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.
OK - then submission to a DNA test to prove/disprove paternity should be voluntary... but if you refuse, then you had BETTER have some other defense - like impotence...
Right. Good idea.
I think that paternity should be established for every birth. The culture we have now of men establishing their manhood by boasts of how many bellies they’ve swelled could be stopped if they were forced to pay to raise those children. Women don’t have to turn to the real daddy so long as daddy government is around to foot the bill. I think a new plan where a mother is not eligible for any child benefits unless the father is paying his share, or it is proven that he is unable (dead, in prison, etc).
If the real sperm donor is found, and has assets, it sounds like there are grounds for a suit for damages. Of course, like this case, only the lawyers win in the end.
The law is full of pre-21st (or even 20th) Century science. In the old days, we didn't have reliable means of paternity testing, and the law falls back on the ancient notions of what to do about it from the days of uncertainty.
What's needed are new laws that reflect modern science. But then, science always moves faster than the law.
At the point in time when everybody's genome is in a data bank, like everyone born in the US has a Social Security number, then it will happen.
At that point, we will have far more to worry about than the occasional paternity fraud.
Let me be clear, legally, my client should have gone back to Court and gotten the child support order changed to have his ex-wife pay child support. But he was not sophisticated about such matters and thought that simple justice would relieve him of having to pay child support for children in his possession, especially when their mother had voluntarily turned them over to him.
I went into the hearing expecting that something would be worked out. The Assistant Attorney General was having none of that. She wanted my client to come up with several thousand dollars cash up front, or go to jail, and pay 100% of the "back" child support, plus interest running from the date of each "missed" payment, plus court costs.
Fortunately, my client had saved receipts for his additional expenses while he had the children. I'm sure they were not complete, but, over the objections of the AAG, he testified to what they amounted to. The judge gave him credit for 100% of his receipts, and denied the AAG's request for jail time, interest and court costs. That still left him owing about 40% of the base amount of "back" child support.
Not a good result, but the best one possible under Texas law. What stuck in my mind was the AAG's attitude. It is not unknown for an attorney to represent a client whose position is both legally secure and manifestly unjust. This was one of those times.
Because he had not gone back to court and gotten the child support order changed, the Judge could not just wipe out the unpaid child support. The Judge could give him a credit for his extra expenses incurred while my client had the children, which is a far cry from what should happen in such a case, namely that his child support obligation cease, and the ex-wife start paying child support.
Rather than just settling for the part of the back child support my client did not have receipts for, which was already a screwing, the AAG was adamant that he had to pay it all, he had to pay thousands that day or got to jail, and far from being a victim of a system whose nuances he did not understand, my client was a dirt bag for not sending his ex-wife "child support" for her to drink up while my client cared for the children.
The amount of anti-male discrimination in the family court system is, uh, criminal.
Yes I think that is very fair. As long as the resulting DNA record is lawfully retained only by the parents themselves. No state or federal database allowed.
W
Great idea, have the state force everyone to submit to DNA testing. Are you serious?
your right, i was kinda tired when i posted that. there has to be some way though to 1. compensate men who were duped into paying support for a kid that wasn’t theirs, and 2) making the real father pay support instead of letting the woman just rely on the government for support.
Just noticed - tonight on CNN 8 ET - men who are not fathers forced to pay child support.
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.