DNA Paternity Fraud Case To U.S. Supreme Court

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

[Brytani]

As a woman, I am completely disgusted at the attitudes in this country when it comes to child support.

1. Child support as it's currently being collected and prosecuted is nothing but the ability for the state and feds to establish debtors prison. Contrary to our founding principals and laws, but deemed ok since it's for the children.

2. Goverments set up their child support collection offices to assist the custodial parent (read mother in most cases) but refuse any assistance to the non-custodial -parent (read father) in cases of fraud, mistakes, custody, visitation issues, false charges etc etc.

3. The states are given federal funds for their collection rate causing the state to increase their roles of "deadbeat dads" in order to receive higher federal benefits for collections. Case in point, in some states (Texas being one of them) if the non-custodial parent is out of state an automatic garnishment can be placed against them for CS regardless if they are paid up and on time or not. This garnishment appears on the persons credit report forcing the person to either pay higher interest rates or be turned down for simple things like a mortgage - all so the state can say we have this person garnished and get funding from the feds.

4. The states do not care if the custodial parent spends the child support on themselves, does not work, contributes nothing financially to the child but let the non-custodial parent quit working, or God forbid, lose their job - it's jail time for them.

5. The states have even decided a person over the age of 18 (an adult) deserves child support if they are in school, but no married couple in this country is forced, under penalty of law, to provide financially for their adult children. Non-custodial parents can be forced to pay through the age of 25 if they attend post-secondary education, again no married couple is forced to do this.

6. No state has a law requiring the custodial parent to show through receipts that a child is being taken care of with the support money being paid. They are never asked how they spend their money, yet a non-custodial parent is required to furnish the states with a detalied accounting of their income to justify the amount of child support that is to be paid. Shut up and pay seems to be the opinion of the states and most people who discuss this.

Three states have already declared their child support collection practices unconstitutional, one day the entire country will face the same thing. I hope it happens before I die.

[Brytani]

"Your nonsense about "mailed letter" is uninformed tripe. We required either personal service through a sheriff's deputy or registered mail with a signature. Anything less was unacceptable. It seems to me that the deadbeats populating this forum are getting tiresome."

Tripe? Maybe in YOUR state but that is not the case in NY or Texas, two states I have personal experience in dealing with. A mailed summons to appear is sufficient to satisfy the courts requirement

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.

As a taxpayer I believe it's BOTH parents reponsibility to take care of their children financially, not the tax payer and not the government. The government has no business being involved in family matters in the first place. Why don't you show me in the constitution where the federal government has the right to tell a single person that they must provide financially for another. You can't do it simply because it's not there. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us the following -

1. Show one state where the custodial parent is required by law to spend a specific amount of money each month on their childs need under penalty of law if they fail to do so.

2. Show one state that requires a custodial parent to provide to the state their financal records every 3 years so that the amount they are ordered to pay for the care of their children can be increased.

3. Show a single state that makes a custodial parent show with receipts that the money is actually being spent of the needs of the child.

4. Show one state that requires any custodial parent to appear in front of a judge in the case of illness, job loss, the birth of another child or any other situation to ask that their portion of support for the child be lowered.

5. Show a single state that provides assistance for a non-custodial parent in cases where they have proof the custodial parent is not using the child support sent for the benefit of the child. Free of charge of course, the same free of charge the states give to custodial parents to collect support - for the benefit of the child.

6. Show one single state that requires a single married couple to provide financially for their adult children (over 18) or forces a single married couple to pay for their adult child's education under penalty of law.

7. Show a single state that places a person in prison for non-payment of a debt due to job loss or unjury, outside of the debt of child support.

You see, it's quite simple, you do not want BOTH parents to pay financially for the children they bring into the world. You want one person to be made a walking wallet with virtually no rights, regardless if they are the biological or adopted parent or not. You do not want accuracy, fairness or adhearance to the constitution and bill of rights. You'd rather throw terms around like deadbeat when it comes right down to it, you would throw out the constitution, say only some people in the country deserve protection under the law and support one of the most corrupt, unfair systems this country has ever come up with all the while lying to yourself that it's for the kids.

[Brytani]

Oh yes, a person is so stupid because they do not even get served with a judgement, proves this to the court but the courts say "oh well", you're legally bound because we say so.

