Posted on 09/12/2007 8:16:16 AM PDT by RabidBartender
David Salazar was jailed for not paying child support - for a girl that isn't his biological daughter.
The Missouri Supreme Court heard Mr. Salazar's case Tuesday, and its decision could have sweeping impact on child support cases throughout the state. Mr. Salazar, a former Buchanan County resident, was found guilty and jailed for 28 days for failing to pay child support for a 5-year-old girl whom no one argues is his biological daughter. Even the girl's mother, Shannon McClure, says Mr. Salazar isn't the father.
But under current Missouri statute none of that matters. If a man is married to a woman at the time she gives birth, a court administrative order can legally bind the man as the child's father, regardless of whether he's the biological parent.
Mr. Salazar's public defender, Merle Turner, appealed the conviction on the grounds Missouri's paternity laws are "antiquated," in part, by not allowing Mr. Salazar to challenge paternity with a DNA test.
"In Missouri, where failure to pay child support can result in a misdemeanor, and even felony convictions and long incarcerations, the state's refusal to use simple, respected DNA testing in situations (like Mr. Salazar's) is inexcusable," Ms. Turner wrote in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court.
"This really only deals with situations where the wife committed adultery," Ms. Turner said in an interview Tuesday after appearing in front of the state's highest court.
Buchanan County assistant prosecutor Laura Donaldson argues the conviction followed the law, since an administrative order deemed Mr. Salazar the father and he failed to fight paternity when given the chance.
"Once such an order has been entered establishing (the girl) as the child of (Mr. Salazar), biological paternity is irrelevant," Ms. Donaldson wrote in a brief submitted to the court.
There's a time frame during which a man can challenge paternity, but after that time lapses, there's no recourse.
Both Mr. Salazar and Ms. McClure said they did not have sexual relations in the 14 months leading up to the girl's birth in 2001, according to court documents. The two were separated but still legally married at the time of the birth.
Mr. Salazar was named as the girl's father on her birth certificate because a hospital clerk insisted her husband's name be placed on the document, Ms. McClure has testified. The two even contacted Missouri's Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) to deny Mr. Salazar's paternity after he was notified that he had financial responsibility for the girl.
But Mr. Salazar failed to appear for a paternity hearing in 2003 and was ordered to pay almost $300 a month in child support. Since he failed to appear, the DCSE director authorized the administrative order establishing Mr. Salazar as the girl's father.
Two years later, Mr. Salazar was charged with misdemeanor nonsupport.
After Mr. Salazar admitted that he knew he was ordered financially responsible for the girl but had failed to make any payments, Associate Circuit Judge Keith Marquart found Mr. Salazar guilty in 2005 and sentenced him to 28 days in jail.
Ms. Turner appealed the case to the Western District Court of Appeals, where Mr. Salazar's conviction was affirmed by a 6-5 margin in February.
There's no timetable for a decision, according to a Missouri Supreme Court representative. If the Supreme Court finds a state statute unconstitutional, the Legislature would be the body that addresses the issue.
During the past legislative session, a bill that would have allowed fathers to present DNA evidence at any time proving that they are not the biological parent and shouldn't be obligated to pay child support failed to come up for a final vote this year.
Attempts to contact Mr. Salazar, who now resides in Kansas City, have been unsuccessful. Ms. Donaldson didn't immediately return a phone message seeking comment.
There is a huge shortage of responsible people who are willing to adopt babies who are premature, black/dark Hispanic, AIDS-infected, drug-addicted, with physical and/or mental problems that will require expensive, time-consuming care. Most people who adopt such babies are getting permanent payments and free medical and other services from the government, and terms of care continue to be controlled by the government (e.g. the government social workers, not the adoptive parents, decide whether the child needs certain behavioral control drugs, certain kinds of therapy, public schooling, etc. and whether there may be guns in the home). There are a few responsible people actually willing to take on this sort of thing, with all the attached strings, but it still requires government outlay of cash, which the government will still try to recoup from a “father”. There are quite a lot of people willing to this just for the cash, who don’t give a crap about the kids, and neglect/abuse/dump them. Remember the adopted boys from Texas who were found in an African orphanage, after the “school” in Africa where their adoptive mother had dumped them got rid of them because the mother wasn’t paying the school — the mother was continuing to get regular checks sent to her in Texas, and had collected over a $1 million in payments for various adopted and foster children over the years. Remember the couple of dozen disabled kids found in Kentucky or Tennessee, neglected, abused, crutches taken away as punishment for not performing all the slave labor the adults demanded of them, forced to dig “graves” while being told they’d be buried in them — they were all adopted and foster kids who’d been dumped by the original adults who’d taken them in for cash, and who in most cases were still receiving payments, with portions being forwarded to the scum the children had ended up with.
Foreign adoptions are nearly all of healthy babies, mostly white or Chinese, with NO strings attached once the adoptive parents leave the child’s country of origin with the child, and no chance of a biological parent showing up months or years down the road and getting a US court to yank the child out of the only home it’s ever known and give it to the biological parent.
Even if you had a child who really was yours, and needed you at home, providing emotional and financial support?
Apart from the man that is caught up in this mess, I feel so very sad for the child.
Government keeps coming up with more and more reasons for men to avoid getting married. American blacks have mostly already figured out that they don’t want to get married, which is terrible for the kids, but the government attacks on the family continue.
I’d go to jail, or disappear before a single penny went to this nonsense.
‘Even if you had a child who really was yours, and needed you at home, providing emotional and financial support?’
Different scenario completely.
