Child support law leaves man a default dad

Tulsa World ^ | October 13, 2008 | Jarrel Wade

[RogerFGay]

Brande Samuels, 29, shows some
of the child support documents from
the Oklahoma Department of Human
Services. Samuels has been forced by
the state to pay child support for a
child but DNA tests show he is not the
father. SHERRY BROWN /
Tulsa World Friday

He promised himself and his family that when he left his prison cell, he would work hard to build a stable and positive life. After two years in prison, he was released early on good behavior and worked for less than minimum wage while he trained to become a welder. But that's when he first got notice from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services' Child Support Enforcement Division that he owed child support, he said.

Now, Samuels owes about $13,000 in back child support, he lives with his ailing grandfather and DHS seizes portions of his wages every month. "The last four years have been the worst in my life," Samuels said about life since leaving prison in 2004. "I went into so much debt." Samuels said under other circumstances he would take full responsibility for the child as a father should.

But he is not the father.

0.00 percent chance

Samuels was aware of the possibility that he might be the father during the pregnancy, he said. But the mother had been in another relationship at the same time.

"She wouldn't even allow me to sign the birth certificate," he said.

Two months later, the mother — Nadia Smith — put his name down as the father when she filed for child support, which Samuels wouldn't learn about until after his Oklahoma prison sentence, he said.

"They make (the mother) give up a name for the potential father. If she doesn't give up a name, then she can't get any assistance," Samuels said about the process to receive child support.

Jeff Wagner, spokesman for DHS, said when a mother is opening a child support case, she names the alleged father and provides "a great deal of information" in the Mother's Affidavit of Paternity.

In 2004, when Samuels left prison and learned of his obligation to DHS, case workers told Samuels if he wanted to fight the original order and get a hearing, he needed a lawyer, he said.

"I just want to be heard," he said. "The court was made for justice. It was made to help make the right decision."

Samuels did not have enough money to pay a lawyer, and no one would take his case for free, so in 2006, he approached Neighbor for Neighbor, a Tulsa nonprofit organization. They helped him prepare papers to require the mother to provide the child for a DNA test.

He found out then that the mother had left the state and had to be tracked down. She had left Oklahoma for Texas, Texas for Iowa, and then Iowa for Mississippi between 2004 and 2007, he said.

Neighbor for Neighbor helped Samuels track her through the courts and filed court papers seeking a DNA test from the child in March 2007, according to court records.

Two months later, Samuels received DNA evidence that the child support had been based on a false assumption. He was not the father — 0.00 percent chance.

"I was hurt. I was actually hurt because they put me through all this stuff without the child even being mine," he said.

After his three years of work, he believed he would be forgiven all his debt for the child, he said.

But it wasn't forgiven, and according to Oklahoma law, it won't be forgiven.

Default fatherhood

In child support cases, the burden of proof is on the alleged father — the accused — according to Oklahoma statutes.

An alleged father must appear at a child support hearing to request a paternity test. If he does not appear, he is legally designated as the father and child support is established in most cases.

Once designated as the father, that person is financially responsible for the child until he or she is 18 or adopted with a few stipulations for petitions which may vacate the original order, according to Oklahoma statutes.

DHS records show that Samuels was served papers to appear for his child support hearing in 2001, but Samuels said he was working in Texas at the time and could not have received the notice.

Wagner said by Oklahoma law someone can be legally served if the subpoena is put into the hands of someone 15 or older who lives at the same residence as the person.

But Samuels said the documents never touched his hands.

Regardless of the outcome of the DNA test, which Samuels spent three years trying to get, it was already too late.

Samuels was ruled the default father in 2001, and legally, DNA has no bearing.

"If you got me on default, you should still have to prove that I'm the father," he said.

This is the second recent story in the media of a default father being forced to pay child support in a bureaucratic nightmare with DHS.

The first, reported by The Oklahoman, was about Micheal Thomas of Tulsa, who had shown that he had never even met the mother and that he had DNA evidence that showed he wasn't the father. Still, he became a default father after missing his initial court hearing.

DHS does not keep statistics on the number of established fathers or default fathers who are not genetically related to the child they are responsible for, Wagner said.

