...with these guys:
Posted on 06/22/2007 10:29:37 AM PDT by SmithL
LOS ANGELES—A Torrance man cannot be reimbursed for thousands of dollars he was forced to pay to support a child he did not father, an appeals court ruled.
State laws do not allow Taron James to demand repayment of the money he supplied before a DNA test confirmed that the child of a former girlfriend was someone else's, the state 2nd District Court of Appeal said in a ruling published Tuesday.
James, 38, said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court.
James said he has been in "financial hell" since the case began.
"The fight is to keep this from happening to anyone else," he said.
James was with the Navy in the Persian Gulf in 1992 when his former girlfriend gave birth to a son and claimed he was the father.
The mother later sought child support and in 1996 Los Angeles County forced James to begin paying $121 a month to its child support unit. A DNA test in 2001 proved that he was not the father and he was allowed to stop making payments.
Last year, a court set aside the paternity finding on the basis of fraud but refused his request for reimbursement.
In its opinion, a three-member appellate panel said state law specifies that a "previously established father" has no right to reimbursement when the paternity is voided.
That appeared to be aimed at protecting a child from financial hardship, the court said.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Laurence Rubin suggested that the state Legislature might change the law to make public agencies, rather than parents, responsible for reimbursement in cases of paternity fraud or error.
"Should the state Legislature enact legislation saying that there will be reimbursement for fathers, we would be obligated to follow the law," said Fesia Davenport, an attorney for the county's Department of Child Support Services.
Look at the bright side: Apparently it does not cost much to raise a child in Los Angeles.
Indeed. Injustice aside, that’s a pittance nowadays.
Of course. Those laws were passed to please man-hating feminazis, not to achieve justice. The left doesn’t care, as long as it’s some MAN who pays.
I can understand the idea of not penalizing the child (or children), but on the other hand - If I am forced - by law, with threat of arrest or garnishment of my wages - to pay a bill I do not owe, and then later am proven to not have owed it - I should get my money back.
The only other comment - maybe he should have thought more about who he decided to sleep with out of wedlock... Had he not had sex without being married to the mother - he would have had a perfect defense. Think he learned that lesson... me either.
Oh that’s just BS!
Further proof that the law is against the average citizen.
The courts determined that he was the father without any proof when child support was determined. The guy should have insisted on the DNA test then. It would have saved him from paying from the start.
Ok, not that I’m pure as the driven snow or anything but, “How about not having sex with somebody you aren’t married to,” as the governing rule to adopt if you don’t want to pay child support? No sex = no paternity. I know it happens from time to time that wives are unfaithful but that’s not true in this case.
If you look long enough there is always a “first cause.”
Did you know that your state gets incentive money from the federal government for collecting child support? Your taxes as work. Did you know that the federal government pays states over 66% of the costs of a state to collect child support? Your tax dollars as work. Did you know that the Office of Child Support Enforcement has more employees than the FBI? Did you know that almost 10 Billion dollars of your tax money is spent each year to collect child support?
Did you know that most non custoidal parents are not allowed to pay child support directly to the custodial parent? If the ncp was allowed to pay direcly to the cp then the state would not be able to collect thoes lovely tax dollars as incentives. So it looks as if every taxpayer in this country contributes to child support in some way.
Proof of what Democrat programs are all about.
Instead there should be some means created where when a woman asserts paternity, if she doesn't disclose that another man may also be the father, she is liable for damages equal (or greater) than what he has paid to the child in support. Whether she could then seek contribution from the real father, I don't know. On one hand he should support his child, on the other you relieve the woman of the risk of having to pay up if her lie about paternity is discovered.
The problem is that in California you can be named the father by some woman you’ve never met and be forced to pay child support. Bernard Goldberg in one of his books gives examples. Supposedly a man has 30 days to respond to the allegation but if he doesn’t receive the notice in time, he’s out of luck. The California legislature passed a bill to benefit men falsely named as the father, but Gray Davis vetoed it to please the feminists.
"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
You guys are absolutely correct. If he hadn’t slept with her then there probably wouldn’t have been a monetary issue. I was thinking after the fact I guess. Once it was determined he was not daddy, fairness would dictate that he get his money back. You know they will go after the real father. Never mind they will collect from 2 guys for the same debt. Fairness and our court system have nothing to do with each other.
How about the state requiring a DNA test as dispositive proof of paternity?
This way, there are no reimbursement issues.
One issue I can see with this is that a mother can indicate you to be the father, requiring the father to submit to a DNA test to establish that fact. Being forced to submit to a DNA test probably violates 4th Amendemnt.
Cost of the test is born by the parent not burdened with the immediate care responsibilities of the child.
We seem to get backed into a corner with so many laws that contradict each other. But our Congress is rich beyond belief. That’s all they really care about. Talk about Sickos. Moore hasn’t a clue.
hey buddy...next time, save yourself about 6 thousand bucks and go to an Asian massage parlor
What could be done now for the Military anyway.. Paternity is assumed when a couple is married but in all cases will be confirmed by paternity testing.. in order to reduce the costs to the Military and Prevent Fraud.
Paternity testing should be proforma in divorce cases as well. All men should seek it in their divorces as a matter of course.
Finally if a couple is married it is criminal fraud on the part of the women and how anyone can suggest something different is hard to fathom.
W
Why not automatically at birth, rather than having to tell children that their father questions whether they are really their father? Testing babies means would solve a lot of these issues.
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.