Posted on 01/12/2007 2:37:50 AM PST by okiecon
LITTLE ROCK
Even though a paternity test ruled out Anthony L- Parker as the father of a child in a child-support dispute, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled today he still has to pay support owed the mother before he took the test.
The opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L- Corbin, says state law and prior court cases make it clear that an "acknowledged father" cannot be relieved of past-due child support.
Associate Justice Robert L. Brown wrote in a dissent that the opinion reached "a grossly unfair result."
In her original ruling, McGowan wrote that forcing Parker to pay -- quote --"violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child."
(Excerpt) Read more at wmcstations.com ...
What we really need is a ballot initiative in Arkansas. I wonder if any Arkansas people here would know how that works.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
All the more reprehensible. The justices should have been more vigilant in preventing this miscarriage of justice on an individual incapable of defending himself either through lack of wealth or wit.
I doubt that would work. The Oprah crybabies would make a fuss and scream about poor kids and deadbeat dads.
"In effect this decision supports a woman's right to lie about the paternity of her children."
Men were innocent until proven guilty.
If this is allowed to stand we are not just guilty bt mere accusation, but even if we are proven innocent: we are subject to the same punative action that the guilty are.
1) This should be appealed.
2) The state should be sued for not prosecuting this woman for fraud and perjury.
3) This woman ought to be sued into the poor house for her deliberate fraud.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The guy is apparently an "acknowledged father" by default, because he didn't show up in court. Now the court does not want to admit it made a mistake. Somebody has to pay for this kid, so they go with the guy who didn't defend himself. The legal system is a joke.
You obviously haven't been following the Duke Lacrosse team fiasco. Nowadays it's verdict first - trial later.
How does one become an "acknowledged father"? If it's through the admittance of this mas, then I can understand him having to pay until he proves he's not, if he would ever want to.
After reading the court decision, it's apparent that had he responded to the summonses that he received and demanded a paternity test when the case initially came up, he would have never been declared the father...and thus would have never been responsible for any child support.
The court DID relieve him of future child support payments (I seem to remember reading about decisions where a court said "paternity test be d@mned. We say you're the father and you will keep paying child support until the kid's 18.") but, during the time that he was acknowledged as being the kid's father, he was responsible for the upkeep of the child.
Imagine the precedent had the court decided otherwise. In our current litigious society, I could see the following scenario resulting:
A couple had been married for 15 years and had a 12-year old child. The husband found out that the wife had an affair and sued for divorce. As part of the divorce hearings, the husband demanded a paternity test on his child. The paternity test showed that he was not the father...rather that the man with whom his wife had an affair was the father...The husband's lawyer demands 12 years of child support reimbursement (with interest) from the wife as part of the divorce settlement. The court, citing this decision as precedent, grants the husband $500,000 in relief for support that should never have been provided. The wife, of course, is unable to pay and is forced into bankrupcy. After the bankrupcy, she is unable to rent an apartment (fails credit check), unable to get a job (fails credit check), and is forced into welfare and subsidized housing with her daughter. The husband's lawyer then sues the state for repayment of AFDC payments that should have been paid...and wins. The husband's lawyer gets 75% of the settlement. The IRS gets 50%. The husband ends up owing 25%.
Think about it: with how courts run today, the above is not an unrealistic scenario. While most of us would say that it serves the wife right. But it doesn't benefit the kid at all. Really, the only one who would benefit would be the lawyer.
Based on the individual case, it seems messed up. But based on the case being able to be used as a precedent for future lawsuits (like the hypothetical I show above), I think it probably is the right decision...and the right law.
Pure BS.
My lord.
While I'm all in favour of reducing any benefit to the lawyers, the fact of the matter is that the two people who have benefited most are the mother and the actual biological father who has escaped any monetary damages. Why is he not being pursued? Why is the mother allowed to keep quiet about who is the real father?
As for your point about claiming back payments of AFDC I presume at some point the state could claim soverign immunity.
As in sovereign.
The old laws just do not acknowledge the new genetic technology. They were written in an age when you really could not know who the father was. In many cases, the laws stated that if a man is married to a woman, he is legally the father of her children irrespective whether he is actually the father.
I understand your doubts. However, all you have to do is put the language of the initiative as:
No man shall be liable for any child support for a child that is not his biological or adopted child.
I would hope the average person reading this would vote for it.
The lawsuit against the woman is interesting. Proving deliberate fraud could be easy in some cases, but not in this one. She will claim she did not know if it was this guy or another guy and, therefore, it was not deliberate, etc. However, I think it could be won.
The problem is this woman does not have any money. She is on welfare, most likely, and the Ark. CSE was and/or is recouping welfare payments.
Judges are sexist. Plain and simple. It is sad but our whole justice system has a set of standards for a man and one for a woman.
He admitted nothing. It was a default order. I would like to know how he was served. It is possible that he was served by publication.
The acknowledged portion is just bs legislative language. The default judgment apparently satisfies it.
I have an idea then. Since the ex-boyfriend/husband doesn't care, why don't you begin writing monthly checks to the child. A man shouldn't be forced to pay for a child that is not his child. If he chooses to do so out of the kindness of his heart, fine.
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.