Man Jailed for Not Supporting Someone Elses Child

[Stuart G]

Source: AP , Yahoo News

ADEL, Ga. – A Georgia man spent more than a year behind bars for failing to pay child support for a child that wasn't his, but he was released after DNA tests showed he wasn't the father.

Frank Hatley, 50, had been jailed since June 2008 for not making payments, but two separate DNA tests in the last nine years showed he was not the father of the boy, who is now 21.

Southern Center for Human Rights attorney Sarah Geraghty won Hatley's release at a hearing Wednesday in Superior Court. A court order has also relieved him of his financial obligation to the Georgia Department of Human Resources.

"State child support officials have shown extraordinarily poor judgment in Mr. Hatley's case," Geraghty said.

Although Hatley was freed from making future payments after a 2001 hearing, Superior Court Judge Dan Perkins had ordered him to continue making $16,000 in back payments. He paid $6,000 of that before being laid off from his job.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_wrongfully_jailed;_ylt=AqsO3vFeWgB6i5IS0yljle90fN

---

[Stand and Fight]

1. Somehow the bias in this case doesn't surprise me.

Especially having been privy to a similar situation myself.

[Maru Kitteh]

49. We paid child support for 11 years for a child we knew was not my husband's biological child.

But, God knows with a mother who was as much of a mess as her mother is, our daughter needed a father, so he stepped up to the plate. When the ex moved half way across the United States, we followed so we could remain in our daughter's life.

When she married husband #2, bitch had the nerve to announce she'd decided to have #2 adopt our daughter and threatened to bring DNA testing to the table. Our lawyer reminded her she could be sued for every penny of support we had paid if she had knowingly defrauded my husband. That ended that.

When she married husband #3, we found out she had been registering our daughter for activities, school and other such things with the #3 husband's last name.

Shortly after that we went to court and won custody.

Our daughter still does not know that she is not my husband's biological child because there is no point in it, it serves no purpose to tell her. We have been the only consistent thing in her life. Her bio father was a bass player in a band that traveled all over the plains states and the Midwest. She didn't even know his last name or where he was from so there's no chance of ever finding the guy.

DNA doesn't have a damn thing to do with being a parent, as far as I am concerned.

[LWolf]

60. Well said. nt

[PassingTimeHere]

62. I"m so glad you were able to get custody

but when your daughter is older, she really does have a right to know her own biological heritage.

And you're right, DNA has nothing to do with being a parent. Two of my kids are adopted. (Neither of us are the bio parent!)

[Maru Kitteh]

73. As I said, there's no point. There is no possible way to know her biological heritige.

[JI7]

142. for medical reasons it could be important for her to know

but you can at the same time tell her what you are telling us. DNA does not make someone a good parent.

[condoleeza]

72. We have a friend who was in a similar situation

His daughter now knows that he isn't her biological father, but he's known since she was born, he simply cared for her as a child who needed a reliable parent, having been raised in a truly dysfunctional family himself, which likely led him to this child's mother, whom he apparently identified with. He was bonded with this girl from birth and has been her father for the last 28 years, her mother is a disaster, She was in his custody after she turned 16 and was old enough to ask the courts to let her live with him, she knew the truth way before that, and she accepted it. Her mother told her that she had no idea who her real father was or how she would track it down. I shudder to think what would have happened to this beautiful woman had she had NO reliable parent.

DNA doesn't have anything to do with being a parent, but having grown up in a family where secrets were kept, having a friend whose daughter found out the truth @21 from a cousin at a BBQ (who assumed she knew), and knowing how earth shattering it was for those involved, I highly recommend that you be truthful and the sooner the better. I grew up with a "cousin" who turned out to be my mother's child. She found out she was adopted at her "parent's" 50th wedding anniversary - also from a cousin who assumed she knew. My mother confessed this to me when I was 42 & my mother was 83. This sister was raised by the sister of the father, who was my mother's Uncle. You can just imagine all the ramifications of that - she was 14.

My brother believed he had fathered a child when he was 19. His name was on her birth certificate. When she found him when she was 26 it was genetically obvious he was not her father, even though he wished she was his child, having wondered all those years about her, it was ultimately confessed by her birth mother that she knew the real father but couldn't tell the truth because her parents couldn't deal with her one night stand. This woman is now in contact with her real birth father.

The reality is that there are few secrets anymore and "cousins" and "friends" can say something at the most inopportune time and shatter your child's life. I have no idea the age of your daughter, Maru Kitteh, but she must be over 11 and time and the internet is not in your favor. Your daughter deserves the truth. I was listening to a program last weekend on NPR about this very kind of situation. I have tried to find a link and have sent a request to NPR for a link. If I get one I will forward it to you via PM.

You are her parents, and I've no doubt you are wonderful parents, but she is only human, if you were her, what would you want to know? There is no perfect time for this.

[Maru Kitteh]

78. If there was no point to it then no, I wouldn't want to know and there is no point to it.

I respect the fact that everyone else has an opinion about our daughter but respectfully - I just don't care about your opinion. There are exactly three people who know this. His ex didn't tell anyone. The adoption threat was merely a scare tactic we knew she would never follow through with. She's a bible-thumping fundie. It's a lifestyle that occasionally clashes with the fact that she's a total whore, but it's a style that has been working nicely for her for over 20 years now. She's actually horrified at the thought that her carefully crafted image as the second coming of the virgin Mary (at least in her own mind) might be tarnished.

That leaves my husband, and me. Unless my husband changes his mind I will respect and defend his wishes unto my dying breath.

I understand others have a differing opinion, but this is not your family. Please understand that there is literally nothing you can say that will affect change in this matter.

[condoleeza]

81. Agreed, it's your family and I respect that, forgive my being pushy on this, meant no harm.n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

84. Oh, no harm, no foul. All's good! I appreciate your kind words.

:hug: Please be assured we've made the best decision for our family.

[kath]

156. Oh, my -

so your mother became pregnant by her uncle at the age of 14? How absolutely horrible.
Was the uncle ever prosecuted?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. Yup. The Bias Towards The Mother In Cases Of Divorce/Custody'Support Is One Of The Most Sexist

aspects of our culture that still exists almost as strongly as ever. It's ridiculously unfair.

[sarcasmo]

2. This is NOT the first time or the last time this will happen.

[Stuart G]

3. Do you think that they will make the lady give back the money?

What do you think?

