California Law Enables Paternity Fraud

azconservative ^ | 23 June 2007 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

A California Court of Appeals ruled that Taron Grant James who was forced to make child support payments based on a paternity judgment later proven fraudulent is not entitled to reimbursement. James was named as father on the birth certificate of a child born to Tami Burton in 1992—even though he couldn’t have been the father since he was deployed in the Gulf War during the time of conception.

Ultimately, with the assistance of California authorities, Burton was able to bilk James out of $12,000, damage his credit rating, and put him through years of legal hassles.

Writing for the court, Justice Paul Boland said that while the impact on James may have been harsh and unjust, the law has worked as intended. “The law is intended, first and foremost, to safeguard the child,” Boland explained. “The Legislature balanced the competing interests of the declared father and the child and concluded a right of reimbursement should not be allowed.”

“Basically, California law says that any woman can name any man the father of her child,” Boland continued. “Until that man can conclusively prove he is not the father he will be required to make child-support payments. Even if it takes years to rectify the matter, as it did in this case, the man will not be reimbursed any of the money taken from him. To do so could harm the child, who is the most innocent of victims.”

[SES1066]

... California law says that any woman can name any man the father of her child ...

Thank God that DNA testing has become at least a partial answer to this but given the fact that this started 15 years back (1992), I would guess that there is more than simple propinquity involved here.

[Publius6961]

Justice Paul Boland said that while the impact on James may have been harsh and unjust, the law has worked as intended.

Am I the only one who finds this statement both repulsive and a perversion of civilized rules of conduct?

[Publius6961]

Justice Paul Boland said that ... “The law is intended, first and foremost, to safeguard the child,” Boland explained.

Why then, doesn't Boland declare himself the father in these cases, if "any man" will do?

Ever hear the expression, "the law is a ass?"

[Dante3]

I agree with you.

[Publius6961]

Even if it takes years to rectify the matter, as it did in this case, the man will not be reimbursed any of the money taken from him. To do so could harm the child, who is the most innocent of victims.”

Of course the child is the most innocent of victims, but simultaneously, it allows the most guilty of the parties involved, the slut, to go scott free. She normally reaps the major benefits of "child" support.

[Ford4000]

I suppose it is pointless to observe that “child support” doesn’t go to the child but to the mother who is under no obligation to use it for the child.