I’ll t..y...p...e....s...l...o...w...e...r.
I wouldn’t pay child support for a child thats not mine. Period. Under any circumstances, despite any muttering from any court, or politician.
Never.
Same here.
“Wasting time” to not get divorced in less than a year? Some couples try trial separations to see if they can save the marriage. Is that a waste of time? Some states do not allow quickie divorces. Is obeying the law “wasting time”?
bump for later
You are an idiot, the fake father, the ex-husband, owes this child nothing, the mother owes it everything and the real biological father owes it also. Anyone who thinks these laws are fair simply have sh** for brains and that includes you.
The whole point of state sponsored marriage was to ensure the man takes care of his wife and child.
However, these days women--we are told--are the equal of men, so we no longer need marriage to make a man care for his wife (according to current popular brainwashed belief).
NEVERTHELESS, to force a man to take responsibility for a child he can prove is not his, would be UNNATURAL at any time in history.
And I'll take that even further: that the wife was unfaithful should be grounds for restitution to the husband from the wife for any legal fees related to their divorce, related payments, and his time and trouble.
Either this man is not held responsible for his wife’s child of her lover—
OR whenever any man fathers a child out of wedlock—whether it can be proved his or not—the child should be the responsibility of the woman only, for having sex outside of marriage.
That is, for having sex without a legal binding contract called marriage to ensure the man will share responsibility for any resulting children.
OTHERWISE marriage becomes some vague sentimental meaningless thing, that the state should not waste it’s time and taxpayer dollars sanctioning.
(In fact, that is pretty much what marriage has become over the last forty years.)
The trouble is, they haul you off to prison if you don’t either pay or disappear. You can be living happily with your own wife and child, or with an elderly parent you’re caring for, and along comes a court giving you a choice of going to prison or disappearing if you don’t start forking over money to your ex-wife’s child by some other guy.
However, that was the common law of England and subsequently of the US, and it stands in every state where it has not been specifically changed by legislation or by case law from a higher court overturning centuries of common law.
The trouble is, they haul you off to prison if you don’t either pay or disappear. You can be living happily with your own wife and child, or with an elderly parent you’re caring for, and along comes a court giving you a choice of going to prison or disappearing if you don’t start forking over money to your ex-wife’s child by some other guy.
Pretty sure two of my posts clearly stated my actions if in a similiar situation. I’d go to jail, or disappear first.
I’d never, EVER, give up a single dime for support of a child I’m not the father of. Period. The court can say whatever it likes.
No joke. As is no secret to those pinged to this list, some crack whore grifter listed me as the father of her kid because she saw my picture in the paper. All was well and good until she applied for welfare -— and the State of Texas looked for daddy for child support.
NEVER SAW HER IN MY LIFE.
Got served for back payment, Mrs. MWT was PISSED.
DNA proved me out, but it cost many thousands of dollars in court costs, ample public embarassment.
My lawyer finally got the witch to crack in deposition -— she described me as average height and non-circumcised -— after which I walked in -— I’m a few inches shy of 7 feet tall and Jewish.
All that got resolved, but I’m still the father according to the “Certificate of Live Birth” -— indeed, got a letter asking why “my” kid was not in school the other day and warning me of truancy punishment. (Yes, lawyer sent certified court records.)
It would appear that the mother is not asking for child support from her ex husband and has in fact said that he is not the child's father. Has she applied for welfare benefits for this child? If she has, then the state can require a father to be named, even if it is as legal father. Then the state can recoup from the father whatever amounts they have paid out to the mother on behalf of the child. But if she has not filed for welfare benefits, and wants no money from the ex why should the state demand payment from him. I know that state governments get federal tax dollars for collecting child support.
If welfare benefits are paid out from the Grant Block the feds give states, the state has less money, if child support is collected from the father, the state keeps its grant money and in turn it receives incentive money from the feds. So collecting child support both saves money for the state and earns money for the state.
He was determined to be the legal father by an Administrative Order, that can be an employee of the Child Support Enforcement Office, not necessarily a judge.
State of Missouri v. David Salazar
David Salazar ("David") and Shannon McClure ("Shannon") were married on June 17, 2000, in Grundy County, Missouri. They separated in September 2000, but remained married at the time of trial. Shannon gave birth to a daughter, A.S., on November 29, 2001. David and Shannon both claim they did not have sexual relations with each other in the fourteen months preceding A.S.’s birth. David is named as A.S.’s father on her birth certificate because, according to Shannon, a clerk at the hospital where A.S. was born insisted that the name of Shannon’s husband be placed on the birth certificate.
The Division of Child Support Enforcement ("DCSE") served a "Notice and Finding of Financial Responsibility" on David alleging he had a duty to support A.S. David and Shannon contacted DCSE and denied David’s paternity. David requested a hearing to contest the finding. After David failed to appear at the hearing, the Director of DCSE, pursuant to section 454.490, entered a default decision and order on April 1, 2003, declaring David to be A.S.’s father and requiring him to pay child support to Shannon for A.S. in the amount of $278 per month, beginning December 15, 2002. Shannon subsequently filed for public assistance in Buchanan County, and the Buchanan County prosecutor’s office charged David with nonsupport, a class A misdemeanor, on January 2, 2004.
David waived a jury and a trial was held on November 29, 2004. David testified that he was aware of the administrative order declaring him to be A.S.’s father and requiring him to support A.S., and he admitted that he provided no support for A.S. during October and November 2003. The judge found David guilty and sentenced him on February 7, 2005, to twenty-eight days in the Buchanan County jail.
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.