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.
The courts are no longer honoring the Constitution. I thought that was clear for the past five decades.
I would agree to this sentiment if it weren't for the courts snatching up children that were legally adopted out to loving homes and returning them to their crack-addict mothers just because the idiot woman who signed away her rights suddenly "had maternal feelings" all of a sudden.
Too bad someone doesn't name him the father of their child, don't think he's like it so much then.
Anyhow, that's why all men should always get a paternity test if they're not married to the woman and even if they truly *believe* there's no way there's another man is in the picture.
It's still true, "The Law is an ass".
Brilliant! Watch the discussion take a 180 degree turn: "He's the father--make him pay!" "If he is the father, let him have custody." "No custody! He's not the father! Just make him pay!"
The leftists believe that logical consistency is just a Eurocentric conspiracy and that the facts should not be allowed to get in the way of their greed.
If he was too stupid to know what he was doing, well he's stuck with it. I don't know if he was stupid, but I do know he was immature and gullible, and was tricked into believing the child was his. To continue punishing him for believing a liar and a cheat is not justified, and IMO, he should be reimbursed for all the money he has given this woman. If I were this boy's mother, I would take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary. I think I would file a suit against the State of NC for enacting such a "stupid" law.
there is no statute of limitations when FRAUD UPON THE COURT has been committed. It is arguable that this guy has been a victim of fraud upon the court. Here is Court Rule 60 for NC; and is very similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Rule 60. Relief from judgment or order.
(a) Clerical mistakes. – Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the judge at any time on his own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the judge orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate division, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate division.
(b) Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, etc. – On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) The judgment is void;
(5) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or
(6) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this section does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
(c) Judgments rendered by the clerk. – The clerk may, in respect of judgments rendered by himself, exercise the same powers authorized in sections (a) and (b). The judge has like powers in respect of such judgments. Where such powers are exercised by the clerk, appeals may be had to the judge in the manner provided by law. (1967, c. 954, s. 1.)
According to (b)(3), there is a functional equivalent to a statute of limitation on fraud--one year. Nice to know that our judicial oligarchy actively endorses fraud.
I'm guessing that he has some kind of parental relationship with the kid.
Our small low-powered local radio station carries ads for a DNA lab aimed at men who suspect they're not the father.
Infidelity (or jealousy) is helping to drive our economy.
Is this a great country ... or what?
I'll never forget the court clerk I met with the last name of Boocock.
Knowing myself, I'd have a hard time walking away from the child after 1 year regardless if it's mine or not.
On the other hand, I'd be rather worried that the "real" daddy would show up in a few years to claim what is his.
Sounds more like justice is drunk.
Eeven if the stupidity occurred at age 15 - when he could not legally make his own consent?
Men need to learn one thing, motherhood is pretty much certain, fatherhood was anyones guess until now.
This is one situation where I can honestly say "there ought to be a law....." This totally offends my sense of justice.
In most cases, a 15 year old can't sign away his or her rights.
Chances are this guy will have to cough up because of the financial relationship built up in the eyes of the law since the beginning. He's looking at 20+ grand a year for four years.
Many divorced dads are ordered to pay tuition even though the kid is 18.
Leni
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.