DNA Paternity Fraud Case To U.S. Supreme Court

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

[RogerFGay]

Father Takes DNA Paternity Fraud Case To U.S. Supreme Court

---

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.

[RichardW]

No, but I am familiar with ACES. They were really a pain the derrier as they were always attacking us as not doing enough for their agenda and they were always on television stirring the pot.

[Stone Mountain]

As I said before - I think that it's wrong that you aren't allowed visitation with your child. I also think it's screwed that you weren't informed about the existance of the child earlier. However, I still believe that you are still responsible for fathering that child. I certainly agree with you that there is a lack of parity here, however. It's not fair that you are being forced to live up to your side of the obligations while the mother isn't. However, on the bright side, you weren't stuck for back child support payments, so you did save years of child support - at least you will be paying less than others in a similar situation.

Sorry if I and the others sound unsympathetic when talking about your case - I really do think you have some legitimate gripes; it's just that ultimately, no matter how unconscionable the mother's actions are, I believe you still have a responsibility for that child.

[Stone Mountain]

You lost me. I read the article, but don't see how it pertains. If you're saying that highly improbable events will happen given a sufficiently large sample size, I agree with you. However, that is irrelevant with regard to the probabilities of outcomes of one specific event.

[Free the USA]

You are very, very good at pretending to ignore the point. The point once again is that you have no excuse to renege on a commitment made by you to an innocent party just because you mistakenly relied on the fraudulent advice of some third party. A person with integrity fulfills promises, you may be right to seek justice from the party who defrauded you but you have no right to take out your sense of betrayal on an innocent third party.

[apillar]

I think one of the main problems with the child support system, it is (like most laws) aimed at the the worst case scenario. Many well intentioned men are punished for the blatant violators.

Case in Point:

A "gentleman" that lives down the road from were I grew up had a well know history of being abusive to his wife. Finally the wife got fed up and divorced him, the daughter was 8 at the time.
This "fellow" never bothered to go to any of the divorce or child support hearings, didn't want custody or even visitation with his daughter, so the wife got the maximum amount of child support allowed under state law.
When the father received his order for child support he promptly quit his decent paying job at the local sawmill and told anyone that cared to listen that he would never work again.
Well he went through the system, liens, judgments etc. He didn't care, his credit was lousy from a bankruptcy to begin with and he had his trailor, land and his truck in his "Mama's" name.
After a couple years he was arrested for non payment of child support. He told the judge the same thing he told everyone else, "He wasn't going to pay child support and he was never going to work again." The judge sent him to jail for ninety days, at the next hearing he said the exact same thing. This went on for a year. The judge finally released him in exasperation after the court decided it was pointless to pay for his food and housing -- he obviously didn't care.
That was 7 years ago, his daughter is 16 and, true to his word, he has never paid a dime in support. The funny thing his after his year in jail the child support system seemed to "write him off" and made no other collection efforts.
The sad thing is he always seems to have money and a nice truck thanks to the money he gets doing work under the table and gifts from his "Mama".
To anybody that will listen he loves to brag how he "Beat the System".

[RogerFGay]

There are probably at least a million very strange cases in the US right now, created by a system that is not designed to do what's right in any case. Some of the people living in those strange cases are going to come onto the internet and comment in discussion forums. The probability of that happening is very, very high.

[RogerFGay]

I think one of the main problems with the child support system, it is (like most laws) aimed at the the worst case scenario. Many well intentioned men are punished for the blatant violators.

Yes, that's the most obvious thing in the world; well worth pointing out because of its importance. The laws are presumptive, and they presume that all fathers and further that the state has the constitutional authority to carefully police their every move. Actually, they don't really believe that. But without the "deadbeat dad" excuse, they wouldn't have any cover at all for the corruption that the child support system is.

Your commentary and story brings up a point about the effects of such a system.

The Right of Privacy
In The Constitutionality of Child Support Guidelines Debate, Part II

Normal humans hide from intrusion or shoot the intruder (i.e. fight or flight). Labeled as a move to track "deadbeat dads" the federal government spent approximately four billion dollars developing a huge and complex national computer system for keeping track of personal details and economic transactions of everyone living in the United States. It has been manned by as many as 60,000 state and federal employees collecting, recording, and using personal data. Some functions are automated, plucking vast amounts of information directly from electronic records of financial transactions. 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.