[uppityperson]

7. Do you think they will make the kid give back the money?Since it went to the child as child support?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. Do you really believe that it went directly to the child?

[WriteDown]

12. That's the funniest part. nt.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. it never does. The parent gets the money "for the benefit" of the child.

that goes from everything like car payments, rent, food, drugs, alcohol, guns, anything.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. arclyic nails, facials, massages, spas, cigarettes....

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. I have a case where mommy dearest takes her 4 yr old

for pedicures, fake nails and perms. Now she is going to court seeking more from her ex because she is short of cash.

[WriteDown]

27. And she'll likely get it. nt.

[proReality]

29. You obviously know my ex daughter-in-law! n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. well, My brother has an ex-wife who has 5 children by either 3 or 4

different men. My brother is paying for 2. We know for sure the one is my brothers, and we love both of them. However there is no "proof" that the other one is definitely my brothers. As this woman was cross country for sever al months and within 2 weeks of her "reconcilement" with my brother she was preganant. The timing is iffy, is all I am saying. I love both boys. They are both my nephews.

[blueamy66]

36. yeppers

:thumbsup:

[WolverineDG]

99. Oh yeah, moms are living high on the hog

what with all that $200-$300/month in child support they might SOMETIMES get from daddy. :eyes:

dg

[uppityperson]

68. Of course not. Do you believe none of it went to benefit the child?

That is why they call it "child support" not "spousal support".

My ex said the only reason I wanted custody of our child was so he could support me with child support. The court ordered $50/month. That is right, fifty dollars/month. Yeah, we lived high on that $50, let me tell you.

[WolverineDG]

100. Paying the rent with child support doens't "support" the child

so child support can't be used to pay rent ( :sarcasm: on my part)

I actually had to argue that in court against a dummy who said that. pfft. Judge made short work of that one.

dg

[madmom]

17. My brother went through this. He got behind on child support because of lay-offs and once the child

reached 18 he wanted to give the money directly to her (because the mother was a druggie) but the court told him no because support entails a roof over her head and food on the tabled etc etc.So even though the child no longer lived at home and was over 18 the "back-support" went to the mother instead of the child.

[WriteDown]

19. I feel bad for your brother. nt

[treestar]

168. that's because it was back support

And the mother had to cover it at the time the child was under 18.

When laid off, immediately go to court and ask for a change - it's not that hard. Most don't need lawyers to do this kind of stuff, the courts have forms to use for the filings.

[JonQ]

35. I wonder whose name was on the checks

If I had to guess I wouldn't pick the kid.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Rarely have I seen child support used for its intended purpose

[Maru Kitteh]

53. What utter bullshit.

If rent is being paid, if the child has a shirt on, if the lights and water are paid, the child support is being used for it's intended purpose.

Just because men are required to pay support does NOT mean that the mothers of their children are required to sit on rocks, eat paste and wear sack-cloth alone in a corner somewhere until the child turns 18.

Fuck!

[JonQ]

56. No but they should be spending the entire child support check on

you know, supporting the child. If they're using it for their own enjoyment, well I have a major problem for that.

And at least the kid they're raising is theirs, too often the men getting stuck with the bill can't say the same thing.

[uppityperson]

71. Does the difference in rent between 1 bedroom and 2 part of supporting the child?

How about letting the kid go to the video game store with friends? How about the gas for driving kid to the mall?

[JonQ]

74. Yes, those would be legit uses for child support

Personal luxuries for the mom would not be.

[uppityperson]

75. And how would you show that the child support went to her personal luxeries? Serious question.

If the custodial/receiving parent bought a pair of shoes, for instance, how could it be determined that he/she used the child support money for that?

[Maru Kitteh]

82. Custodial parents don't have a right to buy new shoes, they would clash with the sack-cloth garments

Besides, where would this custodial parent wear the new shoes? They're not allowed to go anywhere, and since they won't be getting a haircut until the child turns 18 they won't be presentable and the shoes would just look out of place.

I just love the caveman ehtics and the mental gymnastics some men do in regards to this subject. Rent? Bills? Clothing? Utilities? Somehow that I guess is getting paid but if the ex goes bowling on Thursday or has a hair appointment somehow that is HIS MONEY paying for that.

It's one of the big reasons why some men with that kind of mentality are divorced in the first place. Often they are bitter, selfish, vengeful control freaks. Not good partner material.

[JonQ]

94. The purpose of child support is that the father

of the child (typically the father) should be paying for his half of the child he helped produce, even though he no longer lives with the kid.

To make it out like he should be paying to support the child, and the adult woman capable of taking care of herself smacks of sexism to me. Women are incapable of supporting themselves (wearing sack clothes without a mans support) therefore the man is obligated to provide for her living expenses as well.

Personally I think adults of either gender who aren't mentally or physically impaired in some way are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, and should not be appointed a court mandated sponsor to help them get by, merely because that person at one time or another had sex with the individual in question.

The child is of course not an adult and as such should not be expected to provide for himself, hence the biological parents split the burden as evenly as possible. The mother is an adult and as such is not entitled to any portion of the ex-husband/boyfriends money for her own personal use.

Do you believe child support is intended as an allowance for the mother to spend on whatever she chooses, the kid being one option but far from the most important one?

[WolverineDG]

102. The majority of parents receiving child support use every damn dime

supporting the child. IF and WHEN they get it.

dg

[JonQ]

108. And the majority of people will never commit a felony

I guess we have no need for cops.

Enforcement is typically meant to catch the minority of the people who are breaking the law. If the majority were doing it likely it wouldn't be a crime.

So citing as proof that this scenario never occurs, the fact that many women don't do it, is meaningless.

Most people never commit murder, ergo murder never happens and we don't need laws or cops to deal with this fictitious scenario.

[WolverineDG]

111. Blah blah blah more misogynistic whining from you nt

[JonQ]

114. To you misogynistic whining = facts

women do cheat the system, same as men, this is a fact. There are laws to stop men in this scenario, but not women, another fact. To you that is misogynistic.

Reminds me of people who scream racism, fascism, blasphemy, etc to shout down arguments they can't respond to factually.

