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.
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
Makes sense - therefore it will never happen.
Welfare reform bump
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.
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.
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.