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.

[Irene Adler]

Neither the Hite nor the Kinsey "research" was worthy of being called research. Both used extremely biased samples; Hite's stuff was largely gathered by self-selected samples which are inherently biased. Kinsey deliberately biased his samples to raise his numbers for negative sexual behavior of all kinds. Kinsey was eventually defunded by his research supporting instituation (either Yale or Princeton, I believe). Both Hite and Kinsey's work was essentially fraudulent. Magazine surveys are generally worthless due to self-selected samples. I would expect that the Cosmo "research" fits that category.

[RichardW]

My heart bleeds for you. What a sob story. If you had a 97% positive test it is almost a certainty you were the father. However, that is a rather low percentage given the modern technology now available. I have seen DNA tests come back seven billion to one which means that only one person in seven billion could possibly be the father. Your test is not that conclusive so I assume that your test was the older blood testing procedure.

One thing to bear in mind is that if you are the father (and I suspect you really are) you have a child out here that you ought to be establishing a permanent relationship with. This same child may someday bring into the world your grandchildren and other descendents. While it is a financial burden on you right now, it won't last forever. You can look on this as an opportunity rather than a burden.

As the question of age 18, you need to check your state laws. Typically, it will stop if the child does not go onto college. In that case it might extend to age 22 (as in Missouri). However, if you owe back child support you will need to pay that off in full including any interest that may accrue. BTW, if this is your child, then it is your "real kid." Grow up and act like an adult and a loving father.

[RichardW]

Oh, give me a break. Grow up! Be a man.

[RichardW]

If the DNA tests of Clinton were in fact not fraudulent then he is not the father. Simple as that. I have seen "ringers" being sent to provide the DNA sample so this is entirely possible in his case. I suspected so at the time and still do. For all intents and purposes DNA tests are absolutely reliable with the current technology. There is one notable exception. Twin brothers cannot be determined who the father is (last I heard.)

[VOA]

Despite all the measured rationale for supporting the medieval English Common Law standard,
I still find it incredible that "the law" would continue to support an untruth,
now that conclusive methods for establishing truth exist.

I can see levying child support decision if someone is obviously avoiding the subpoena,
but one he is located, produces a sample that proves he couldn't possibly be the father...
it's time to hunt down the real perp!
And charge him the back fees!

But I guess I expect too much from the law.

[RichardW]

Oh, but we did; many times. We had no choice but to pursue the alleged father and subsequent alleged fathers if the first didn't prove out. You surely aren't expecting us to use truth serum on the mothers. We did the best we could under the circumstances, and in my humble opinion, a damn fine job.

[RogerFGay]

Well maybe you ought to be more vigilent in getting your views across to the legislators.

Oh, so now it's my fault. They cheat and it's my fault even though I had nothing to do with it.

For years, women and children were given short shrift in child support matters.

No they weren't.

In 1975 the federal statutes kicked in response to the welfare monies being paid out.

The reforms, post 1975 driven by OCSE (which was created by the legislation in 1975) had nothing to do with welfare money being paid out. Most of the procedures were already in place in the welfare system. The reforms expanded the system to non-welfare cases in which there were no apparent payment problems and there had been a good overall history of payment of child support.

Later on it was expanded to the non-welfare mothers. Since then many changes and enhancements have been enacted to tighten the loopholes.

The original plan and 1975 legislation was propose by Sen. Russell Long, son of infamous Louisiana Gov. Huey "Kingfish" Long -- whose connections to organized crime and White Power and Neonazi organizations were well known. Russell started the rumor about fathers abandoning their children to welfare in order to start trouble -- with the intent to abuse power in the new system. You're a part of that old fashioned Louisiana corruption today.

I make no apologies for the collection of child support monies.

You of course have me at a disadvantage because I don't know you personally. Up till now, it's usually only the women who respond to general issues with personal testimonials. The fact is that many good men quit as employees of the welfare and child support system since 1990, because they just couldn't stand the corruption and the damage it causes the victims. Statistically, we know beyond any doubt whatsoever that the system is overcollecting child support. A wealth of credible individual stories have emerged (a significant number of suicides included) that confirm the extent of the damage -- besides tons of fathers rights groups representing millions of men who have all assembled to do battle against the same injustices (coincidence?) Oh, but then we have your story. BTW: I read somewhere that prosecutors consider men involved in cases related to divorce to be the most dangerous people they deal with. More dangerous than drug dealers and gang members ... Do you think that's true?

A typical employee in the office I worked would collect over $1 million per year in both TANF and non TANF cases and I suspect it may even be greater now. Much of this money was plowed back into the revenue base to offset the TANF money paid out to welfare families. The rest (most of it) was paid to non TANF families.

Most of the money "collected" nationwide goes to middle and upper income mothers who have never been on welfare and likely never will. Note that all money paid through the system is classified as "collections." It doesn't matter whether or not there has ever been a payment problem. All money paid is classified as "collections." That increases the federal funding take, as has the arbitrary increases in the amounts awarded, as has refusing to forgive debt for unemployed fathers and those who don't make as much money as they used to, as has charging men who prove they aren't fathers, as has collecting money even when a recipient can't be found ... The compliance rate overall has dropped since 1996 (even during the economic good times) and is now lower than it was before the federal government got involved. Compliance with support orders in welfare cases has dropped significantly in the last decade.

Again, I say if you don't like the status quo, then get to your legislator/congressperson and insist on the changes you desire. The state employees are trying to make a living just like you make a living and they do what they are required to do under the laws.