Had that root canal yet? Makes me wonder how many fathers you screwed over working as a pimp for the state.

[Brytani]

I would never deny that there are men out there who father children and just run away from the responsibility. Same as there are women who do the same thing. Cept for one simple thing, women have a choice (we can debate the merits of legalized abortion later on) to bring a child into the world or not. Fathers have one choice or in some cases not even the father - pay up or go to prison. Isn't pro-choice GREAT?!?!?!

[Stone Mountain]

Seems this female I knew in high school 12 years earlier felt the urge to finger me for support. I took the dna test and got a 97% match. 97%. That means out of 100 people in that room there were 2 others that were just as likely to be the father of that kid.

Well, I assume you would have mentioned it if you didn't sleep with her at the time that the baby was conceived. Therefore, "out of 100 people in the room, there were two others..." isn't really relevent unless you are contending that during the time of the child's conception, that she was sleeping with 99 other guys. I'm sure you must have realized that you were almost certainly the father when you signed that paternity acknowledgement, unless you can describe what kind of duress you were under that would make you sign an acknowledgement which you believed to be completely untrue. Is there any REAL doubt in your mind that you are the father?


I have never laid eyes on the boy and people like you REFUSE to give me his address or phone number. I am reduced to sending money (which I really don't have) to a stranger.

Now here I do have a problem with the system. If you are paying for the support of a child, you should have the option of visitation, absent some sort of extenuating circumstances. Have you petioned the court for visitation rights? However, whether or not you are allowed visitation, surely you must admit that if you are the father of this child, you have some responsibility for him, regardless of whether or not you are allowed to visit him.

[Stone Mountain]

The fact that I had sex with his mother one time, after she coerced me

Yup, that's all that is needed for fatherhood and the responsibilities that go along with it. I feel for you in that you are being denied visitation, but this idea that you were "coerced" into sex is a little tough to take...

[RogerFGay]

Once biten, twice shy. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Nope. Your ideas don't follow the rules. Rules are rules. You lose.

[RogerFGay]

That's right. And if someone is completely surprised when the Sheriff shows up to haul him off to jail: "What child support? What child?" It doesn't matter. If he can get his old job back or another one he has to pay for 22 years. Doesn't even matter if he gets a DNA test and proves he's not the father.

[RogerFGay]

What do you think of people who argue in defense of the system? I know we should act civil in a public discussion forum, but we should also be honest. If I'm honest, I can't help but sound uncivil. It's like that ethics question: If you had a chance to go back in history and kill Hitler, would you do it? Now I'm thinking, I have the chance right now to be perfectly honest in the face of similar people.

[Free the USA]

Since you are incapable of coming up with an argument you simply pretend that you win. Someday you will address the issue of why you think you can ignore a commitment to an innocent Child who did not deceive you or defraud you, simply because you have a legitimate grievance with a another individual.

[RichardW]

As I told Roger you are both an ignoramus and are posting nonsense. In point of fact both the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent's income is taken into consideration when setting or modifying child support orders. In my humble view, you are just one of the many irresponsible parents who want to have your fun then bellyache, moan and groan when you have to pay the piper. Boo, hoo, hoo! The simple fact is that you just want want a free ride at the taxpayer's expense. Sorry Buster, no sale! Time to pay up.

[RogerFGay]

but this idea that you were "coerced" into sex is a little tough to take...

I never discuss personal cases on the internet. I don't know the people in the discussion or the situation. I just see whatever words they type. It's best to remember that just about everything that can happen does, and everybody can get on the internet. I'm sure you've heard about cases like female teachers seducing young teenage students, getting pregnant, and turning him in to child support enforcement officials. Sure -- it's not that hard sometimes for a woman to seduce a teenage boy, but that doesn't mean that words like "coerce" aren't accurate.

[RogerFGay]

isn't really relevent unless you are contending that during the time of the child's conception, that she was sleeping with 99 other guys.

The number of paternity establishments by DNA tests is so high that there are many non-dads who are paying child support after a DNA test gets a high enough result -- yes, even if he slept with her around the right time roughly. Twenty five years ago people were still laughing and the possibility that there might be advanced life on some other planet. Then one smart guy came along and told people about how many planets there are -- billions and billions. So there's probably lots of life in the universe on other planets.

