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.
Gotta agree with that. Both his mother and his legal (by this ruling) father are crooks.
"He also wanted to get back about $8,700 in support he had paid"
$8700/13=$669.23 per year. What is this guy paying for, shoes and t-shirts for school.
I suspect 'mom' gets more than that each month from Uncle Sugar. (Please note I said suspect)
It takes two to make a baby.
No, what's stupid is thinking this is a legal problem.
"It takes two to make a baby."
And hopefully it will stay that way.
That, too. But if he didn't know for sure he wasn't the father, then he must have had sex with her. The article said he suspected something a year later.
I'm also a bit unsympathetic about how he couldn't attend the paternity hearing because of outstanding arrest warrants.
There. I fixed it.
I can never accept substituting expediency and bureaucratic convenience for justice. But that's just me.
THIS is insane. another good reason for MEN to learn to control those urges and keep it zipped. there are plenty of manipulative and conniving women out there. this just goes to show you how evil and screwed up our justice system is and how corrupt judges have become!! this guy has NO connection to that kid whatsoever. the law should be plain and simple....no daddy -- no pay. it would teach women to quit playing with fire as well.
I suspect that $8700 is all they could prove he paid. 13 years is a long time to keep cancelled checks. I believe the payment was supposed to be $150/month.
You always put things so kindly, Tax-chick. :o)
They have to serve notice of the suit for support. Of course, if one is evading arrest, as this man was, it would be harder to receive the notice ...
"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?"
Stupidity carries consequences in its wake. Not bothering to respond to a lawsuit is stupid. The consequence of not responding is that you will lose the case, and you'll pay a lot of money. That has been the way of the courts since this country was founded; overturn it, and you will very likely not care for what happens next.
I'm concealing my true nature behind the Molasses Miasma of Niceness :-).
Seriously, it's a Bad Thing for men to be ordered to pay support for children who aren't theirs. It's a Bad Thing for women to be scr#wing around so that they have multiple candidates for legal "fatherhood."
And no matter who pays, the child has no functioning father. That's the worst part.
Best bet for the security of children however is to make 'em pay anyway. After all, a guy who thinks he might be the father has some reason for thinking that, eh?!
This Happens in Ohio all the time
Get Accused
Get Abused
Get your DNA
find out your not the guy
Still you Pay !
And guys are still paying and it's not there kid !
I agree.
That seems like a good idea. I would guess some fathers do not get a paternity test (within the requisite time frame) for fear being perceived as not wanting the child. Or, a mother needs only deceive her ex-husband long enough to pass the 1 year time limit. So, the fathers would not have emotional qualms if they were all required to have their DNA compared.
Yes, it takes two. The mother and the biological father, not just some guy she hopes will pay the child support.
it's not really the same because there is no statute of limitations on murder. In other words, if you convict the wrong guy and release him, you can still go after the right guy. The problem here as outlined in the article is that if the wrong guy doesn't continue to pay support, then no one will end up paying support -- with the kid being the loser
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.