Posted on 04/05/2006 8:14:34 AM PDT by FreeManDC
Laws that protect the fairer sex from rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment all rest on a simple assumption: women who claim to be victims are almost always telling the truth. Maybe it’s time to revisit that belief.
Three weeks ago the National Center for Men filed a lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, who claims his girlfriend repeatedly assured him that she was unable to get pregnant. When she later bore a child, the state of Michigan went after Mr. Dubay for child support.
That’s what people used to call entrapment.
But chivalrous pundits rose to defend the honor of this damsel in distress, dubbing Mr. Dubay a “sexual predator,” “deadbeat dad,” and – horrors! -- a “weasel.” And if you happen to believe that men should be shouldered with the responsibilities and women enjoy all the rights, their criticisms certainly ring true.
Recently That's Life! magazine polled 5,000 women and asked them if they would lie to get pregnant. Two-fifths of the women – 42% to be exact – said “yes,” according to NCM’s Kingsley Morse.
Yikes!
But that was just a hypothetical survey. Women would never stick it to a man they actually knew. Or would they?
Consider the paternity scam. Here’s how it works:
Find any dim-witted man to get you pregnant. Then look up the name of some unsuspecting Joe who’s got a steady job – it doesn’t matter that you never met the poor bloke. Put his name on the baby’s birth certificate.
Now cross your fingers and hope the man is out of town when the sheriff delivers the papers. In California, such default judgments account for 70% of paternity decisions, according to a 2003 study by the Urban Institute.
Or defraud one of your previous boyfriends, assuming he’s a good breadwinner, of course. That’s what happened to Carnell Smith of Georgia, who willingly assumed financial responsibility for a child, shelling out more than $40,000 in child support over an 11-year period. But when the mother went to court to up the payments, Smith requested genetic testing. That’s when he learned, to his great surprise, that he wasn’t the girl’s father.
Stung by the injustice, Mr. Smith founded Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, [http://paternityfraud.com/pf_fight_back.html] a group that works to protect men from being cheated by these modern-day Welfare Queens.
Last year Michael Gilding, sociology professor at Swinburne University in Australia, reviewed studies from around the world, and concluded that 1-3% of children were fathered by someone other than the man who believes he’s the daddy.
Let’s run the math. Four million children are born in the United States each year. Using the mid-range 2% figure, that means 80,000 men become victims of paternity fraud.
Yikes again!
Ready for the next scam?
This one involves false allegations of domestic violence. Each year, one million restraining orders are issued that serve to evict a person – usually a man -- from his own home.
Restraining orders have become so commonplace that family lawyers refer to them as silver bullets, slam-dunks, or simply, “divorce planning.” It has been estimated that one-third of those orders are requested as a legal ploy in the middle of a divorce proceeding. Not only are the orders easy to get, in many states a restraining order automatically bans a father from gaining joint custody of his children. [www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Threat-to-Families.pdf]
So the restraining order granted on the flimsy grounds that he caused “emotional distress” becomes the woman’s meal ticket to many years of child support payments. Prosecutors never go after persons who commit perjury, anyway.
And state welfare agencies don’t get upset either, because the federal Office for Child Support Enforcement reimburses 66% of the costs of states’ child support enforcement activities. Think of it as a bounty payment for deleting daddies.
So let’s see . . . 42% of women admit they would lie to get pregnant. Each year 80,000 non-biological fathers become victims of paternity fraud. And about 300,000 restraining orders are issued in the middle of a divorce.
Assume a father so defrauded finds himself on the hook for $250 a month for each of his children. Over an 18-year period, that comes out to a cushy $54,000, all legally-enforceable, tax-free, and no strings attached.
In the past the American legal system was guided by the rule, “No person shall benefit from their own wrong-doing.” But now, hundreds of thousands of women replace that dictum with the self-indulgent excuse: “Get while the getting is good.”
This, ladies and germs, is a FACT. Know it, live it.
Why only a weekly salary? What if it's biweekly?
I try not to crucify someone for making a mistake. I guess that's too much to ask a person. Right?
He or she is not a "mistake." He or she is a child. A human being. Who did not ask to be born.
When he went to court he refuted the obvious and provable lies. The judge read the child abuse case and said there was no child abuse and ordered that my son get the kids every other week. His lawyer asked that the restraining order be kept in effect to protect my son.
It isn't fun and it isn't cheap and it is scary to think that she might win. I did tell him that if she does win, he needs to file again immediately and keep her in state.