I of course can't speak to any particular case. I don't know which ones are wrong. Neither do you.

[RogerFGay]

It's just impossible for me to identify with your attitude. Saying "it's for the children" isn't helping your case. We've heard that one before. You've probably missed the first 2 million discussions on people using children for their own dishonest purposes and defending themselve with "it's for the children." But a lot of people are just tired of it.

[Stone Mountain]

I never discuss personal cases on the internet.

This may be, but the person whose post I was responding to apparently does. All I said was that I thought that the idea that he was "coerced" into sex was a little hard to take. Especially because it seemed that he was using that as an excuse or extenuating circumstance in why he shouldn't have to pay child support.

It's best to remember that just about everything that can happen does, and everybody can get on the internet.

He chose to post that he was coerced into sex. Don't I have the right to comment on that? Sure, weird stuff happens in life all the time, and it may very well be that he was "coerced" into having sex somehow. I see that as only remotely probable, however. But the poster has the right to come back and explain his statement, and I may change my opinion as a result of the added information.

I didn't say that it was impossible - just that it was hard for me to accept.

[Brytani]

So not only are your incredible ignorant of a subject you claim so much knowledge about, you're also illiterate. As I previously posted, I am the custodial step-MOTHER of my two-step children, who's own mother (the non-custodial parent) does NOT pay child support. So I need to pay up? To whom would that be?

But this is so typical of people who can not defend their own positions, resort to insults and false logic. Fact NO custodial parent in the United States, in any single state or jurisdiction is ordered to pay a specific amount of money, each and every month to the care of their child. This set amount is only set for the non-custodial parent. But let's not let facts get in the way of your further insults, whining and 1/2 attempts at a defense of a system that is not only unfair but as 3 states have already proven, unconstitutional.

[Stone Mountain]

isn't really relevent unless you are contending that during the time of the child's conception, that she was sleeping with 99 other guys.

The number of paternity establishments by DNA tests is so high that there are many non-dads who are paying child support after a DNA test gets a high enough result -- yes, even if he slept with her around the right time roughly. Twenty five years ago people were still laughing and the possibility that there might be advanced life on some other planet. Then one smart guy came along and told people about how many planets there are -- billions and billions. So there's probably lots of life in the universe on other planets.

What you say is true, but it doesn't really respond to the point that I made. What you are saying, if I read the above correctly, is that even a really small probability of something happening, doesn't mean it didn't happen; in fact with enough trials the exceptions will almost certainly be out there.

The difference is that I was responding to this one particular case. And the 97% probability factor is only the initial probability one looks at. One also looks at the circumstances - for instance, if a woman only had sex with one man, even if the test came out with only a 97% probability that the child has his, in reality, it's 100%. In this case, we have a man who admits sleeping with a woman at/about the time of conception, in addition to a 97% test probability that the child is his. Sure, there is a possibility that she slept with someone very genetically similar to the man at about the time of conception, but it would seem that the probability of that would be pretty low. Given enough trials, will it happen eventually? Sure. Absolutely. But that doesn't make it wrong to draw conclusions based on what we know of probability and events.

For instance, say I have a lottery ticket. Based on probabilities, I assume it will be a loser. I will be right 16,999,999/17,000,000 times. Sure there will be a winning ticket, but that doesn't invalidate my assumption at all.

[aruanan]

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.

Jeffery M. Leving, one of the attorneys who helped get Elian back to Cuba.

[Brytani]

People who argue in defense of the system fall into 3 catagories IMO. First are the ones who know very little about it, they just hear it's a way to get money for children who need it, and in almost everyones mind that is a good thing. They are ignorant about what really goes on. Second are those who benefit from the system and use it to further their benefits regardless of the coincequences to others including their own children. 3rd are those who honestly hate the thought of men as being not as human as children or women, these same people will scream bloody murder if someone suggests joint custody should be the norm or that the state should have the responsibility to help non-custodial parents with false accusations, visitation problems, etc etc with the same furvor they go after "deadbeat dads" with.

[tracer]

Just a friendly reminder that hit men provide a valuable service -- even in a "civilized" society...... 8~)