[WolverineDG]

120. More men than women beat the system

There wouldn't need to be such draconian measures in place if men were responsible & supported their children financially instead of playing games & hiding assets.

dg

[JonQ]

83. Shouldn't be that hard to do an audit of how much money they earn

By themselves and with childsupport, figure out the expenses for the child and the mother and check if there is a major discrepency.

An occasional pair of shoes doesn't concern me that much. A trip to jamaica, that does.

Can you really justify soaking an unemployed man for tens of thousands of dollars to pay for a kid that isn't his so the mom (who apparently cheated on him) can live a more luxurious lifestyle? You make it out like she has it so rough, but the facts of the case say otherwise.

[WolverineDG]

103. Shouldn't be too hard to audit deadbeat daddy then either

find out how much money he's hiding so he doesn't have to pay his fair share.

The reason there isn't a requirement of an audit is because abusive jerks (such as yourself, perhaps? Your attitude is very telling) would use it as another tool to abuse their victims.

I can't believe someone with the attitude of a troglodyte considers himself to be a liberal.

dg

[JonQ]

105. Dad doesn't pay his share

he goes to jail. There are laws to deal with deadbeat dads.

Mom blows hers on frivolous items unrelated to raising the kid, she receives no punishment. There are no laws to deal with deadbeat moms in this scenario.

You see this as fair, I see it as a double standard. I believe all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard. You seem to believe men are a lesser species that will try to scam the system and should be punished, but women are saintly and would never do such a thing.


Two questions: what, in your own words, is the purpose of child support (support for the child, or support for the mom), and do you believe it is possible for women to try to scam the system and waste their kids money for their own benefit?

[WolverineDG]

109. Yeah, you've never had to go through someone's financials

to see where they're hiding assets so they can claim to be "poor" while driving around in a brand-new Caddy.

My favorite questions to ask deadbeat whiners who claim they have no money for their kids even though they (deadbeat whiners) live with their mommies who do everything for them is how much they spend each month on beer & cigs.

"Oh, Mr. Father of the Year who would pay child support if only I had money, you have $300 each month to spend on beer & cigs, but NOTHING to feed & clothe your own kids?"

You'd be surprised at just how many "men" have money to spend on everything else BUT their own kids.

So spare me your misogynistic rantings.

And BTW, if mom isn't feeding or clothing the kids, then she is neglecting them and yes she CAN (and sometimes WILL) go to jail for that. So, what else do you have to whine about today?

dg

[JonQ]

115. You obviously have some issues with men, and have a bone to pick

so your objectivity is obviously in question. My goal isn't to punish or reward any particular gender, merely to see to it that the money is A) being given as the court mandated and B) being used for the benefit of the child as it was intended.

I'm not on a crusade against women in the way you seem to be on one against men. No one with any common sense would deny that child services and courts associated with them are biased and play fast and loose with the rules. I can then assume you either lack common sense, or wish to punish men. I will be generous and grant you common sense, so it must be an anti-male thing. Let your hatred go, and realize that everyone, males and females, is prone to milk the system if given the opportunity. This isn't some gender war as you seem to wish, it's about justice and taking care of the child who is blameless in this mess.

Also, you forgot to answer my questions: in your mind is it capable for individual women to be selfish and bad parents, and what is the purpose behind child support?

[WolverineDG]

119. You obviously have issues with women

I've represented both men & women in child support cases & you fit the mold of an abuser &/or deadbeat dad who wants to hide behind the "I want an audit" whine.

dg

[ProgressiveProfessor]

125. Have you ever seen a woman move in with a man and not marry just to keep alimony flowing?

Abuse of the system works both ways.

[Ewellian]

161. Do people still get alimony these days?

I was a stay at home mom with 3 kids when my husband moved in with his girlfriend. I didn't ask for or get alimony but I sure as hell got child support.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

164. Depends, less than there used to be. Sometimes its traded off in the property settlement

I have been told that VA now has laws about living together that effect alimony, don't know the details. Some courts are also increasing child support in lieu of alimony.

My basic position is that the entire field is disreputable and needs to be redone. Gender neutral, assurances that child support is being spent on child related items (which includes rent IMO), that visitation is given higher priority, that making false claims has penalties for the parties and the lawyers, and the DCS is reigned in. The one thing the current system is not doing is being equitable and that needs to be fixed

[uppityperson]

117. What about when men are the recipients, women the payors. Are the standard the same? Try this...

There are laws to deal with deadbeat moms.

Dad blows his on frivolous items unrelated to raising the kid, he receives no punishment. There are no laws to deal with deadbeat dads in this scenario.

You see this as fair, I see it as a double standard. I believe all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard. You seem to believe women are a lesser species that will try to scam the system and should be punished, but men are saintly and would never do such a thing.


Two questions: what, in your own words, is the purpose of child support (support for the child, or support for the dad), and do you believe it is possible for men to try to scam the system and waste their kids money for their own benefit?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

124. The current system is not reflexive

Women have a tremendous advantage in family court and with the state welfare agencies.

[uppityperson]

130. Well, what about when men ARE the recipients?

There are laws to deal with deadbeat moms.

Dad blows his on frivolous items unrelated to raising the kid, he receives no punishment. There are no laws to deal with deadbeat dads in this scenario.

You see this as fair, I see it as a double standard. I believe all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard. You seem to believe women are a lesser species that will try to scam the system and should be punished, but men are saintly and would never do such a thing.


Two questions: what, in your own words, is the purpose of child support (support for the child, or support for the dad), and do you believe it is possible for men to try to scam the system and waste their kids money for their own benefit?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. What part of reflexive did you not understand?

I think the current child support structure is in shambles with the state interfering disproportionately and far from even handed. It needs to be fixed and be gender neutral, which it clearly is not

[uppityperson]

135. What part of what about when men ARE the recipients did you not understand?

"reflexive"? "Women have a tremendous advantage in family court and with the state welfare agencies."? In many places, this is true, but there are men who are custodial parents receiving the child support money and my question is what about them?

Dad blows his on frivolous items unrelated to raising the kid, he receives no punishment. There are no laws to deal with deadbeat dads in this scenario.

You see this as fair, I see it as a double standard. I believe all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard. You seem to believe women are a lesser species that will try to scam the system and should be punished, but men are saintly and would never do such a thing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

136. What part of gender neutral did you not understand

[uppityperson]

158. I have noticed you rarely answer except by asking a different question

"progressive professor"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

159. Its an effective teaching method, tends to make students think and research not just

go with emotional but unsupportable responses.