[Stone Mountain]

I agree that the odds of one of those strange cases being posted on the internet is very high. I still contend that is irrelevant with regard to ANY PARTICULAR case one looks at. If we know the chances for an independent event occurring, the chances for that one event happening will remind unchanged no matter how many other similar events are happening elsewhere.

If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that tons of improbable events happen all the time, and people are going to post those stories. I agree with that, and I have myself read accounts of many improbable stories that I believe. That still doesn't change the probability (or improbability) of the singular event itself from happening. Or put another way, I may read about lots of lottery winners, but that still won't change the odds of the ticket I am holding from winning.

[philetus]

"This isn't my specialty area, but I heard critisisms of one or more of those studies"

Waterstraat posted documentation for the studies.

Can you document the critisms you "heard"?

[RogerFGay]

Oh good one. I'll slap myself silly for asking a question. not!

[RogerFGay]

SHOCKING STUDY REVEALS THAT WOMEN ARE AFTER MEN FOR THEIR MONEY!

[agarrett]

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.

  I'm seeing this argument now in a few places, so let me address it directly. You did not make a commitment to the child. Period. The obvious proof of this is that you do not send child support payments to the child, rather you send them to a state collection agency, who gives them to the mother. (I'm not falling for the euphemistic "custodial parent" when it's the mother practically every time.)

  The mother and/or the state is acting as the child's agent, both in gaining the commitment and collecting the money. As the child's agent, they may indeed have committed fraud, and so should suffer any penalties appropriate to that.

Drew Garrett

[RogerFGay]

If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that tons of improbable events happen all the time, and people are going to post those stories. I agree with that, and I have myself read accounts of many improbable stories that I believe. That still doesn't change the probability (or improbability) of the singular event itself from happening. Or put another way, I may read about lots of lottery winners, but that still won't change the odds of the ticket I am holding from winning.

It's not improbable. See here's the thing. You're looking at this as though it is like winning the lottery. You pick someone at random who bought a lottery ticket, and think about what the probability is that he will win. Once the drawing is over and someone properly claims the prize, what's the probability that somebody won? What's the probability that that particular person who won, won?

There are at least a million strange cases in the US today created by a system that isn't designed to do the right thing. It's designed to do the wrong thing. The rate of cases in which the outcome is wrong (although probably do not seem too "strange") is probably about 80% -- so we have around 40 million people effected by faulty decisions. All of those cases exist right now, both wrong and too strange, with a probability of 1.0; all of them.

[RogerFGay]

No, but I am familiar with ACES. They were really a pain the derrier as they were always attacking us as not doing enough for their agenda and they were always on television stirring the pot.

You seem like a man who is suffering from post-traumatic A.C.E.S. disorder. You adopted their entire mindset. You know, people often acquire the characteristics of those they really fear. In your case, you were probably intimidated by the thought of losing your job or being passed over for promotions if you didn't agree with them. So you became like them.

[RogerFGay]

Free the USA,

Maybe this is direct enough for you.

Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic

[RichardW]

That's it. You are outta here.

[RogerFGay]

I'm familiar with A.C.E.S. You're preaching the same ideas in the same way.

[Free the USA]

You are as bad as Roger, simply pretend to redefine the issue and then you no longer have to address it. When you agree to take on the parental responsibility, as this father did, then you have no excuse if at some latter time you change you mind and try to weasel out of your commitments. Check the record he agreed to take parental responsibility, he had indications that he was not the father but chose to ignore the evidence and then quite a while latter he changed his mind and discovered the truth. If you want to fight, fight from the start but don’t acquiesce as to what the facts are and then at some latter time change your mind. This man was more than just the provider of cash; he also took actions in interacting with the child as the father to that child.

[RogerFGay]

We haven't redefined the issue. We're just refusing to let you force us onto your track. As far as you're concerned, if somebody steals your wallet it defines and obligation for you to make payments to the thief for the next 20 years. After all, you didn't stop him. Somehow though, I'm convinced that you'd fight to the death against paying child support if you were in Carnell A. Smith's position. You, I take it are living off someone else's payments, like the thief who stole the wallet.

[RogerFGay]

Citizens Against Paternity Fraud
Decatur, Georgia 30034-1853
August 10, 2001

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Honorable Allison Giles: