Well, gosh darn Andy, that jus duz not seem fair atall. No siree, not-a-tall.
Posted on 11/30/2005 9:00:49 PM PST by 11th_VA
High Point, NC -- We all know the stories about deadbeat parents. Well, Billy Mason is not a deadbeat dad, he's not even a dad to one particular child. But, he still has to pay for a child that's not his.
Billy Mason says he was 15 at the time he went before a Guilford County judge on a child support case and said, "Didn't know anything about them kind of laws."
"The judge asked me if I was the father of the child. Yeah I'm the father. That was my girlfriend at the time. She was pregnant. I just went in. Thinking I was doing the right thing. Boom. Son you're going to pay this amount."
For years, Mason paid child support until he started to suspect the child wasn't his. So, he took a test.
"Went and took the DNA test. Hey boom, come back, hey you're not the father. No way possible. Zero percent. When I got that letter back from the DNA test, I had to take off work because I broke down. I couldn't mentally do nothing."
Mason went back to court, won his case, and a judge ended the child support. But, this is where the story takes a strange turn.
The county attorney under procedure appealed and a higher court reinstated the child support. Mason must pay for a child that's not his.
"Wasn't quick enough. After a year, supposedly can't come back and say I'm not the father."
"Hard cases make bad law. And this is as extremely unfortunate. The General Assembly has said by statute you have one year to do this. He's dad as far as the legal system's concerned," says Trey Aycock, an attorney who specializes in family law.
Administrative Rule 60 only gives a person a limited amount of time and reasons to appeal a case, and mason did not fall under it.
"The same rule we lawyers use technicalities to get around things all the time, he's stuck with," says Aycock.
Mason will have to pay for a child that is not his until the boy's 18th birthday. Aycock recognizes the injustice.
"But for him to have a continuing on-going child support obligation for 18 years, there is something about that, that just doesn't sit right in your belly."
"I look at all these posters, deadbeat dad, and I sit there, I'm not a deadbeat dad. I've been paying for years for a child that's not even mine," says Mason.
We talked to a judge and a county attorney about these type of cases. The court determines paternity, not biology, so once declared the father, you're it.
They also told us, you lose your legal rights if you don't seek them in a timely manner, and in this case, it is one year.
Well, I could answer that in Colorado to an extent.
Welcome to the club, Billy Mason. Everyone who pays taxes is in some way paying for children that are not his. Your case is just more direct, and painful, and much more of a personal affront, not to mention a financial burden, since you're ALSO paying the same taxes we all are. So now you DO really seem to be getting the royal shaft.
Seems to be a decent 8th amendment claim.
Oasis
I remember seeing then-D.A. Gil Garcetti on TV talking about this, and he was smiling about it, looking very proud of himself that this unjust law exists in CA. It was sickening.
8th amendment doesn't apply in calif./sarcasm
I know someone who was retired and ordered by the court to go back to work to pay spousal support (so his ex can sit on her fat butt and watch Oprah) Justice is blind.
Teh guy appeared to be too slow, in getting about the business of finding out the facts. Late birds don't get the worm.
FYI.
Amen!!!!!!!!
Don't you have to be over 18 to be bound by anything in a court of law? Did he have a guardian ad litem when he admitted to paternity at age 15? Sounds pretty screwed up all around.
I 100% agree. Any other type of conviction can be overturned on irrefutable evidence - but if you're convicted of being a father, there is no such luck.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
All I can say is that common sense and logical thinking has been thrown out the window. Nothing makes sense anymore.
Well, gosh darn Andy, that jus duz not seem fair atall. No siree, not-a-tall.
I think THAT is probably the best argument he could make..
Though, to be honest, the Courts see this as having someone responsible for the care and upbringing of a child.
Same thing with Statutory Rape. Doesn't matter if she LOOKS 18, she better BE otherwise somebody is going to jail.
These two issues (child support and underage sex) are the two moral laws the Courts enforce. Goes with the suggestion that it might be good to know the parents and perhaps even get married before you go have fun in the sack.
Who dat is?
Dat's jus mah baby (legal) daddy.
Uh huh.
Or move jurisdictions and live under an assumed name/SSAN.
Why spend a small fortune on a lawyer for a long-odds shot at a reversal? It might be a better idea for him to petition his state legislators to change this obviously unjust law.
I thought there was no statute of limitation on fraud.
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.