My position on this is pretty clear. In post #154 i said the following:

There are enough horror stories and documented biases that the entire system needs to be rethought
- Gender neutral
- Fact based
- Visitation rights given a much higher priority
- Penalties for fraudulent claims and perjury
- Reasonable certainty that child support is used for that purpose (and yes rent counts)
- Personal accountability for DCS workers for when they break the law
- Gender neutral (its worth repeating)

Most often there are two sides to a divorce, yours and shithead's (note the gender neutrality). The family courts have degenerated to the point where lying, perjury, ignoring of court orders without penalty are all common place. The "welfare of the child" meme is a false flag and DCS runs rampant over peoples rights. Its time to rebuild it from the ground up, in a gender neutral manner.

[uppityperson]

160. Are you always pedantic? Do you never actually converse and share with others?

I just noticed that I had asked JonQ that originally and you have stepped in to educate me.

I would like to hear back from JonQ also.

Both sexes abuse the system and need to be held responsible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

173. I often converse and share, look at the prior post and others

I tend to focus on the details, rules, or physicality of a scenario. Often those are overlooked here by posters focusing on emotion or the macro level sloganeering. Unfortunately that leads to a soundbite approach to things. Ignoring the details is a recipe for disaster and sort of a 8 year old level of political maturity. I know that bringing up those nasty facts and details annoys people, but I really don't care, since facts and physics matter. It annoys some here and in real life. I do tend to use a substitution technique in many discussions that leads to a reducto absurdum discussion. It does not sit well with some. Seeing ones ox get gored does that to people as does a quick kick in the paradigms. However, if it makes them think, that's a good thing. I also get a lot of support from various quarters.

[uppityperson]

175. So you approve of my technique of subsititution, but didn't want to answer clearly.

Changing things slightly can make a world of difference since they emotional qualities also change. Tata and thank you for the answer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

174. Delete - Double Post

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. Clearly your experience and mine differ

I would like to see a system where there is some assurance that it goes primarily to the child and stays with the child, not the custodial parent.

[BreweryYardRat]

87. I don't expect Spartan lifestyles, but...

...it's not acceptable for the mother to spend child support money on herself.

If she's got her own independent income, she can do whatever she wants with the money from it.

If she's unemployed, that child support check needs to go towards their rent/utilities/gasoline and the kid's food/clothes/school supplies.

[uppityperson]

69. I am a rare person. The $50/month sure helped my child out

Most people I know who get or have gotten child support, it went to benefit the child. Yes, there are those who misuse the money, but most people end up paying much more than they get for food, clothing. school supplies, even trips and extras for the child, not to mention a larger dwelling, gas, etc.

[fishwax]

80. I have, frequently

I've rarely seen child support go for anything other than its intended purpose, actually, though I'm sure it happens.

[WolverineDG]

101. I've rarely seen child support paid as ordered, so there

meanwhile, daddy drives around in a flashy new car, his new wife & kiddies have all the best clothes, while the "old" family barely scrapes by.

Stereotypes work both ways, pal.

dg

[redqueen]

104. Thanks for posting that.

What a sad little subthread.

[WolverineDG]

107. The jackass-ery is strong in this thread nt

[tammywammy]

127. One of the saddest things I've ever seen

A guy I used *used* to be friends with, he had adopted a daughter his wife had. A few years went by and they got divorced. He and his new little girlfriend didn't want to pay child support anymore, so he chose to give up his rights to the daughter he had been raising. It was really f-ed up. His daughter didn't want to go out of town with him and the new girlfriend to a wedding, but the daughter wasn't even invited to the wedding (it was the girlfriend's brother's wedding or something) and so the plan had been to just let her stay in the hotel room the whole time. When the daughter said she didn't want to go, he said to the mom she either goes or Monday I give up my rights.

I feel so bad for the daughter. She was abandoned by her bio-father and then again by her adoptive father. It was just so messed up. And a top top top reason I'm not friends with that guy anymore.

[treestar]

169. You are privy to the finances of every custodial parent who receives

child support?

This argument is beyond naive. It presumes children cost nothing.

[sarcasmo]

24. Of course that would not happen, if you have been through the system you know what I mean.

[sofa king]

4. I'm watching it happen right now.

"You'll get your paternity test after you marry me," is a rather suspicious line to take, if you ask me.

[harmonicon]

5. so what kind of restitution will he get?

I'm guessing none, but it should be loads.

[slackmaster]

30. To paraphrase Richard J. Donovan's famous quote...

...Someone should tell him where he can get his reputation back.

[raystorm7]

6. The Judge and prosecutor should both be in jail... nuff said.

[Stuart G]

8. Please look at these quotes from the story.

"Although Hatley was freed from making future payments after a 2001 hearing, Superior Court Judge Dan Perkins had ordered him to continue making $16,000 in back payments. He paid $6,000 of that before being laid off from his job."

"But in 2000, DNA samples showed the two were not related, according to court records. A test earlier this month confirmed that."


Why would they force back payments if he was not the father?

[Political Heretic]

10. DNA tests proved he was not.

:shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. courts have the duty to protect a child first. If a mistake is made, it is always

in favor of the kid. (or that is their goal).

[WriteDown]

21. So that is why they can't require the mother pay back

all the money she STOLE? :shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Exactly. Sometimes DCS will support an obvious false identification to get money for the child

which they know can never be paid back under that fraudulent scheme. You can not sue the DCS works for that either.

[PassingTimeHere]

23. Courts are in the business of administering JUSTICE, not welfare or charity

We have other arms of government which are better at doing that.

If it's really in the best interest of the child to be supported by two parents (and I strongly support that) , and the court must "force" action, then the court needs to force the mother to name the actual father and go after him for child support.

[regnaD kciN]

54. Not true in "family law"...

...where "the well-being of the child" (in the court's estimation) is always the primary factor. In a lot of states, if a husband "recognizes the child as his own" (even if it turns out later that he or she wasn't) and "enters into a relationship with the child" (i.e. has the child ever recognize him as "daddy"), he has the legal responsibility to pay child support until the child reaches the age of majority, and sometimes beyond. Even if DNA testing proves that he wasn't the father. Even if the mom gets custody, and winds up shacking up with the actual biological father. That's the way it goes.

