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.
I always feel so badly for the children in these situations. He's got a mother who was so reckless she doesn't know who the father is (or is a flat out liar). A biological father who may never know, or even want to know, his own child. And some guy who had no problem sleeping around with a woman of questionable character, and then gets duped into paying for 18 years.
The poor kid just wants a normal loving family and all of these selfish fools are at fault for the child not having that.
Any way you look at it it is the child who gets hurt the most.
We need a supreme court ruling to state these types of laws are unconstitutional, as they violate the prohibition of involuntary servitude.
It's not such a bad thing to raise someone else's kid.
I did. But, then again, I knew it in advance.
Right, so a guy who later finds DNA evidence that he didn't commit the rape for which he's been convicted shouldn't be allowed to enter that evidence later because it's too late and he should have brought it up at the time he was charged.
Are you intentionally making a legal argument instead of a moral one or do you honestly believe if it's legal then it's OK to stiff the guy?
Wonder if WJClinton love child was ever tested. What ever came of that case
You should be ashamed of yourself for this response.
In that case "It sucks to be him".
Not right but thats the result of Equal Rights for Women ( rolling eyes ).
Heck, I've been paying for public babysitting/education for 25 years and I've never hand any young'uns.
BTW, question at #45 goes for you two, too.
same thing happened here in 1992... the poor guy was broke, sick and couldn't take it anymore.
he walked in and shot and killed the five women in the welfare office then killed himself.
OK, now that's taking matters a bit too far...
AHH but its always moma's baby, and daddy's maybe. That may be hard for some men to take but, thats life
He wasn't very happy in the hallway after court either he said he was gonna sue the judge i don't know what ever became of anything after that But i've talked to several people who have been in the very same situation with almost the same results
In ohio if the mother cant identify the father she dont get no help they foce her to point the finger which in a way is good because fathers shopuld pay in my opinion but with DNA now being as good as it is she can't just point at anyone shes gotta know supposedly !
Of course they keep things like this secret. The nazi child support racket wouldn't have it any other way.
AHH but its always moma's baby, and daddy's maybe. That may be hard for some men to take but, thats life
IMHO, if there's going to be a one-year statute of limitations, the effect of such limits should be upon payments made and not future payments.
In other words, if you wait 13 years without good cause for having done so, you forfeit 12 past years' worth of child-support payments. You shouldn't have to forfeit the other six.
Yeah - why did he shoot himself?
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.