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

[RogerFGay]

And I shouldn't leave out Why John McCain is Losing.

Remember Sarah Palin? She lit a fire under the campaign when chosen as McCain’s VP running mate. She may have been single-handedly responsible for what has become known as the RNC convention “bounce.” An amazing bounce it was – particularly in the way that it lingered. It lingered in fact until it began to appear that Palin’s tenacity as a culture warrior was being reigned in. Going into battle with only the old McCain campaign strategy strapped to her back, she now continues the fight unarmed.

Neil Cavuto is talking about that right now with Meghan McCain.

[RogerFGay]

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

It's Sarah Palin as I understand it. I'm just saying McCain because she's on his team. I don't mean to be talking behind your back, BTW. I think / thought I understood you - you do believe that Sarah Palin's behavior re: her brother in law provides proof positive that she's .... I almost hate to say because I can only use my own words, just trying to capture the view you've presented ... anyway ... you take this to be politically relevant .. an indication of her true character to say the least - right?

[An American In Dairyland]

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

No. This has been a continuation of a semi-private (sort of) debate Roger Gay and I have been having on MND, usenet, as well as here a bit in the past. I asked him if he wanted to take it to email but he declined which I said in advance was fine with me but I didn't say I'd drop the subject with him.

I'm not going to open the can of worms here that would result if I mentioned directly precisely *who* we are speaking about. It would do no good here and would result in me getting flamed and eventually banned in all likelihood because my opinion on this runs counter to the Republican base's opinion. However, I am surprised at how many people here can't read between the lines and guess who the person is I'm referring to. Roger even gave out a big hint in one of his replies to me. I guess this just goes to show what happens when people get blinded by the Party's wants and needs and don't stop to examine what they are *really* getting in exchange for their vote.

[RogerFGay]

*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.

But it's not right for anyone to be the subject of false accusations - don't you agree? That fundamental principle is one worth fighting for.

[Pan_Yan]

It's really nice to know that someone out there remembers something I wrote.

I did remember something you wrote, but unfortunately it did not apply to the conversation. Maybe the bar was set to high. Like ethics in congress.

[An American In Dairyland]

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.

I was not discussing Dr. Rice. Had Roger supported her I would continue to respect him as an advocate for men's and family issues. I am unaware that Dr. Rice has ever personally gone after a man in Family Court for personal gain when she was in a position of power. Maybe that will help you guess the right person.

[Pan_Yan]

I can’t excuse someone morally for not caring for his kids. However, if this gem is as wonderful as you portray him then the mom might have made the right decision to keep him out of the kids’ lives.

[RogerFGay]

Like ethics in congress.

The what?

[An American In Dairyland]

Taser...don’t even go there. That is exactly why I didn’t mention her name. True conservatives don’t defend one person’s bad behavior by pointing out the bad behavior of someone else. They address ALL bad behavior. Current Republicans apparently prefer to cherry pick what they consider acceptable and unacceptable behavior. We put all the blame on one person and give an equally “bad” person a free pass.

This is also one reason why McCain will lose on November 4th. Republicans have a history of picking out bad candidates and sticking with them when the base never should have accepted them in the first place.

[gogeo]

Whom do you respect?

Neither...one I pity, the other I despise.

[An American In Dairyland]

She wants focus on Sarah Palin's personal life

Personal life? Give me a break. Family Court and its records are open to the public, Roger. You know that better than I do. I can go to any court house and request to review any divorce case (with the exception of the few that are sealed by judges). There is nothing "personal" about this issue and there never was. Ms. Palin should have thought about the utter lack of privacy involved in what she was doing when she was using Family Court as a weapon if she wanted to continue on in politics. Don't give me this is about her "personal" life. It is now also a part of her record as Governor of Alaska. I have never called anyone a liar on FR before but I'm doing it now. This goes way beyond just misrepresenting my views, you are misrepresenting the facts as well.