[PassingTimeHere]

61. As an adoptive mother, I'm well aware that recognizing a child as one's own

makes him or her responsible for that child. :)

However, I do believe that a marriage license should not be the sole consideration. If a guy leaves when the child is six months old because he finds out that his wife is a cheat and the child isn't his, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support.

Justice and well being of the child can still go hand in hand, but sometimes, we just drop the justice.

[JonQ]

38. Then, if the dad isn't found could they grab some random guy

who happened to be walking in front of the court house at the time, deem him legally the father and require he pay for the kid? It would be better for the child than not having that extra income. It wouldn't be fair, or just, but that's secondary.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. That has happened before. Whomever the mother names has to prove his is not the father

Seen that with a couple of people I know. DCS and their equivalents are above the law and above accountability in cases like these.

[JonQ]

48. Guilty until proven innocent it seems

I could understand these laws prior to DNA tests, but now they make no sense whatsoever.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Even when the DCS workers were clearly at fault for what amounted to fraud they were untouchable

I was surprised when I saw it first hand

[joshcryer]

76. Fortunately now-a-days DNA is a prerequsite to child support in many states.

This can still happen but if you pay the $100 for the DNA test you can be skot free from some womans lies (or misinformation because she can't keep their legs shut).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. Not always true. DCS can get a court order to require interim child support while the case is being

contested. All it takes is a sworn statement from the DCS case worker. When (not if) its granted, the victim will never be able to recover those funds.

[JonQ]

95. Child services seems to operate undera different legal code than

the entire rest of the country. Where one party seems to be assumed guilty and is treated as such unless he can prove overwhelmingly that he is innocent, and sometimes not even then if the judge is convinced penalizing him will be in the best interest of the child.

Imagine if a cop could just pull random people of the street, accuse them of whatever crime (even in the presence of contradictory DNA evidence) and it was still up to the accused to prove his innocence against the cops word, and even if he did so the judge could still send him to jail if he thought it were best for society that someone get punished for that crime.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. That is because it "for the children" which trumps just about everything

It is appalling what has been allowed under that meme

[JonQ]

97. Agreed

I think everyone can agree that protecting children should be one of our highest goals as a society. But we don't need to do it at the expense of common sense, justice, basic human rights.

[Fumesucker]

67. For the same reason "mere factual innocence" is not enough to overturn a death penalty

"Properly arrived at".

It's all about the system and has very little to do with "justice" any more.

[WriteDown]

11. Shouldn't he be entitled to every cent he's paid?

Shouldn't the real father owe back payments? :grr:

[Dr Democracy]

15. Chippewa County Wisconsin

This occurs on a regular basis in Chippewa County Wisconsin.

[Stuart G]

18. A little more info on this story at the original source..link here

http://www.ajc.com/news/man-jailed-for-child-91830.html

from the Atlanta Journal Constitution

[sarcasmo]

25. This quote from the judge makes me think they are still going to make this guy repay the ten grand.

"The judge, however, postponed deciding whether Hatley must still repay the more than $10,000 in child support the state says he owes. But Hatley does not have to make any monthly payments until that issue is resolved, Geraghty said."

[dysfunctional press]

20. isn't it the law in most if not all states that if your wife gives birth while you're married...

you ARE legally the father- even if it's not your biological child...?

[WriteDown]

22. Could be...

A good argument against marriage I suppose.

[Franzia]

39. And an even better argument against having children.

.

[WriteDown]

41. Or to only have children with married women..

:)

[regnaD kciN]

55. I assume you mean "married to someone else"...

[Somawas]

28. Yes, it is.

[slackmaster]

31. Yes, and in California the husband has two years to demand a paternity test

After that, he's stuck with the responsibility whether it's his child or not.

But that doesn't apply in this situation, since the man was not married to the mother of the child.

[Piewhacket]

33. The problem seems to have been...

not that he was the father or not,
but that he owed back child support and refused to undertake to pay it.

I myself don't agree with jailing people for refusing to
pay a debt.

[IDFbunny]

40. Ending debtors prisons was a cornerstone for our rights

Making an exception for child support only leads to a slippery slope for imprisoning all debtors.

[msanthrope]

42. Yes. The presumption is that a child born of a marriage

is the child of both parents.

[flvegan]

59. It is in Florida. All she has to do is get pregnant while married.

Doesn't have to give birth. She could be impregnated 6 weeks before the divorce hearing and the guy is still on the hook.

[Umbram]

63. Methinks that's a rebuttable presumption. (nt)

[BalancedGoat]

70. That's not exactly it, if I remember correctly.

I believe how it works in many states is that you are presumed to be the father and you have a certain amount of time in which to challenge that presumption. It was years ago that I read up on this kind of stuff, I don't quote me on that.

[pitohui]

77. ohFFS he never married this slut, does NO ONE read before they write these days?

dude never married the chick, it's right there in the freaking article linked

he must have really peeved off somebody bigtime because he was truly severely punished for no really discernable reason

not a guy walking by the courthouse as posited by one poster but pretty damn close...

[Raejeanowl]

92. It's Generally Assumed

That if a child is born during a marriage, it's the issue of the marriage, but you and I and everyone else know of exceptions.

So the wrongly labeled father needs to take the equivalent of an equity suit (state variations, I'm sure) out against the mother and demand DNA testing if he wishes to prove otherwise.

[Cali_Democrat]

141. Some some guy has his wife cheat on him and he's forced to pay for the kid

Poor bastard!!!

[treestar]

170. Yes, the common law presumption of legitimacy

Though modified in the DNA era.

My state contains both presumptions and then says that if they conflict (child born during marriage, but DNA shows child is someone else's) that the court will decide which presumption should win out.

So there is a potential to be found to be legally a father where DNA says not - though in such a case there is probably going to be facts sympathetic to it, like that person has raised the child and has a relationship with the child.

[jwirr]

34. He should now sue them for his lost wages during that year. nt

[BlooInBloo]

37. (shrug) It's the best of a menu of bad options.

[PassingTimeHere]

43. No, it is not.

The business of the courts is JUSTICE, not charity.

There is a real biological father somewhere around, and if the child needs support THAT is the man who should be sued and held responsible for child support.

[Stuart G]

45. I agree, I sure hope the real biolobical father is

sued for all of what is due. (with interest)

[PassingTimeHere]

46. Maybe. Maybe not.

It's not his fault he wasn't informed that this child is his. What if he had wanted a relationship with the child that is now grown up?