You're battling a straw man. Nobody's said that you write the laws. But there is too much evidence of widespread corruption, the system not chosing to play by the constitutional rules to be ignored. Following the history of child support reform, it's obvious that every time a constitutional problem gets in the way, it's ignored until Congress can pass a new law authorizing the violation.

Your suggestion that people should turn to the very people who have made it their business to create and maintain the corruption for help, is bold; but such a large number of ordinary citizens have been forced to battle the corruption for so many years that you'll find it more difficult to find people nowadays that are so naive.

[IronJack]

Oh, give me a break.

Never.

Grow up!

Was there something puerile in my statement? Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, there are no MORAL considerations to your vocation, just financial ones.

Be a man.

How does impugning my masculinity advance your defense? You, and all the "state employees" you so willingly defend, are parasites who prey on innocent men while hiding behind a disguise of altruism. You think that because you commit your outrages on behalf of "the children" and "the law," you're exempt from the moral implications of your actions. Worst of all, you steal money twice -- once every time you pick up a paycheck, and again when you perform your highway robbery on fathers.

In a perfect world, people like you would be in prison.

[RogerFGay]

The Child Support Guideline Problem

[RogerFGay]

You, and all the "state employees" you so willingly defend, are parasites who prey on innocent men while hiding behind a disguise of altruism.

Well put. And don't forget, they aren't done yet. Their "traditional American values" demand the bureacratic take over and control all aspects of "work, family, and responsibility." In other words, Hitler and Stalin aren't dead yet; only the United States of America as we knew it is; until we revive it.

[BearCub]

Oh, but we did; many times. We had no choice but to pursue the alleged father and subsequent alleged fathers if the first didn't prove out. You surely aren't expecting us to use truth serum on the mothers. We did the best we could under the circumstances, and in my humble opinion, a damn fine job.

The courts should do what the law says (in Texas) - If the man fails to appear or refuses a DNA test AND if the mother presents enough evidence to support a summary judgment then the court can rule a man the father. Simply claiming you slept with someone is not (or should not be) enough to support a summary judgment.

Perhaps another good plan would be to provide for significant compensation, paid by both the mother and the state, to a man who is alleged to be, but later found not to be, the father - regardless of whether he has been ordered to pay support.

So for example, if I get dragged into court by your agency & accused of being the father of some random kid & a DNA test shows I'm not, then your agency pays me $20k for my trouble & momma pays me $10k. That sounds fair to me.

[BearCub]

I haven't read your link, but I can guess what it's about.

The arbitrary child support guidelines should be pitched. Child support should be determined based on the actual needs of the kid & those costs split evenly between the parents.

The fact that the non-custodial parent makes more money does not mean the child costs more to support.

IMO, If the custodial parent is unable to afford their (her) share of the costs, they (she) should be ruled unfit & custody changed.

[meyer]

This case could have far reaching consequences if 1/3 of all women in this country have to 'fess up.

This case could have even farther reaching consequences if 1/3 of all men fingered as being fathers continue to have to pay for someone else's "activities".

[IronJack]

Wasn't Kinsey's study group composed of a significant number of prison inmates? Hardly a representative sample of sexual behavior.

[RogerFGay]

Perhaps another good plan would be to provide for significant compensation, paid by both the mother and the state, to a man who is alleged to be, but later found not to be, the father - regardless of whether he has been ordered to pay support.

Such a remedy has been available through law but so far as I know, the courts have been refusing to allow its use. i.e. you can sue the mother. Lately though, there seems to be some movement on this issue in state legislatures. Any false allegation might be treated more harshly in the future.

Through the use of presumptively correct child support guidelines, somewhere around $100 billion dollars in overcharges have been "collected" from non-custodial parents since the reforms were put in place. As you know, many who didn't pay up went to jail. Here's a representative case with an unusual ending.

The government knows they charged too much, they know they violated the constitution in a multitude of ways when they did it. What I'm wondering is, should fathers sue for reparations before, after, or while the people involved in this system are being tried for the crimes? I guess tradition has it that the criminal trials come first. But so many people are involved that's going to take years. Oh well. For them the money is all that mattered. I don't think fathers feel that way. I say the criminal prosecutions are important enough to wait.

[RogerFGay]

Yes, that's roughly what it's about. I posted it because there was a question about history and it has history in it, with citations to sources and everything. It's a long paper and you shouldn't get into it unless you want to develop expertise -- I mean even more than experience would give you.

[BearCub]

I mean even more than experience would give you

Thank God I don't have experience!

[Yeti]

Are you still under the illusion that all women are sugar and spice?

Maybe we could form a Freeper Mysogynists Club or something.

But, really ... I love women, I really do. In a paternalistic, condescending way, I think women are going to have a really tough row to hoe(no pun) for a few generations.

It pains me to think of the tough time my own daughter will have trying to find something like a real pair-bonded relationship. She has already had to deal with it. The first symptom you see is the young guys -- nice guys, not jerks -- always trying to ditch the girl before she has a chance to hurt him. When all the guys see it that way, a girl has a pretty slim chance for "happily ever after."

[RogerFGay]

Thank God I don't have experience!

It just seemed possible because you so easily summarized the right answer, re: child support guidelines.

[Irene Adler]

"Wasn't Kinsey's study group composed of a significant number of prison inmates? Hardly a representative sample of sexual behavior."

One sample group was, anyway. I don't know about the samples for all of Kinsey's studies. It's common to use different samples for different studies, and he worked over the course of several years, so I don't know the composition for every study. But he was was found later to have biased his samples so the results would magnify the prevalence of the behaviors he was researching.