[gogeo]

I'm not going to open the can of worms here that would result if I mentioned directly precisely *who* we are speaking about. It would do no good here and would result in me getting flamed and eventually banned in all likelihood because my opinion on this runs counter to the Republican base's opinion. However, I am surprised at how many people here can't read between the lines and guess who the person is I'm referring to. Roger even gave out a big hint in one of his replies to me. I guess this just goes to show what happens when people get blinded by the Party's wants and needs and don't stop to examine what they are *really* getting in exchange for their vote...

Please, then, stop hijacking the thread.

[An American In Dairyland]

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

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you are not fooling me. You cannot tell these people how BAD the laws are and how BAD the system is for men and father's and *at the very same time* tell them that there is nothing wrong with voting for a candidate who HAS used family court and this BAD system in an effort to remove ONE father from his children's lives.

That you may be fooling yourself on this subject is your problem but I'm not going to ignore what you are doing or stop pointing out the utter hypocrisy of what you are doing. If anyone is ever to change this awful CS and family law system it will HAVE to be done via the ballot box and you overlooking some little female candidate's abuse of this awful system is not helping at all.

[Pan_Yan]

The answer has been revealed several times in the posts now. I was just taking a blind shot in the dark. I missed. The problem with this, as with any other national campaign, is that the candidate you find who is perfect in your chosen topic is probably a miserable failure is other areas. Reagan had his problems, Palin has hers. McCain needs a semi to haul his around. Obama would need a cargo train. Call it the lesser of two evils, call it the best available, but we have to chose one candidate based on every issue, not just our issue. Thats how democrats win. The only thing auto union members and enviro wackos have in common is November 4th.

I’m sorry if you get flamed for having a problem with the VP choice. The galloping herds tend to trample from thread to thread, often with pings involved, and bludgeon opposing views. I wish it didn’t happen. It has happened here on the management level, much to my regret. Yet there are still people here willing to have intelligent discussions on a variety of topics and still be respectful. There aren’t many places like that on the web.

[Pan_Yan]

It was a joke. Ethics in congress is about the lowest bar in modern society.

[An American In Dairyland]

you take this to be politically relevant .. an indication of her true character to say the least

I do not take it as an indication of her *over all* character. I think there are lots of areas to judge that from and one "failure" for lack of a better word in one area does not mean I'm damning her as a human being.

However, when talking about the issues involving the men, fathers, the family...YES...she fails because of the *way* in which she used Family Court to go after a man who isn't even HER husband. And no, I do not believe that people who claim these particular issues are of great importance to them should be encouraged to vote for a person who has already behaved exactly like their ex-wives did with them in Family Court.

[RogerFGay]

I don't see any end to the argument, so I was just hoping we could mutually understand one another and agree to disagree. As a factual matter, I haven't seen evidence to support what you're saying. It wasn't even her divorce and her sister and brother-in-law ended up with joint custody. It's certainly far from clear to say the least. So, what's the value of focusing on that question at the expense of focusing on real issues in a concrete way?

Sarah Palin has also been accused of forcing rape victims to pay for their own kits, whatever those are, and she apparently opposed withholding energy cost reimbursement checks from non-custodial fathers for child support. All I can see so far is that she's now McCain's girl and McCain (Republican Party) has worked hard at avoiding positive change. There's the real meat of the issue in my view.

[An American In Dairyland]

What false accusations are you talking about?

[An American In Dairyland]

I am not hijacking the thread. One of Roger’s themes through out all of the stories of real men is the need to make CHANGES in the laws to overturn this system and the way to do that is by VOTING. So I am on topic here.

[An American In Dairyland]

I’m sorry if you get flamed for having a problem with the VP choice. The galloping herds tend to trample from thread to thread, often with pings involved, and bludgeon opposing views. I wish it didn’t happen. It has happened here on the management level, much to my regret. Yet there are still people here willing to have intelligent discussions on a variety of topics and still be respectful. There aren’t many places like that on the web.

Thank you for saying that and letting me know that at least you aren't one of that herd. Trying to discuss anything here openly and honestly lately has become nearly impossible. Maybe after the election it will be different.