As an adoptive mother, I believe that all children should have a right to know who their biological parents are, although that doesn't sit very well with the sperm donor crowd.

[sarcasmo]

50. With that logic why would I ever donate sperm?

[PassingTimeHere]

57. I think all information should be kept and if there is a medically necessary reason

the child should be able to access those records without seeking approval of the bio father.

Everyone should have a right to their biological information especially in this advanced medical age.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. Perhaps, but not personal contact information

I seen too many weird stalkings come out of well meant information leaks.

[Occulus]

145. My adoptive parents treated me very badly when I came out to them.

I didn't really 'come out'- my adoptive mom ripped the closet doors off the hinges and quite literally threw me out into the dark and the rain (she wouldn't even let me take my car; all i had was my bike, my oboe- which she almost refused to let me take- and the clothes on my back and in my backpack) when she found out. A year later, both of them made the decision to cut off their portion of my college funds. I couldn't work even part time (they required that in order for me to get their help) and be a music major AND pay for everything my education needed (I actually NEEDED their help just to be there, and they knew it, and they used that against me), so I had to drop out of college.

Both my biological parents had musical talent, according to my 'family history sheet'. Rather sketchy on facts, that- but it does telegraph the possibility that they might have treated me a bit better, might have understood me a bit better.

I'd love to know about them, whether I have a brothers or sisters (or even half-brothers or half-sisters), and what's been going on in their lives these past 34 years. As it is now, I don't have any connection with the people I'm "supposed" to love.

Oh, another tidbit- my adoptive mother got a letter for my (also adopted) sister's biological mom when my sis was 14 or so- and hid the fact from her. My mom didn't mention it to her until just a year or two ago.

Not all adoptions trail clouds of glory. I'll be bleeding on the inside for the rest of my life because of what those people did to me when I was most vulnerable and most in need of their love and support. They went out of their way to crash down around my ears my life, my very meaning for being, and everything that I'd ever hoped for and wished for and worked for and nearly achieved.

They snuffed out my reasons for getting up in the morning- after years and years of feeling like I couldn't do anything right and didn't have anything to contribute- as easily as you or I would blow out a candle. I thought about killing myself for the following four or five years.

I do want to know "what might have been", if only to understand whether I really was better off being adopted, or really was handed a raw deal because of it. By the way, no, I don't particularly care about the privacy of my biological parents in that regard. They shouldn't have that privacy from the person they made. From the public, certainly, but from me?

I. Deserve. To know.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

147. Your wants are not rights

Sounds like you were treated horrendously by your parents. That does not confer any rights to sealed information. The contract made when the child is adopted or conceived should be upheld unless all parties want to change it (I include egg donors, sperm donors, and host mothers)

I support open adoption, the registries, intermediary contacts etc, if that is what the adults agree to, but nothing more in terms of direct contact. Medical information is a little harder, but anonymity must be preserved if the persons request it.

There is no right to a relationship or knowledge.

[pitohui]

79. you donated sperm because you got paid

agree it's a stupid thing to do, the amt of money paid will not make up for some person of unknown sanity tracking you down 20 yrs later when the money is long spent and forgotten

i'm glad i'm female and truly don't understand why more guy don't want to either rubber up or get a vasectomy, why put your fate in someone else's hands like that -- too many guys are still living under the old time fantasy of they can just walk away

well you can't just walk away any more so yah, if someone wants you to "donate sperm" keep your rubber on anyway, tee hee

[aikoaiko]

51. That guy got fooked.

[Odin2005]

52. The system of child support needs an overhaul.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[winyanstaz]

66. Superior Court Judge Dan Perkins ....

needs to be fired now or needs to resign NOW. He is unfit to judge.

[TexasObserver]

85. If a man is going to challenge paternity, the time to do it is early in the process.

In this case, the man believed he was the father of the child, and acted 20 years ago based upon that belief. He could have taken steps back then to contest paternity, and while DNA may not have been available, blood tests could have provided some useful evidence.

Once a man has taken on the duties of being a father for a child he believes is his, there can arise a duty to the child that transcends the lack of biologic connection. That's as it should be. We can't have tests years down the road deciding who has parental rights. Otherwise, a woman could literally take a child away from the only "dad" the child had ever known.

Parenting is much more than having biologic "title" to the child. It is being there, economically and emotionally. Whoever fulfills that role should have both the legal and moral rights and duties which commonly accompany parenthood.

The wronged man, such as the one in this case, should have a case against the mother for fraud, but not a case to suspend child support payments, which are for the child. However, this case involved bad judgment by the State, which could have exercised better judgment in handling the situation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Should be automatically done at birth

The Gov is finding ways to get everyone's DNA, lets use it for something useful.

[Raejeanowl]

93. I Totally Agree

It should be required of every birth that DNA testing be done and the child match the father named on the birth certificate, or the father be identified as "unknown." Saves a lot of folderol later.

[old mark]

88. One of our neighbors spends her child support money on crack.

Then comes to her ex husband's house and steals what ever she or her boyfriend can find to sell for more. Police won't interfere in this as they say it is a "domestic" matter...even when her boyfriend shot out the window on her ex's car.

mark

[WolverineDG]

106. and you haven't reported her to child protective services?

:thumbsdown:

dg

[old mark]

131. They are aware of her - the husband has a lawyer and has just got custody

of all the minor kids but one, and they split her. Mom calls the police and judges to complain about him beating her, etc, which he does not do, but they believe her over him.

We think she is fucking at least some of the local police department.

mark

[WolverineDG]

98. Moral of the story

if you get served with court documents alleging you are the father of a child you know or suspect is not yours, DON'T IGNORE THEM.

dg

[Gwendolyn]

110. Wise words! n/t

[WolverineDG]

112. More wise words:

Don't want to pay child support? KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS OR GET FIXED!

Simple enough.

dg

[blueamy66]

116. Nah, it's not that simple.

:crazy:

[uppityperson]

118. If you don't want to risk pregnancy, don't risk it. If you do somehow participate in a pregnancy

be prepared to deal with the aftermath responsibly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

121. Actually that is not sufficient nor true

- If you are named as the father, you may get stuck with temporary child support that will not get repaid
- If the court finds there is a bond to the child, the man can be made to pay even if the real father is known

[WolverineDG]

122. If you sit on your rights, you desereve what you get

If a court finds you have bonded with a child that's not yours, that means you have been served with a lawsuit. If you ignore it or don't try to fight it, don't come crying later about having to pay child support for a kid that's not yours.

