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.
We know how this problem developed. It developed because the American Bar Association for years has deliberately and consciously taken the position that when it comes to paternity, DNA don't mean squat. It is the mother's word that matters, no matter how disreputable and impeachable she is. Everything else in this garbage article is belated ass-covering by the most unethical band of scumbags in the history of western civilization.
Your quote is out of context. What the writer said was: "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."
This is not the same thing as being "mistakenly defaulted in the system" (which the writer did not even state) because they could not be found. Additionally, the underlying problem with serving the papers, according to the article, is not so much that they "could not be found", but "Moreover, substitute service, where the court summons is often left at an erroneous last known address, is frequently used instead of personal service."
As do men
The state is so aggressive in these cases because the child support enforcements agencies (CSEAs) get 2% cut of every dollar of child support that flows through their agencies.
How about the other bigger civil rights violation for the rest of us who have been paying child support through the welfare system to these single mothers who we have never met (or had the dubious pleasure of sharing a bed with). This type of child support doesn't end after 18 years, but happens over the course of our entire lifetime.
No, men do not have that control. Biology does not submit to silly human notions that men and women are the same.
Are you kidding me? I guarantee a man will find his control if you send him a fat, pimpled bad toothed woman. If you can control your urges when you want then you certainly can control them if you think you may end up paying for 18 years.
A man has control of putting on a raincoat even if he has let himself become some biological screwing machine.
After the deed is done, the man has no control, but the woman does. She can have the baby or not have the baby (and she also had a choice as to whether to use a reliable contraceptive, and in some cases has lied about that to the man). She can alos drink and do drugs while pregnant, permanently damaging the baby, but the man has no control over this. The biological fact is that WOMEN have babies, and this process is in no way comparable to the male contribution. Men can easily become biological fathers without knowing they have done so (not possible for women); and men are capable of impregnanting dozens of women in the time it takes for one woman to have a baby (also not possible for women).
"... this is civil court, not criminal court."
Actually, it is an administrative court, subject to the rules under the Administrative Procedures Act. A civil case litigates private rights, not statutory conduct of government agencies. Family court are Always conserned with a public interest such as the dissolution of a state created marriage under it's license, custody of a state ward, or child support under the Title IV scheme. Civil actions are heard in a constitutional, district court.
The problem with the order created without proof of jurisdiction is it was void from the beginning when new evidence provides proof that he was not an "absent parent" under the authorizing legislation.
Take a look at this dead guy case (SCOTT v. MCNEAL, 154 U.S. 34 (1894)) for an interesting perspective on the legal question of jurisdiction.
But they don't because these cases are Civil jurisdiction and not Criminal. Therefore you are on your own. The most insiduous part of the whole process is the fact the courts allow Substitute Service in place of Personal Service! So not only does the mom get to lie about who the father is, she can also have a bogus address served the summons. Thus the target never knows he has been summoned to court and the court rubber stamps all the mom's requests because the defendant doesn't show up.
Now if you believe you can then come into court after the state starts garnishing your wages and prove you are not the father and get this corrected, you are 100% wrong. The courts will not change established paternity, period.
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.