In the eyes of the law and DHS, once paternity is established, there is no difference.

DHS officials would not comment on whether any changes have been made in establishing paternity since the Micheal Thomas case was reported.

---

Paternity figures

Between April 1, 2007, and March 31, the state Department of Human Services established paternity of 20,452 children in Oklahoma —of those cases, 5,208 were forced through court order, according to DHS Child Support Enforcement Division records.

In the same time period, there were 3,127 paternity tests conducted in DHS cases. Of those, 781 of the alleged fathers were found not to be the genetic father and were released from the case.

---

Jarrel Wade 581-8310
jarrel.wade@tulsaworld.com

[wtc911]

yes ma’am. but dead beat dads are still scum. you are of course entitled to your opinion too.

[No.6]

Nah, you have the $10b wrong; the incentive money is all the money the feds spend on the child support program.

Any other money you’re thinking of is reimbursements for ‘IV-D’ (welfare) which is money that’s going out (by the state) to “poor moms” under the federal program and paid back by the feds. Who said funded mandates were better than unfunded mandates?

This is IMO the true travesty of the whole mess. The first cause is the 60s-era welfare system itself, which under the guise of ‘helping the poor kids’ in fact penalizes people for sticking together and rewards people for shacking up or splitting up.

This bit of social engineering creates the situation where moms are alone and on welfare and dads are neither necessary nor wanted. After all if Dad stays in the house Mom doesn’t qualify for the various and sundry programs.

20 years of this and people are tired of paying for professional welfare moms, so another layer of crud is layered on top of the first. This layer manages to make Dad not only unwanted but also a permanent debtor and criminal. Oh yea and as you noticed it wreaks havoc on middle-class people as well.

Now people wonder why young people don’t get married. Heh.

[Pan_Yan]

Maybe his girl friends husband doesn’t want to support his kid.

That comment doesn't help anything. I was asking simple questions to try and find some common ground that can be worked from. I'll go first. Dead beat dads are scum. I agree. Now, what is the definition of a dead beat dad? My definition would probably be more biblical than legal. I don't think the man in the article is a dead beat dad since he is not the sperm donor nor ever took responsibility for the child. However, looking at the big picture if he had kept his **** to himself he most likely would not be in this predicament.

Apparently wtc911 does not believe that RogerFGay has any moral authority to speak about the subject of child support based upon personal issues. I am guessing that he does not disagree with the premise of the article, but the poster himself. If that is correct, then let him present his evidence, and if RogerFGay is found to be a hypocrite then the FreeRepublic Self Appointed Posting Police will hound him into oblivion as they always seem to do.

If wtc911 is willing to do the research necessary and posts it we will all jump on the pillory block and light our torches gleefully. If, however, he is conducting a personal attack to cover for a hidden agenda, such as RogerFGay is insinuating, then he needs to either 'fess up his real purpose or be banished as a troll (viking kitties, lighting, the whole bit).

[Pan_Yan]

Sorry, I forgot to ping you in the above response.

[wtc911]

If he is not, should the law be changed to protect his rights?

______________________________________________________

If he is not the father then he should not be ordered to pay support. The decision should be reversed.

However, any father who does not do his best to support his children, regardless of the relationship with the mother, is scum.

I've known a few and told them so.

One guy cut a deal with his ex wherein he gave up any visitation rights in exchange for not having to pay support (the law in NYS doesn't allow this any longer). His kids grew up five miles away and never saw him. He used to say that they would come to him once they were grown. They did, checked him out, decided he was an asshole and cut him off.

At the same time another friend with two kids saw them move to Minnesota when their mother remarried. Not only did he keep making the payments but he flew there once a month, regardless of the weather, to see them. Did he get screwed? Yeah, stuff happens. But he dealt with it like a man because his daughters were more important to him than anything else. In the last two years both his girls got married. He gave them both away.

Whom do you respect?

[RogerFGay]

Nah, you have the $10b wrong; the incentive money is all the money the feds spend on the child support program.

lol ... nah ... that's not right. It's just extra credit.

[pgyanke]

When you come back... could you try dealing in specifics for the lurkers out here? Your inuendos are really annoying...

