Posted on 10/05/2005 3:43:43 PM PDT by No Longer Free State
Richard Carter of Kansas City is not the father of a 13-year-old boy but must continue paying child support anyway, a Missouri appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling overturns the decision of a Jackson County Circuit judge. It also exposes what experts say is a national problem that pits fairness to men against what is considered best for children.
Like Carter, many men do not attend initial paternity hearings and do not get DNA tests or blood tests. The men then find out too late they are not fathers and still must pay support at least until the children in question turn 18.
Jeffery Leving, a Chicago lawyer who specializes in fathers’ rights, said of the Carter case: “This guy has gotten raped.”
Paula Roberts, a lawyer with the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, said the appeals court judges ruled correctly.
“Legally they’re right,” Roberts said. “If the result seems unfair, it’s unfair because this person didn’t do what he should have done in a timely way.”
In most states, a reputed father has a short time to contest court findings that he is a parent. That period is one year in Missouri and Kansas.
After one year, a reputed father must prove “extrinsic” fraud to get relief. That is impossible to do in most cases, lawyers said.
Extrinsic fraud requires something beyond just lying about the facts, Missouri courts have said. So if a woman names the wrong father, that statement generally is considered another type of fraud with only a one-year statute of limitations.
Authorities say there are many such child support cases in the Kansas City area and nationwide. In July, The Kansas City Star reported about Leroy Jones, who must pay child support even after DNA proved he was not the child’s father.
Few of these cases become public, because the records usually are sealed.
In Carter’s case, he said he did not appear at a 1993 paternity hearing because he had an outstanding arrest warrant. According to court records, Carter first suspected he was not the boy’s father the next year, but he did nothing.
Carter fell behind on his $150-a-month payments and spent several months in jail before the mother admitted in 2001 that Carter was not the boy’s father. Following policy in such cases, Jackson County prosecutors dismissed the criminal case against Carter.
However, officials with the Missouri Department of Social Services also followed policy and continued to demand child support.
Agencies commonly obtain the payments by garnisheeing wages and taking tax returns, but it was unclear whether that happened in Carter’s case.
In 2004, Carter filed to end the child support. He also wanted to get back about $8,700 in support he had paid. Jackson County Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled that the boy’s mother committed extrinsic fraud and ordered an end to Carter’s payments. As is common nationwide in such cases, however, the judge did not order the mother or the state to pay back any of the money.
On Tuesday, the three-judge appeals panel overruled Midkiff, finding that the mother committed the lesser fraud with a one-year statute of limitations.
Carter, 38, could not be reached for comment. Jay Allison, Carter’s attorney in the Circuit Court case, said the appeals ruling “makes sense from a legal standpoint, but it’s a shame Mr. Carter is going to have to pay.”
Scott Holste, a spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, said the state must act to continue collecting the money. Carter did not use his rights and lost out because of it, Holste said. “The state’s concern is that children be taken care of financially.”
Leving called the system unfair. The mother committed fraud, he said, adding: “There’s no accountability for the wrongdoers, and the victims suffer because they have no way out.”
Leving is preparing legislation in Missouri and Illinois that would require a DNA test before any paternity finding. No state has done that yet, although several have passed laws that allow a man to challenge the findings at any time if DNA tests prove he is not a father.
Roberts said fathers who do not attend paternity hearings and wait too long to act should have to pay for the good of the child. That is partly because states have statutes of limitations — five years in Missouri — in which to establish paternity, she said.
In Carter’s case, for instance, the boy would not be able to get child support today from his biological father because Carter refused to show up in court 12 years ago.
The appeals court acted responsibly and refused to engage in judicial activism in its ruling, Roberts said.
“The legislature has every right to change the rules, but the court is stuck with the law as it is,” she said.
Furthermore, we don't know how many times this has happened because they keep such procedings secret.
A caller to local talk radio compared this ruling to not letting a convicted murderer out after finding DNA evidence he's innocent because, "well, we've nailed someone to pay for the crime, so he has to stay."
ping
Blame the folks who sleep around with people they aren't committed to and bring this kind of trouble first on their own children, then on themselves.
Yep.
"In most states, a reputed father has a short time to contest court findings that he is a parent. That period is one year in Missouri and Kansas.
After one year, a reputed father must prove “extrinsic” fraud to get relief. That is impossible to do in most cases, lawyers said. "
It sounds like the law needs to be changed state by state.
This is WRONG!
"Like Carter, many men do not attend initial paternity hearings and do not get DNA tests or blood tests."
In other words, they do not contest paternity. 13 years is a wee bit late to start doing so.
This is common...
Nothing new here.
What if the man incorrectly named as the father is not aware (for whatever reason) of his being named as such until after the initial time limit runs out? Must the guy be made aware of a claim of paternity, or can a woman name just about anyone?
Can you say "Fifth Ammendment Violation?" I knew you could.
"Blame the folks who sleep around with people they aren't committed to and bring this kind of trouble first on their own children, then on themselves"
Good point. For every case there is a mother who was unfaithful or dishonest.
If I had raised a child as my own I would not abandon him no matter DNA tests might show but I don't think that should be compelled by law.
Lying isn't fraud?
So because the guy is slow or careless is sufficient grounds to charge him and not the actual biological father for 18 years or more? That's just stupid.
This is a travesty; one that will one day come back to haunt the "system".
I tell you this much: Hell would freeze over before I paid another cent for support of a child that wasn't mine, and I give less than a damn what some so-called "judge" has to say about it.
If you don't have sex with a woman, it's awfully hard for her to claim you're the father of her child/ren.
This kind of thing should put some ice on men who spread it around.
And yes, I think it's terribly unjust to the non-father. The law should be changed, AND men should see this as a very strong reason to turn their brains on.
The one I feel sorry for in this whole mess is the boy.He was dealt a bad hand right from conception
Not according to this ruling. She can make the claim without your knowledge, work the system for a year, then she's home free because of the statute of limitations. Similar cases have happened.
just DAMN!
It sounds to me like it was the woman who was spreading it around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.