Posted on 09/12/2007 8:16:16 AM PDT by RabidBartender
David Salazar was jailed for not paying child support - for a girl that isn't his biological daughter.
The Missouri Supreme Court heard Mr. Salazar's case Tuesday, and its decision could have sweeping impact on child support cases throughout the state. Mr. Salazar, a former Buchanan County resident, was found guilty and jailed for 28 days for failing to pay child support for a 5-year-old girl whom no one argues is his biological daughter. Even the girl's mother, Shannon McClure, says Mr. Salazar isn't the father.
But under current Missouri statute none of that matters. If a man is married to a woman at the time she gives birth, a court administrative order can legally bind the man as the child's father, regardless of whether he's the biological parent.
Mr. Salazar's public defender, Merle Turner, appealed the conviction on the grounds Missouri's paternity laws are "antiquated," in part, by not allowing Mr. Salazar to challenge paternity with a DNA test.
"In Missouri, where failure to pay child support can result in a misdemeanor, and even felony convictions and long incarcerations, the state's refusal to use simple, respected DNA testing in situations (like Mr. Salazar's) is inexcusable," Ms. Turner wrote in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court.
"This really only deals with situations where the wife committed adultery," Ms. Turner said in an interview Tuesday after appearing in front of the state's highest court.
Buchanan County assistant prosecutor Laura Donaldson argues the conviction followed the law, since an administrative order deemed Mr. Salazar the father and he failed to fight paternity when given the chance.
"Once such an order has been entered establishing (the girl) as the child of (Mr. Salazar), biological paternity is irrelevant," Ms. Donaldson wrote in a brief submitted to the court.
There's a time frame during which a man can challenge paternity, but after that time lapses, there's no recourse.
Both Mr. Salazar and Ms. McClure said they did not have sexual relations in the 14 months leading up to the girl's birth in 2001, according to court documents. The two were separated but still legally married at the time of the birth.
Mr. Salazar was named as the girl's father on her birth certificate because a hospital clerk insisted her husband's name be placed on the document, Ms. McClure has testified. The two even contacted Missouri's Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) to deny Mr. Salazar's paternity after he was notified that he had financial responsibility for the girl.
But Mr. Salazar failed to appear for a paternity hearing in 2003 and was ordered to pay almost $300 a month in child support. Since he failed to appear, the DCSE director authorized the administrative order establishing Mr. Salazar as the girl's father.
Two years later, Mr. Salazar was charged with misdemeanor nonsupport.
After Mr. Salazar admitted that he knew he was ordered financially responsible for the girl but had failed to make any payments, Associate Circuit Judge Keith Marquart found Mr. Salazar guilty in 2005 and sentenced him to 28 days in jail.
Ms. Turner appealed the case to the Western District Court of Appeals, where Mr. Salazar's conviction was affirmed by a 6-5 margin in February.
There's no timetable for a decision, according to a Missouri Supreme Court representative. If the Supreme Court finds a state statute unconstitutional, the Legislature would be the body that addresses the issue.
During the past legislative session, a bill that would have allowed fathers to present DNA evidence at any time proving that they are not the biological parent and shouldn't be obligated to pay child support failed to come up for a final vote this year.
Attempts to contact Mr. Salazar, who now resides in Kansas City, have been unsuccessful. Ms. Donaldson didn't immediately return a phone message seeking comment.
So basically in Kansas your dearly beloved can whore around but you will pay the butchers bill.
Makes sense to me /s
When the LA jurisdiction was challenged, after a couple of months I was told that "there was nothing irregular found about the citation" and I would have to pay. When the bureaucracy is both uncompromising and stupid, such things are inevitable.
Awful - so Kafkaesque. Sorry it happened - what a strange world.
It is that insane liberal thinking. Abortion is fine and dandy cuz a woman has a right to choose but once it is born it is all in “the best interest” of the child. It doesn’t matter if it takes away the rights of another person.
I understand that it is in the best interest of the state for both parents to support their biological or adopted children. But men shouldn’t have to cede their rights to the state or to a child they didn’t father.
The legal and psychological reasoning seems to be that a child deserves a father even if it is only for support money.
Thank you for that post.
So it was about her applying for welfare benefits.
Shannon subsequently filed for public assistance in Buchanan County, and the Buchanan County prosecutor’s office charged David with nonsupport, a class A misdemeanor, on January 2, 2004.
Yikes! That’s a nightmare, for sure.
BTW, I have no personal interest in this. No one I know personally has ever been forced to pay child support undersuch circumstances--nor have I. My only interest is justice.
Why not have the biological father pay child support?
Ding ding ding, we have a winnah.
PIFF. It's just a man involved, nobody with any actual rights...after all, he COULD have been the father, if he'd been living with his wife, instead of separated, which was undoubtedly his fault, whether he left or not...how irresponsible can you be? The child does need support, who wants the child to be left in the cold? You don't want to blame her for the sins of her parents, do you?
(did I miss any?)
...and benefits.
"They" don't pay...he does. My ex-wife dragged out the process for two years, as it suited her interests.
Geez...this would explain your posts...did you actually read the article?
In time, DNA paternity tests will be _routinely_ administered for _every_ birth.
For those who [for whatever reason] do not wish to know the results of such tests, there will be "non-disclosure" provisions. But the tests will still be administered as a matter of course, and the results will be stored in a secure archive, for future references, if necessary.
- John
Oh, no...that's modern feminist thinking. Women have choices, and men have responsibilities. Being born male is the feminists' version of Original Sin.
Divorce filings in my state (Washington) require that the parties declare if the wife is pregnant. I assume that would block this result.
Trying to control it would undoubtedly be considered "controlling" and "abusive."
NO doubt you are correct
All these people have done is tell a variety of welfare workers and reporters that the daddy isn't the baby-daddy. When it came right down to informing officialdom of the facts, they didn't do that ~ for some reason the woman wants welfare, wants to get the "estranged" husband off the hook for child support, and wants to let some other guy she says she's having babies by off the hook too.
Do you know how to spell welfare fraud?
Responding direction to the “ex wife” comment, the couple in the article weren’t “ex” anything. They have to take care of that little problem before anything else can happen.
Benefits ae a form of property.
Accepting inappropriate responsibility for an event he did not participate in...how is that responsible, and how does that make him a man?
Using that same standard, why shouldn't a court require me to pay child support for the divorced lady who lives across the street from me? After all, the same elements are there, including Original Sin...being born a man.
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.