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.
‘David requested a hearing to contest the finding. After David failed to appear at the hearing,’
Hmmmm. So, he’s an idiot that married a whore, and then failed to show up for a hearing that would have ended the matter as it related to him?
Sheesh.
No one accused him of being a rocket scientist - lol.
Fourteen months after their separation, McClure gave birth to A.S. At that time, McClure requested that the child’s birth certificate not list a father. The hospital, nonetheless, placed Salazar’s name on the birth certificate.(FN2)
At the criminal trial Salazar and McClure were the only witnesses to testify. Both testified that while they were married at the time of birth, they had no sexual relations in the preceding fourteen months. McClure further identified the child’s father as Charles Puentes, and also testified that she has since had another child by Puentes.
Indeed.
And the moral of this story is: don’t rush into marrying people without considering all the ramifications.
This may sound uncharitable, but he chose to marry this woman. Perhaps he should be a man and help raise her child as a consequence.
Whoooooops! Never mind. Take the sexpot for all she's worth!
The moral of the story is, only date married women.
Let him pay. Let her pay.
Neglecting to see to the support of the children of the marriage is really not what any of us would consider “obeying the law”.
Best let the courts decide this in terms of the existing law.
BTW, my advice to you too is to NOT GET MARRIED AGAIN, and quit messing around until you get clipped.
This father could have had the baby-daddy hanged for "defiling the marital bed" ~ yet, the children would be confirmed as legitimate by both the civil courts and the church ~ including the Protestant church in 1600s France.
Interestingly enough, even the threat of the death penalty didn't keep these guys from fathering children on other men's wives.
This is the common law, and is perfectly fair and sensible AS LONG AS, AND ONLY IF, bastards have no legal fathers.
Once the Supreme Court declared legal bastardy violated the Fourteenth Amendment, invalidating the marriage and child support laws of all fifty states, all bets were off.
Since marriage no longer defines male parentage, these child support impositions are unjust and should be overturned.
Or, alternatively, Gomez v. Perez (1973) could be overturned, restoring the common law and some sanity to child support.
The status quo is unsustainable.
If it were just one case, I’d agree. Exceptions are bad things to make laws over. However, this sort of thing is happening way too frequently. Too many men are having their lives ruined through no fault of their own. It’s not right for someone to have to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility or crime.
As a woman, I’m saying the women should take responsibility for their own actions. Let who plays, pay.
Sounds like a scam for the woman to get welfare and not cost the father anything.
Notice that every time the guy had a chance to go in and sign some official document or swear that he wasn't the father in a court of law he failed to do so.
His evasiveness suggests strongly that he's guilty of impregnating this woman.
I have concluded that deciding whom to marry is probably the most consequential decision in life. It is wrong to claim iot is a no fault event.
I think you should rephrase that as "didn't keep all these guys . . . . "
The hanging part, at least, sounds good.
It would be wrong - but unnatural at "any time in history"? Nah, in the past it was hard to "prove" paternity. Times have changed, and the law should change with it. No man should be forced to pay child support for another man's child.
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.