*applause*
Seems like folks fail to realize that the only person without a choice is the child.
first of all, I did read before posting, which I have explained in my comments, which you obviously didn't read. To summarize for you. The article doesn't say why the woman told him that she couldn't get pregnant. Even if we are to assume he was tricked, he made the choice not to protect himself. This is not the fault of the child and the child should not suffer.
As for the rest of the article, which I still think is deceptive and very poorly written, I explained my view. Another poster very nicely provided me additional information. I then posted a comment " I stand corrected". In the future, you might want to read, before you criticize another for not reading.
Not in Jasper County Texas where his case is handled from. We're in Florida and had to appear, personally, infront of a judge with a rep from the Atty's office, in support of her, before they would accept the proof of payments.
His child support is directly taken from his paycheck and even his employeer sent a listing of the amounts and dates the amounts were sent and they still wanted in front of a judge.
The AG's office is for the custodial parent, they have no responsibility to the non-custodial parent.
Here's a scenario to consider:
A 19 year old with only a high school degree marries the "man of her dreams." They agree that she will stay at home with their children and he will work. They have two children. Nine years later he asks for a divorce. He asks her and his 2yr old and 6 yr old to leave the home. He moves his girl friend in. The young mother has no resources, no job skills, no money--her name isn't even on the checking account. Furthermore, hubby hasn't even paid off the bills for the first child let alone the second one. She is now with her parents and going to school to become a nurse. Her parents and other relatives are helping her rebuild her life. Soon-to-be ex- hubby finally paid child support after several legal threats. Let's make sure we understand there are some real jerks out there and some innocent women and children who are at risk.
I assume you'll take the pdf of the case from the 2nd Circuit in California??
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b155166.pdf
Filed 6/30/04
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MANUEL NAVARRO,
Defendant and Appellant.
B155166
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BY119238)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
James B. Copelan, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Reversed.
Linda S. Ferrer for Defendant and Appellant.
Steve Cooley, District Attorney; Phillip Browning, Director, L. Cruz,
Deputy Director, Nancy K. Ruffolo, Attorney in Charge, and Fesia A. Davenport,
Staff Attorney, Child Support Services Department, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________
2
Manuel Navarro appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to
vacate a default judgment entered against him in 1996. The judgment established
his parental relationship with two boys whom respondent County of Los Angeles
now concedes are not his sons, and ordered him to pay child support. He seeks
reimbursement of child support, welfare reimbursements, attorneys fees, and costs.
We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In March 1996, the Bureau of Family Support Operations in the District
Attorney’s Office1 (the County) filed a complaint to establish the paternity and
child support obligations of “Manuel Nava” for two boys born in December 1995
who had been receiving public assistance. The County attempted substitute
service of the complaint in May 1996 by leaving a copy at appellant’s address with
“Jane Doe,” listed as “sister” and “co-tenant” and serving a copy by first class
mail. The complaint alerted appellant of the danger of not answering the
complaint if he denied paternity, and warned he could become liable for child
support if the court determined he was the boys’ father. Appellant did not answer
the complaint and the County took his default in July 1996. The court thereafter
entered judgment establishing appellant’s paternity and ordered him to pay $247
in monthly child support.
Five years later in July 2001 appellant filed a motion to set aside the
judgment and have his answer deemed filed because a recent genetic blood test
indisputably proved he was not the boys’ father. He claimed that although he
1 Pursuant to Family Code section 17304, on July 1, 2001, the County of
Los Angeles Child Support Services Department replaced the District Attorney’s
Bureau of Family Support Operations as the County agency charged with
establishing parentage, obtaining and enforcing orders for support.
3
lived at the address cited on the complaint’s proof of service, and he never
attempted to avoid service, he nonetheless never received a copy of the summons
and complaint or default judgment. In support of his motion, he noted that blood
tests in a separate paternity action in San Bernardino County had conclusively
proven a few months earlier that he was not the boys’ father. Based on those tests,
San Bernardino County authorities had dismissed their paternity suit against him
with prejudice. Acknowledging the six-month period for setting aside the
judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 had long passed, he argued
relief was nevertheless proper because the boys’ mother had committed extrinsic
fraud in asserting he was the father when in fact he was not, thus depriving him of
a fair adversarial hearing.
The County opposed the motion, arguing appellant had not shown extrinsic
fraud or mistake. According to the County, the mother’s mere assertion that he
was the father was insufficient to establish extrinsic fraud. Apparently agreeing
with the County, the court denied appellant’s motion to set aside the judgment.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
By strict application of the law, appellant should be denied relief. He did
not file his motion to set aside the County’s default judgment against him until
five years after its entry, long past the maximum six months allowed for setting
aside a default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Furthermore,
appellant cannot win relief under the doctrine of extrinsic fraud because mother’s
false assertion that he was the boys’ father is not the sort of falsehood the doctrine
encompasses. (See, e.g., Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 632-633.)