[RogerFGay]

One thing you need to realize is that the states wanted no part in paying for the new child support system. They understood it was throwing money away. You might read somewhere that the fed. was paying for half the "investment" as in some kind of partnership with the states. But it had to come up with all kinds of other tricks and spins - I suppose somebody thought they were brainy accounting tricks - and in the end, the fed. was paying for more than 100% of all the costs.

They spend huge amounts on computer software systems development and maintenance and to support something like 80,000 people nationwide. They spend billions on private contractors - i.e. private child support collection companies nationwide - as well as the government staff of course. The amount you're talking about wouldn't even cover their desktop computers.

[RogerFGay]

I recall the definition of “deadbeat dad” quite vividly. During the 1990s it was the subject of thousands of articles and news reports. It’s a guy who abandons his wife and children, can afford to support them, but simply refuses to do so. From this definition, I went to the statistics and estimated that “deadbeat dads” compose about one half of one percent of the total population of non-custodial parents.

[Pan_Yan]

If he is not the father then he should not be ordered to pay support. The decision should be reversed.

It appears from the way the article is written that this was not a call for the judge to make. The law needs changing because it favors the accusation of fatherhood over the actual paternity. Most of these laws were written before positive DNA testing was available. Many of them could be overhauled to allow for this, just as many innocent men have been released from rape and murder convictions in the last 15 years based on DNA evidence.

As for your other query, is it possible that both of them made the right decision for the sake for the kids?

[Pan_Yan]

I think they were having a private conversation on a public thread. And believe the answer is in one of RogerFGay’s previous articles for Mens Daily Something-or-the-other in which he implied, but did not expressly give open support for Condelezza Rice as a Pres/VP candidate.

[wtc911]

As for your other query, is it possible that both of them made the right decision for the sake for the kids?

_______________________________________

The guy who wrote his kids off did it for the money. I knew him well enough to know it from his own mouth. And no, his kids welfare was not part of his consideration.

[pgyanke]

Ah... hmmm... ok... I guess. Thanks for letting me know.

[RogerFGay]

Most of these laws were written before positive DNA testing was available.

No. They were made after DNA tests became available, specifically for the purpose of ignoring proof of non-paternity. You are correct that the judge had no choice - other than to declare the law unconstitutional.

[RogerFGay]

I did say that I wouldn’t be disappointed with Condoleezza Rice as “number two.” in McCain’s Running Mate (2008-08-24). It's really nice to know that someone out there remembers something I wrote. :)

If you're wondering about the conversation between me and An American in Dairyland - it's about something else. She wants focus on Sarah Palin's personal life and the family conflict related to her sister's divorce. I wrote specifically to change the subject since I don't think that's a significant political issue, and focus needs to be on issues. An American in Dairyland sees it as campaigning for McCain - worshipping Palin, etc.

I have not been able to convince her that it's for focusing on important issues because she believes it's an important issue.

[pgyanke]

If it’s the sister’s divorce she’s worried about... isn’t that Taser-boy?

[RogerFGay]

Yes . I wrote one article against one of Newsweek's dishonest soap opera articles on the subject, one called Troopergate – the Ultimate Sham that really focused on the idea that the fed. should get out of the family law business, one mocking feminist attacks - so I have a record of knocking back this issue that someone can call Palin defending if they really want to. I have not however - found a sufficient answer to the question posed in McCain is Right on Fathers’ Rights But Does He Know It? . We need to know whether John McCain is prepared to push to get the federal government out of the domestic relations business or whether judges will continue to serve as scape-goats to preserve the status quo. Or rather I should say at this point, it is the latter by default. From the article text - it is my view that he would have to change his stated opinion to escape preserving the status quo, and he hasn't announced any such intention.

[An American In Dairyland]

You're going to claim that I've been supporting McCain

I made it a point to tell you flat out that I wasn't talking about McCain.

[An American In Dairyland]

Our disagreement was over the Wooten thing - I don't think it's important.

*Nobody* can have it both ways. You cannot lecture on the need for men to vote for better candidates on men's issues and family issues and *at the same time* be a cheerleader for a candidate who personally uses family court as a weapon against *any* man. You are losing credibility every time you insist you can have it both ways.

[An American In Dairyland]

Roger knows what I’m talking about.