And I've yet to come across your second situation, because the courts go after the bio-dad unless his rights have been terminated & someone else steps in & adopts the child.

dg

[ProgressiveProfessor]

123. Those are not examples of men ignoring subpoenas, but men screwed by the system

In the case of bonding with a child, the court mandated child support even though all acknowledged he was not the father of the child. The man lost in court. The logic was since the child needed support and the man had bonded with it, he had to pay, regardless that there was no blood or legal ties.

In the case of temp support, family courts can require temporary support while the case is in litigation. It normally takes a sworn statement from the mother and/or the DCS case worker. This is pre-litigation and even if the man wins, the interim support is not repaid.

Those kind of cases are based on "best interest of the child" trumping facts. Its something in dire need of reform.

[WolverineDG]

132. A court cannot order you to do a damn thing

unless you have been served & given notice of the hearing. If you choose to ignore that, then you are not "screwed by the system." You screwed yourself.

I know you want to desperately believe that women can simply waltz into court every day & make shit up so men have to pay them child support for kids that aren't theirs, then use the money for mani-pedis, fancy cars, trips, & homes, all without the "poor man" ever knowing about it until the sheriff comes to throw him in jail. Unless she files a lawsuit & the man is served, it doesn't happen. Sorry, you lose.

dg

[ProgressiveProfessor]

134. Interim support orders do exist and be can done on an ex parte basis

with the support of DCS. Seen it here in CA.

[WolverineDG]

137. Can't be done where I live

and I live in an evil red state. Oh well.

Can't have temporary orders unless there's been service of process & notice of hearing.

dg

[ProgressiveProfessor]

143. DCS here referred to it as emergency support, though in fact it is interim support

since a final judgment has not been rendered.

I have seen this a few times, In one case in the affidavit that I read, the DCS worker claimed the father was actively avoiding them by not answering the door when they came to his residence. What was omitted was that was during the work day, when most of us, including the notional father was at work. The pressing need for support coupled with the DCS statement that the father was avoiding them and any contact with the mother got a court order for emergency support. That DCS can get those orders should surprise no one. They can take children away with less (refusal to admit them can get an order in some jurisdictions).

DCS is under a lot of pressure to identify the fathers and get judgments against them. Like cops, DCS employees are judged in part on their metrics (none dare call it quotas). Its a recipe for over zealousness. Its not going to get any better with the pressure on state budgets.

[WindRiverMan]

153. Temporary Orders are granted all the time without a court hearing..

The courts de facto grant most emergency orders and restraining orders. Hell, a women filed a restraining order against David Letterman for "entering her home through her tv" and "causing her distress" and the judge granted the damned temporary order even though she lived in California and had never known Letterman and was obviosly cuckoo bananas loony toons.

The damned judge said "well I did not see where it could hurt anyone". WTF? How about hurting Leterman's rights? reputation? etc. The judge finally rescinded the order, but the fact that he allowed it in the first place tells you where our family courts operate from.

[WindRiverMan]

152. Wow! So if someone makes false allegations against you...

it is YOUR responsibility to prove your innocence instead of THEIR responsibility to prove your guilt? and if you don't defend yourself like a rapid grizzly you get what you deserve???

Wolverine, you stated in an earlier post you were surprised someone was a liberal, hell I am surprised YOU are a liberal. You just esposed communist USSR policies but you hide it with "child's best interest" nonsense.

IF SOMEONE LIES TO YOU FOR TWENTY YEARS AND TAKES ADVANTAGE OF YOU, YOU ARE THE VICTIM NOT THE PERPETRATOR!!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

172. DG is right that when served, you have to respond.

Family court is not about facts but the best interest of the child. Its an environment that encourages fraud and deceit much more so than any other area of law in the US. It really is shameful the damage it does.

- The mother can put anyone's name on the birth certificate. The guy can sue to get it off.
- DCS will go after the named father for support if the mother is indigent or on welfare.
Sometimes if you are obviously not the father, you can stop them from garnishing
wages, seizing funds in a checking account, etc. Sometimes you will need to go to court.
- You will pay for the DNA tests.
- If interim support is ordered, and later you are declared not the father and not
responsible for any support, you will never get your money back.
- Occasionally support orders get issued without legal service with the support
of DCS. That policy varies from county to county. Even if its not you, recovering
your money will not be possible.
- Family court tends to rely on the advice from DCS. If they think you are the
father, you are in for a long hard fight.
- DCS has been known to support fraudulent claims. They are not accountable and
can not be sued as a entity or individually.
- Blood relationship or adoption are not the only tests used for child support.
Live with a woman who has kids and if they call you Dad, you could easily be paying child support

Given the level of abuse (by all parties and lawyers) I feel the entire system needs an overhaul...but I doubt I will see it in my lifetime.

[lexanman]

126. state child support officials

need to be in prison along with the judge

[McCamy Taylor]

128. If he allowed his name to be put on the birth certificate, it is hard to undo it later.

Especially if he and the mother were married when the baby was born. Men are not automatically off the hook for child support just because they can get a paternity test later. The courts will sometimes insist that because the man acted as the father when the child was young, he has to continue his support.

Imagine what would happen if men accepted babies because they are cute and their mothers are young. But ten years later, mom isn't so young anymore, and dad wants out...and wants to abandon the now 10 year old child who has always called him dad? If he knows that he can duck out of child support by declaring the child not his, he may well do so---which scars the child for life. If he has no economic incentive to reject the child formally, he is more likely to stay in the child's life.


Consider adoptive parents. If they separate, both of them have to keep paying, because they agreed to take care of a child that was not theirs. The man who puts his name on the birth certificate is just as liable as any adoptive parent. He is saying to the world "I agree to take care of this child." If he knows that it is some one else's child, then why isn't the other man being given the right to claim his child? Maybe dad wants to tie the mother to him, so he in essence steals a baby. And then years later, he wants to give it back.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. The man does not get a choice of what is on the birth certificate

As for your point about acting like a parent makes you responsible...consider the man who moves in with a woman with a small child. A few years later they break up. Courts have held that generates the requirement for child support, knowing full well it is not his and was not adopted by him.

