DNA Paternity Fraud Case To U.S. Supreme Court

Men's News Daily ^ | May 31, 2002 | Jeffery Leving

[RichardW]

Your logic escapes me. You complain that I'm trying to hang an obligation on you by sending a slip of paper in the mail. Meanwhile you sit at home and do nothing about the notice advising you of this small problem. Let me ask you a question. Suppose you get a notice from the property tax authorities that you haven't paid your property taxes and your home is going to be put up at auction. What do you do? Ignore it? I think not. Yet, you and others receive this "slip" of paper advising you that you could be liable for tens of thousands of dollars in obligations and all you can think of is to blame the "bureaucrats." A rational person would beat a path down to the child support office and get those paternity tests completed and off the hook. An irrational person buries his head in the sand and finds someone to blame. Which are you?

[RogerFGay]

Couldn't understand your babble.

[RogerFGay]

The guy has proven that the child is not his.

[the bottle let me down]

I don't have to choose whether there's $100 in the box or not. The fact is, I don't know what's in the box.

Not to have to decide is a luxury that the fact-finder does not have. Is there $100 in the box? Yes or no? "I don't know" is not an option.

Same thing here--is the man the father, yes or no? Once the man has been given due process in the form of a chance to participate in the hearing, the court must reach a decision one way or the other. Although Sen. Spector doesn't know this, the US is not Scotland and "Not Proven" is not a possible verdict.

Once a decision is reached, the chances to reopen the verdict are extremely limited. It needs to be. Endless reopening of court proceedings are not in anyone's interest.

If it can be conclusively shown that there is essentially no chance that the man is the father, should some form of relief be available? That's actually a tough question. If the payments are cut off, the child would be hurt in the same manner as if the court hearings had been reopened. Should the guy be able to sue the woman? Yes. Can he prove that she knew that he wasn't the father? In the vast majority of cases, the man may have a tougher time doing this you think.

With respect to the commonly cited example of criminal exoneration through DNA: I'd point out that these are typically dealt with through pardons because the state has no conceivable interest in imprisoning the innocent. The state does have a interest in making sure that children are properly cared for. (I know, I know, there is little or no way to make sure that the mother actually spends the money on the kid--that's a separate issue.) This interest, plus the general interest in having court decisions remain final, arguably outweighs the injustice in making a man (who failed to participate in the process or take the test at the appropriate time) pay support.

[RichardW]

You keep concocting this notion that we are carrying out "illegal" orders. This is nonsense and this thread is degenerating into a total waste of my time. You are very little different than the fanatic who only believes what he wants to believe. As Reagan once pointed out, "Facts are stubborn things." Deal with it.

[stands2reason]

Finally, what is the result when a known father is literally unable to provide financial support now?

I believe it's jail time.

[the bottle let me down]

If the man DOES show up, he can enter testimony to the effect that he is NOT the father, which should carry as much weight as the plaintiff's testimony that he IS. At this point, the case is balanced. Yet the man must take a DNA test to DISprove his liability for the case to favor HIM. In the absence of that exculpatory evidence, the decision will go to the woman, on testimony no more credible than the man's countering testimony.

You're arbitrarily giving equal weight to each party's testimony. Courts routinely hear conflicting testimony and make credibility determinations based on demeanor and the like. Juries send people to jail based on that type of evidence all the time. So if it's "he said, she said" the fact finder can weigh the testimony and reach a conclusion.

If you're suggesting that, in these situations, judges tend to believe the woman, I'd agree. That means that the man would be wise to support his testimony through a test. It doesn't mean that the legal burden has shifted.

[RichardW]

If you will bother to read my original post you will find that I didn't argue that a man who was not the biological father should have to pay child support. I didn't make that case at all. What I said that it was possible the Supreme Court might rule in the plaintiff's favor but that I doubted it. That is my opinion. So far as my job went, I always tried, if at all possible, to determine the actual father of the child. However, we operated within the laws as written and has been pointed out there is a long history of laws regarding parentage. The employees who work in these offices have no control in that process. Again, as I have told many non-custodial parents, contact your legislator or congressman. They are the ones to provide redress. I'm sure if you put as much effort into that process as you have in this thread you might have more success. Bellyaching to me isn't going to solve your problem. I don't write the laws.

[RichardW]

Actually, that is the exception and judges are highly reluctant to put someone in jail when they obviously can't afford to pay. My experience was that the legal system would go out of its way to work out something that was reasonable. Where people go to jail, and where they should be jailed, is when they willingly withhold payment and have the means to do so. In these cases, they "hold the keys to the jailhouse door" and can merely obey the court decree and will be released. As a judge, I would have no reluctance to jail someone who willfully disobeyed a court order. If not, then why bother to have judges and a system of laws if we can simply do whatever makes us feel good and to hell with the rules.

[RogerFGay]

Same thing here--is the man the father, yes or no? Once the man has been given due process in the form of a chance to participate in the hearing, the court must reach a decision one way or the other. Although Sen. Spector doesn't know this, the US is not Scotland and "Not Proven" is not a possible verdict.

Yes it is. That may not be the phrasing of the verdict, but when such a judgment is reached the person bringing the action loses.

Once a decision is reached, the chances to reopen the verdict are extremely limited. It needs to be. Endless reopening of court proceedings are not in anyone's interest.

Endless? Not in anyone's interest? We're talking about a guy who's proven that he's not the father. Have you no shame? Have you no conscience? Finally, have you no brain?

If it can be conclusively shown that there is essentially no chance that the man is the father, should some form of relief be available? That's actually a tough question.

