Posted on 08/22/2006 4:03:20 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
Child support enforcement programs are supported by all sides of the political spectrum, from women’s advocates on the left to traditionalists on the right. While this popularity is sometimes understandable, it has also allowed glaring and inexcusable abuses to fester and grow. Of these, none is more egregious than when men are forced to pay 18 years of child support for children who are not theirs, and who in many cases they’ve never even met.
In “The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud,” a new article in the American Bar Association's Family Law Quarterly, Washington DC attorney Ronald K. Henry details how this problem developed, and proposes some common sense solutions. The problem is relatively new, and stems in large part from the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which restructured the welfare system.
The Act mandates that a mother seeking welfare benefits for her child must provide the name of the child’s father so the state can recoup its costs by securing a child support order.
According to an Urban Institute study, most of the men targeted are low-income and uneducated, and the court pleadings in these child support cases are unnecessarily complex. Many men are left confused or doubtful about the seriousness of the proceedings. Moreover, substitute service, where the court summons is often left at an erroneous last known address, is frequently used instead of personal service. When the putative father does not appear at his hearing, a default paternity judgment is entered against him.
A federal report shows that in many child support enforcement offices, half or more of the paternity judgments are entered by default. Of the 250,000 paternity judgments ordered in California each year, more than two-thirds are entered by default. Even when men obtain DNA tests clearing them of paternity, most courts rarely set aside these judgments.
The men who do receive the summonses and appear in court still face a stacked deck. Henry explains:
“The paternity fraud victim is hustled through the formality, often in less than five minutes, and may not even realize what has happened until the first garnishment of his paycheck. The State’s direct financial incentive is to establish paternity regardless of actual paternity facts. In welfare cases, there is almost always only one attorney in the courtroom and that attorney is not representing the paternity target.”
State child support collection efforts are heavily subsidized by federal dollars. Therefore, Henry asserts, the federal government could greatly reduce the problem of false paternity establishments by reimbursing states only for establishments which are confirmed by DNA tests. States could purchase bulk DNA tests at a cost per unit considerably less than even one month of child support.
States should also act to reduce default judgments by improving service of process and by making the procedure more understandable for litigants, few of whom have legal representation. In default judgment cases, DNA testing should be required as soon as the child support enforcement agency locates the putative father. And states should pass laws or institute policies which allow fallacious paternity judgments to be retroactively challenged.
Because of the indifference of both the states’ child support enforcement systems and their federal funders, no firm figures exist on how many men have been mistakenly defaulted into fatherhood. Henry estimates that the number could exceed one million.
Child support debtors receive little public sympathy, at times with reason. Yet the victims of false paternity judgments aren’t men trying to evade their legitimate responsibilities, nor are they Nicholas Barthas determined to ensure that their exes will never get a penny. They are instead victims of one of the most indefensible civil rights violations in America today--an injustice which cries out for redress.
This article first appeared in the Baltimore Sun (8/20/06).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. Their website is www.acfc.org.
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. His website is www.GlennSacks.com. He and Ronald K. Henry are the co-founders of the Default Paternity Judgment Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to ending the above-described injustices.
I question how a conspiratorial fraud of this type, once perpetrated, could (or even should?) ever be atoned for without violence.
The State of California is a criminal enterprise. More proof right here.
Egregious for sure! Certainly judgments of this sort defy any imagination of justice or personal responsibility.
The reason is obvious: these are all poor, uneducated guys.
I'll bet out of the whole million, you will not find a single middle-class man who can afford to hire an attorney and contest his case vigorously.
If they can't find them, how do they know they are "mistakenly defaulted" into the system?
A woman who falsely accuses a man of paternity, knowing that the accusation is false, is guilty of fraud, and JUSTICE dictates that she must reimburse the man of all child support expenses.
Don't they have access to a court appointed attorney? It seems to me a simple paternity test clears it all up.
Where possible the advocates for those who are falsely accused of being the fathers should seek criminal complaints. Funds which are falsely disbursed and received constitute a felony. Fraud is still fraud, and though the Government may implement any given program, it may not "legalize" or encourage criminal conduct to implement that program. And the Government can not legally authorize a citizen to commit fraud. Somewhere, an attorney or two should find an agency which has engaged in reckless misconduct and file a RICO action against it for engaging in ongoing criminal activity. If someone has received checks for 16 years, and they are still receiving them, each check which is falsely received is still a felony and the statute of limitations begins anew. (IMHO)
I can vouch 100% for this massive fraud by the FemiNazi dominated Family Courts.
And if anyone has been to one of these family courts, they are the gateways to hell.
cautionary story BUMP
They certainly should have access to a court appointed attorney.
But you have to have some brains to see you need help, and ask for it. Many don't.
Evidently you don't understand the meaning of Fraud. It's not fraud if a court rules it such. If a court rules it a fact, then it's a fact. That doesn't mean it has to be true.
The court cannot be held responsible. You are obligated to know that you have been served at a fictious address, not the court.
Not always true, a man has a small window in which to ask for a paternity test if they miss that deadline they are held responsible.
Makes sense - therefore it will never happen.
No they do not get a court appointed attorney because this is civil court, not criminal court. Ironically, I'd rather do 6 months in jail than pay 18 years of bogus child support.
Welfare reform bump
And how is that possible?
I am not suggesting that a court be held responsible. I am suggesting that the person who made the false claim, and who has received the aid falsely, and continues to receive the aid falsely be held criminally responsible. And agencies which can be shown to have cooperated in the false and reckless disbursement of aid should be held civilly liable.
Simple solution is to eliminate any parental rights or responsibilities for biological fathers, except those that they have contracted for in writing. As long as states are interfering with personal liberty by involving themselves in regulating and registering marriages (which I hope will stop in my lifetime), a marriage license could be deemed to be such a contract unless there has also been a contract between the parties specifying that the man will not have any or certain parental rights or responsibilities.
Women have 100% control over whether or not they have a baby, and should not be able to decide to have a baby and then foist responsibility for financial support on a man who never agreed to it, even if he is the biological father. And no, having sex doesn't constitute agreeing to shell out money for 18 years. Irresponsible women will keep popping out babies they can't support until society stops treating them like victims after they've done it.
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.