And I repeat...the man has no choice if his name is on a birth certificate or not.

[WolverineDG]

138. He had the choice of keeping it in his pants, though nt

[FreakinDJ]

140. She had the choice of not taking her pants off too

[WolverineDG]

148. So men should always be able to shirk their responsibilities?

Love love LOVE the sexist comments on this thread!

dg

[FreakinDJ]

163. He WAS NOT FATHER - What Responcibility

Earth to Man-Hating, Maladjusted Sexist Biaaaach - the child wasn't his

Oh I know he was a man so it must have been his fault - talk about your sexist FAILED LOGIC

Get a Clue and get some sex

Maybe you'll be able to calm down then

[ProgressiveProfessor]

144. The mother can put down Barack Obama or George Bush. The position of their pants does not matter

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

151. Actually she doesn't for the birth certificate. She does if she wants long term child support etc.

Number of cases of this over the years. A man can sue to have his name removed.

[Taitertots]

139. Here is how the system should work

If anyone asks for child support, the other person should have the option to take the child instead of pay support. If they refuse to take the child they have to pay support. If you need the support the child and the money should stay with the other person.

The courts should demand a DNA test to even begin hearings about child support. They should also demand tax returns to assess the supporters wealth.


I know a guy who owes $90,000 in back child support. The mother refused to allow him into the two children's lives. She went to court when they were teenagers to get the money to get back at him, for getting her and her mother in trouble when he caught them stealing from him. The children are grown up now, so she is going to use all the money exclusively for herself.
I'm pretty sure by now he has a warrant, but there is nothing he can do. He can't pay the money, he barely makes $15,000 a year as it is.

[WolverineDG]

150. So what you're saying is a woman should be punished for having children

by being forced to surrender her children to the asshat who probably abused her & then abandoned her! Wow, what a nice little liberal you are!

All the men whining on this thread about how "unfair" the system is don't know shit about it &/or are women-haters---a court cannot order you to pay child support unless you have been served & given notice of the hearing (check out the 4th Amendment; I hear you can find it on Google). If you get served with a child support case & don't answer or show up, TOO FUCKING BAD. You were given your opportunity to show up & demand a test. It's not up to the court to demand testing; it's up to YOU.

If I had a dime for every time I had to explain to a client that her husband has a right to demand a DNA test because he told the judge she was slut who slept around when she's never been with anyone else, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.


dg

[sarcasmo]

155. What a nice man hating liberal you sound like.

On edit: I am guessing you are a female lawyer.

[Taitertots]

157. What a perverted view you have

"the asshat who probably abused her & then abandoned her!"
Yep, no one has ever had to pay child support except abusers.



Did you even bother to read my post? I'm guessing not because that steaming pile you dropped doesn't even get close to discussing what I posted.


1.The system is unfair because the child should go to the person who can best support it. If you can't, then the person you expect to pay you to support it should have the option of taking custody. If that option is refused than they have to pay child support.

2.Also, before any proceedings begin the court should demand a DNA test. Getting one should not be an option. That eliminates any name calling or denying, and the courts can get right to the point.

3.They also should be both required to submit tax returns. Whoever ends up with the children should be required to save their related receipts to demonstrate they are properly spending the money. There should also be an option that allows the payer to exchange goods instead of cash, granted they are of reasonable use and receipts are retained.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

162. Interesting

Why are you so angry? None of the post that you are responding to seem the least bit misogynistic or sexist. They are definitely not as mean spirited or nasty as your comments. You claim to be a lawyer, but with your disposition, I don't think you are a very good one. We can have heated and reasoned debates on this forum without calling each other "pigs and abusers".

I will not comment to the facts of this case, because while it is screwed up, this story is the exception and not the norm. I know women who refuse to go through the child support process because it would require them to deal with the dude, and she would rather have the guy out of her life. Like many posters have stated, the system needs to be reformed.

Now with respect to the skanks that these men are getting involved with, I do have some points to make. With the recent murders of Arturo Gatti and Steve McNair, and now the story in the OP. Guys need to put some thought in to the type of person they are shacking up with. A lot of the problems we face could be easily prevented by paying less attention on the chicks fine ass and more on how she acts and carries herself. A hoe is going to be a hoe. They can't help it (and I like that). If you are going to deal with this type of woman, don't shack up with them, wife them, and definitely don't impregnate them. These are the type of chicks you keep at arms length distance. The old saying that you can't turn a hoe in to a house wife is very true. Until dudes wizen up and date decent chicks and only bang the sluts, these stories will continue to make the headlines.

[treestar]

167. For good reason, child support and visitation are completely separate

If one is ordered to pay child support, they have to pay it.

Visitation is a different issue, and that person can file for an order for visitation. Then the custodial parent has to obey that.

Custody is yet another question. Most have joint legal custody with residential custody with one parent / or they split the child's time however they want or however the court decides if they can't agree.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

171. They are not treated equally

Don't pay child support and seriously bad things can (and should) happen to you.

Block visitation, lie to the child about the other parent, claim false injury to the child and nothing happens to you (but should)


Child support was given the no attention and quite properly that has changed. Visitation is still given no attention and should not be.

[Stuart G]

146. This story is the opposite of what often happens.......

which is some guy has a one night stand and then leaves the woman with the baby. So, she gets stuck raising the child alone, and the man runs away. I wonder what the ratio of this run away father is to the father who is not the real father, like in this case?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

154. There are enough horror stories and documented biases that the entire system needs to be rethought

- Gender neutral
- Fact based
- Visitation rights given a much higher priority
- Penalties for fraudulent claims and perjury
- Reasonable certainty that child support is used for that purpose (and yes rent counts)
- Personal accountability for DCS workers for when they break the law
- Gender neutral (its worth repeating)

[treestar]

165. LIkely he was not jailed for that, but for failing to obey a court order

If you are served with legal papers, you have to respond, and in such a case, the first thing you do is deny paternity and demand a DNA test. Then no order comes into being if the DNA test is negative.

The opposite happens a lot more often, where the parent ordered to pay does not pay and if they don't care about a bad credit report, or not being able to get a passport, there is nothing the court can do but jail them, where they don't earn money and still not child support is paid.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

166. Actually you can easily get stuck for child support if the child is not your own