In sum, a narrow, technical reading of the controlling case law and statutes, with
their emphasis on the public interest in the finality of judgments, suggests the trial
court ruled correctly.
4
Sometimes even more important policies than the finality of judgments are
at stake, however. Mistakes do happen, and a profound mistake occurred here
when appellant was charged with being the boys’ father, an error the County
concedes. Instead of remedying its mistake, the County retreats behind the
procedural redoubt offered by the passage of time since it took appellant’s
default.2
It is this state’s policy that when a mistake occurs in a child support action,
the County must correct it, not exploit it. When the Legislature enacted the Child
Support Enforcement Fairness Act of 2000, it declared “The efficient and fair
enforcement of child support orders is essential to ensuring compliance with those
orders and respect for the administration of justice. . . . Thousands of individuals
each year are mistakenly identified as being liable for child support actions. As a
result of that action, the ability to earn a living is severely impaired, assets are
seized, and family relationships are often destroyed. It is the moral, legal, and
ethical obligation of all enforcement agencies to take prompt action to recognize
those cases where a person is mistakenly identified as a support obligor in order to
minimize the harm and correct any injustice to that person.” (Stats. 1999, ch. 653
(A.B. 380), italics added.)
The County, a political embodiment of its citizens and inhabitants, must
always act in the public interest and for the general good. It should not enforce
child support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not
2 We recognize that finality and certainty assume greater importance when
the issue is paternity in a long-standing parent-child relationship, for then the
child’s psychological well being is at stake. Here, however, the issue is solely the
cold-hard cash of child support, as appellant has always denied paternity and has
no relationship with the boys. In this dispute over money, the greater equities lie
with appellant, who has no relationship with the boys, than with the County,
whose obligation to the general welfare compelled it to support the boys when
their real father did not.
5
ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature’s clear directive that
child support agencies not pursue mistaken child support actions, the County
persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an
unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse.
DISPOSITION
The order denying appellant’s motion to set aside the default judgment is
reversed. Each side to bear their own costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
RUBIN, J.
We concur:
COOPER, P.J.
BOLAND, J.
It can also be said that AmishDude sometimes types things that are willfully provacative and unhelpful to meaningful debate.
Probably a very realistic scenario. I was born into a situation similar to this. My mother couldn't fall back on her parents and as a result we were raised in foster homes and group homes. This is why I strongly believe that men should pay child support if they father a child. Sure there are women who lie to get pregnant, but there are people out there who lie about all kinds of things. We learn to protect ourselves. Once a child is conceived, a man should be responsible for paying reasonable child support.
....and A) you obviously didn't read the article, plus B) haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.
It then went on to the possibility of men being forced to pay child support, because they were chosen out of a phone book. There is no example to support this claim. I don't believe that men are forced to pay 18 years of child support to a woman they never met and for a child that isn't theirs.
OK. You want an example-go read Bernard Goldberg's Bias. In the book, he cites NUMEROUS cases of men forced to pay for children they did not father, on women they often didn't even know. In one case, they were looking for John G Doe, and the court summons went to John H Doe. His GF got it (he was out of town) and she was so mad at the idea of her BF cheating on her that she tore up the summons. She confessed what she did when the default judgment (as the BF was a no show) resulted in ganishment of her BF's wages. The court refused to vacate the judgment. They didn't CARE about the results of the DNA test-"best interests of the child" and all that. You are simply wrong to believe that a negative paternity case will let a man off the hook. Maybe in some states, but not CA and GA . If you don't believe me and the others here trying to tell you, maybe you'll believe Mr Goldberg.
Guilty as charged. But Xenu made me do it.
See my post 130
The man won the case. What is the problem?
When you described the case, you said that he was served someplace he never lived. The case says he admits he lived at that address. He was served by first class mail and the sheriff also left a copy with a woman who would not give her name but said she was his sister.
He was served, did nothing, and they took a default. The law gave him six months to reopen the case and he did nothing.
Even so, six years later, he moved to set it aside and won.
You made a mistake just like I did. It's obvious that you didn't finish reading this thread before pulling the trigger.
I'm so ashamed. But I have needs, dammit! I'm only human!
It's ok sweetie, I'll be discreet.
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.