No it isn't.

If the payments are cut off, the child would be hurt in the same manner as if the court hearings had been reopened.

You should take that up with your state legislators. Maybe they'd like to pay something to the fraudulant woman to protect her children until paternity can be established. But there isn't even a reasonable basis for holding the man liable who's been duped.

Should the guy be able to sue the woman? Yes.

While continuing to pay large amounts of "child support" to her every month for 18 years and her attorney's fees?

Can he prove that she knew that he wasn't the father? In the vast majority of cases, the man may have a tougher time doing this you think.

He can easily prove that through her words and deeds she convinced him that he was the father. No cause for doubt was ever indicated. Therein lies the fraud, the obvious and treacherous deception, even if she allowed herself the luxury of uncertainty.

[IronJack]

If you're suggesting that, in these situations, judges tend to believe the woman, I'd agree. That means that the man would be wise to support his testimony through a test. It doesn't mean that the legal burden has shifted.

If the man would be "wise" to support his testimony, while the woman has no such obligation, and failure of the man to so support his testimony results in a statistically unrepresentative proportion of men being assigned paternity based on no more than the woman's equally questionable testimony, then the burden has indeed shifted, whether you, the system, or anyone else will admit it.

[RogerFGay]

As Reagan once pointed out, "Facts are stubborn things." Deal with it.

You've been losing your argument on facts and logic ever since you started. Are you just now catching on?

[RogerFGay]

Again, as I have told many non-custodial parents, contact your legislator or congressman. They are the ones to provide redress. I'm sure if you put as much effort into that process as you have in this thread you might have more success. Bellyaching to me isn't going to solve your problem. I don't write the laws.

Endless effort has been put into such things. It's gone too far now. The people involved in this need to go to jail and fathers will demand reparation. The people in office now don't need to be there tomorrow. Too much corruption for too long. Since you're so free with free advice, let me give you some. You don't want to be in that job when the time comes. Get out while you can.

[Jack Black]

The 28 % is pretty consistent accross the board, regardless if the woman was married or not, or whether the man was the husband or not. About 1/3 of 'all' paternity tests show that the man was not the father, the same percent holds for husbands being tested. This case could have far reaching consequences if 1/3 of all women in this country have to 'fess up.

Well it's not 1/3 of all woman. It's 1/3 of people having paternity tests. Most couples do not have paternity tests for their kids. I believe the rate of another man being the dad is very low, but sill higher than people would guess. Less than 5%. Just a guess.

[the bottle let me down]

Endless? Not in anyone's interest? We're talking about a guy who's proven that he's not the father. Have you no shame? Have you no conscience? Finally, have you no brain?

I'll agree that the presumption relative to married men is archaic and should be done away with--that's a matter for the state legislators. (Note that the press release doesn't say whether one of these presumptions is the cause of Mr. Smith's predicament.)

Beyond that, we're talking about allowing post verdict challenges to the results of civil litigation. The time and grounds for such challenges are limited and should be. There is a time and place for introducing a paternity test--and it's not after the court has entered judgment. Why is Smith only now producing the test results? He should have done so at the proper time.

[the bottle let me down]

If the man would be "wise" to support his testimony, while the woman has no such obligation, and failure of the man to so support his testimony results in a statistically unrepresentative proportion of men being assigned paternity based on no more than the woman's equally questionable testimony, then the burden has indeed shifted, whether you, the system, or anyone else will admit it.

There's a difference between practical facts about societal bias and the legal burden of proof. The legal burden hasn't shifted.

[RogerFGay]

I'll agree that the presumption relative to married men is archaic and should be done away with--that's a matter for the state legislators. (Note that the press release doesn't say whether one of these presumptions is the cause of Mr. Smith's predicament.)

I wondered where Bill O'Reilly got the idea that presumptive paternity in the US is an application of left-over British common law. Actually, the laws presuming (meaning we won't change it no matter how hard you try) paternity that have caused all the problems are very recent inventions, even those that presume the husband is the father, which is extremely appropriate and just in the right context, but as I said -- this is something new. They came along with the rest of the federal child support enforcement crap.

Beyond that, we're talking about allowing post verdict challenges to the results of civil litigation. The time and grounds for such challenges are limited and should be. There is a time and place for introducing a paternity test--and it's not after the court has entered judgment. Why is Smith only now producing the test results? He should have done so at the proper time.

The law allows review and adjustment to child support orders every two years whether there has been a significant change in circumstances or not. Yet you would deny a change in this man's order to pay child support even though he has been to court and proven the ultimate change in circumstances. You have proven that it is easy to invent an excuse to do wrong.

[RogerFGay]

There's a difference between practical facts about societal bias and the legal burden of proof. The legal burden hasn't shifted.

Yes it has. Along with the federal reforms, Congress changed the designation of family law issues to social legislation. The courts bought it for several years so far, treating family law issues as if equivalent to a legislature deciding how big a welfare check or what the state tax rate should be. The shift in the burden of proof occurred due to excessive use of the "reasonable basis" standard for deciding constitutional questions, along with the application of the societal bias that "there is no excuse" for any father to attempt "to avoid his" [presumed] "obligation to his" [presumed] "children."

[stands2reason]

That makes me think of my husband's ex-wife and what she said to him the very last time he was allowed to see his daughter. She said he wasn't her father (ridiculous on it's face--she's his spittin' image) and managed at the same time to complain that she hadn't received her child support yet. The B!tch also told Sam (his daughter) when she was young that her father was only the "babysitter."