what the mom makes and won't give a cent to any of his kids. The law can't touch him either.

Funnily enough, he's really "nice" whenever he visits, but it's a load of crap, just like the load of crap that this newspaper fell for hook, line, and sinker. Love the kids? Support them in a tangible way. Write a check to the one who's in college, or the one who's living in near-poverty conditions and can't afford health insurance while her father rakes in $70k a year. Being nice and offering bullshit talk about how much the kids mean to you doesn't feed them.

You are not going to change my mind on this and I strongly advise you not to try.

[americanyouth]

14. I have no compassion for the mother in this case...

I have seen far too many women use family law to kick a former spouse in the junk due to her personal problems with him to see this be a one-way street. Family law, especially in Texas, is geared 99% toward the mother's prevailance. Alot of mothers that have no business with children probably end up with custody, regardless of the father's ability and stability, as it is. Why should a man have to pay for children that aren't his? I feel like if the man was good enough to be willing to raise and father children that obviously weren't his, due to the mother being a loose ho, he should be commended. He damned sure shouldn't be punished, financially or in any other way, for selflessly accepting resposibilities created by some unfaithful whore.

[U4ikLefty]

19. This is why I encourage all of my friends to get a DNA test very early.

Because after __years...we are just sources of income.

[Horse with no Name]

23. Is biology all that important after you commit to be a parent to a child

who had nothing whatsoever to do with how they got there or who put them there in the first place?
I could care less about the parents--any of them.
The kids are the ones who will be made to suffer because of them.

[U4ikLefty]

24. So now you are against DNA testing ANYTIME after marriage?

What if a husband just wants to verify before he commits 18+ years of his love & income to a child that he BELIEVES is his?

I'm sorry if it sounds selfish to want to raise one's OWN biological child.

[Horse with no Name]

25. I never said that

by all means, if there is a question, test.
But after being told that your spouse is unfaithful and doing nothing because you are complacent with the situation, then at what point should YOUR inaction become inactionable?

[The Straight Story]

26. I dunno, reminds me of battered spouses in a way

At what point is the one who stays and puts up with it to blame for their inaction (and how that affects the kids by your staying)?

If someone has defrauded you and named you as a cause (ie, the kids) and lied to you about the source of said kids, and then you find out the source - should you have a recourse?

After all - it is your life, your body, and you are the one who can go to jail for failure to pay.

Should someone be forced to use their body to support someone who is not their own? The RW uses that argument to try and stop abortions - you had a choice not to become pregnant, but once you do it is no longer your body alone anymore - you had your chance to be responsible and when you failed to do so...well tough luck.

[dysfunctional press]

28. it's the biological parents who should be the ones concerned about their child...

and held liable by the state.

[BlooInBloo]

29. Apparently the lesson to be learned is: don't hook up with a woman with a child.

[mondo joe]

30. No, but consent is. One of my daughters is biologically mine, one is not.

I love them both, and have always felt they were equally my daughters, and always will.

But this is a relationship I chose to enter - not one I was deceived into entering. And that holds true for any relationship, not just parenting.

[seabeyond]

34. fidelity, honesty is.... to me anyway. it is a deal breaker. n/t

[seabeyond]

33. husband and i have good marriage. really really good.

my second son blonde hair, blue/green/gold eyes. all the rest of us brown hair, brown eyes. after months waiting for babies eyes to change and they didnt laughingly i told hubby.... you need a dna test, go for it. wont hurt my feelings a damn bit.

like i say, 14 yrs married, hubby and i get along incredibly well, marriage is so easy for us, and we trust each other

and i would not have had a single problem if hubby wanted to test the baby...

doesnt bother me.

anyone can do anything. justify/validate/excuse it in the mind. anyone.

[aikoaiko]

27. This will change in time -- not only will nonbiological men NOT have to pay...

...but they should be able to sue for reparations from fraud if misinformed by the mother.

[seabeyond]

31. i dont have a problem with this. on many different levels. n/t