Posted on 06/02/2002 2:09:08 AM PDT by RogerFGay
MND NEWSWIRE
CHICAGO, IL - Carnell A. Smith is a father who is forced by court order to pay child support for another man's child. This child is neither his biological nor adopted child. Smith has tried to get the lower courts to overturn the child support order, but they have refused.
Carnell Smith is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his DNA "paternity fraud" case. Nationally renowned fathers' rights attorney and advocate, Jeffery M. Leving of Chicago, has filed an appearance with the high court to represent Smith.
Although this court ruling sounds unusual, it isn't. There are countless men who find themselves in Smith's situation.
Partially as a result of the availability of DNA paternity testing, men are discovering in alarming numbers that children they believed were their biological offspring are not. It was reported that in 28 percent of paternity tests conducted in 1999, the man being tested was not the biological father. Nevertheless, many of these men continue to be liable for child support for other men's children or suffer the consequences of jail.
This can happen to married men because many states adhere to a 500-year-old English common-law doctrine that presumes a married man is the father of a child born of the marriage. Never-married men can find themselves in this precarious position through default paternity and child support judgments. Such a judgment can be court ordered without the alleged father's knowledge. For example, the alleged dad does not show up at court to contest the paternity action because he did not know about the court date. This can result when the alleged father is not personally served notice of the court date by a process server or law enforcement officer.
"The issue is crystal clear. Paternity fraud is just as reprehensible as any other kind of fraud from which Americans need protection. When we condone fraud in paternity DNA cases, we undermine our entire system of justice. It's time to correct this injustice," said Leving.
This is an issue with urgent national significance.
"Paternity fraud is the only crime where the victim is persecuted for the actions of the guilty party," said Smith. "My case is representative of many similar cases nationwide. A correct decision by the U.S. Supreme Court would offer justice and relief to many."
"My petition to the high court argues that the Georgia statute enables the Georgia courts to have the power to force biological fathers to pay child support, but this power does not extend to forcing a non-relative who did not adopt a child to pay," said Smith.
"Making men pay child support for children proven by DNA testing not to be theirs is not in the best interests of children and families. It can also deprive children of ever knowing their true biological fathers," said Leving.
Nationally, this issue has picked up great momentum. Ohio and, most recently, Georgia have passed legislation that allows men proven by DNA testing not to be the father of a child to be released from child support payments. Georgia passed paternity legislation with votes overwhelmingly in favor of releasing non-dads from being forced to pay child support. In Georgia, the legislation passed the House 163-0 and the Senate 45-5. California is currently considering similar legislation.
Leving believes that this U.S. Supreme Court case could bring relief to countless victims of paternity fraud in America and stop the needless suffering of children and families. Otherwise, the laws dealing with paternity and child support issues must be changed gradually state by state, which will be unnecessarily time-consuming and will prolong the injustice.
Contact:
Jeffery Leving, 312-807-3990, or
Jane Spies, 330-534-8948,
both for The Law Offices of Jeffery M. Leving, Ltd.
gotta love it
I'm sure these people who are victims of fraud are so glad the government whom they pay for through their tax dollars is so concerned about correcting a wrong against them, especially when that wrong is fraud and costs them more then a root canal, every month for 18+ years.
When the state starts requiring every parent in this country to foot the bills for college, then I can see doing it, until that happens support should end at the age of 18. I guess everyone has forgotten about the 14th amendment.
Look at it this way. You're an investment councelor who tells me if I send $1,000 a month you will invest it into a fund for me for a return in 18 years. A few years into the payments I find out the fund was never eligable to me, or worst yet, never existed. Worse yet, I find out you have used my money to support your lifestyle instead of investing it into the fund. I have every right to go to the police and have you charged with fraud, I also have civil remedies available to me to file suit - ie, I'm protected from fraud by the law.
As I stated previously, the only group of people I know of that have no protection from fraud are duped dads and trying to justify this action pulling out the tired old "best interest of the child" crap is just that crap. We are either a country of laws that apply and protect all or we might as well turn into a 3rd world $hit hole.
Ever see the movie "Fight Club"? You should
The men of this country are the people who hold it together. It's the men, not the women, who are sent out to comb Tora Bora for Osama. It's the men, not the women, who are tasked to go into the burning buildings to get people out, to maintain the peace in the US, and to climb up 1000 feet of steel to connect the steel beams for the skyscraper
And what happens when the men no longer care what happens to the system, because it has screwed them and their friends over too much? When they choose to withhold their support and defense of it, and just step back and watch it all come crashing down?
And people wonder why "inner city" guys become drug dealers. When you have multiple women who can try to name you as the father of their kids, there's an advantage to having no government-seizable paycheck, having no fixed address, and never telling women and your friends your real legal name
As a taxpayer I believe that parents ought to support their own children; not the hardworking taxpayer. I suppose you believe otherwise and that the government's (read taxpayer) pockets are bottomless and that money grows on trees. This is sort of the DemoRat's philosophy isn't it? I guess we know where you stand.
"It is too easy to predict that if current policies are not rescinded, there will be a large movement of economic activity outside the boundaries contained by the database as this is the only civilized alternative for protecting privacy rights. The size of the black market will increase and the industry that will benefit most will be organized crime. This prediction is based on knowledge so familiar to so many, that it is only reasonable to conclude that this is the intended effect."
SOURCE
Not directly addressing your point Sauron but then your point didn't deal directly with my contention either.
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.