Score one for Fathers/Men

[dmp]

From FoxNews.com

On June 30, a California man being forced to pay child support for a child he had not fathered got his day in court when the Second District Court of Appeal of California overturned a paternity judgment against him
Los Angeles County, which had imposed the judgment, knew that Manuel Navarro was not the father of the child in question because DNA testing had proved so. Yet under both federal and state child-support laws, the county was still able to demand Navarro pay child support.

The court's landmark decision in Navarro’s favor may well become the controlling authority for contested paternity in California and a legal precedent nationwide.

Navarro's case is typical of the false paternity claims and child-support laws that prompt men’s-rights activists to condemn the family-court system as being virulently unfair to men.

When an unwed mother applies for welfare in California, the Department of Child Support Services routinely requires her to name the father(s) of her children.

The information provided is often incomplete. Moreover, even though the mother signs a declaration under penalty of perjury, false declarations go unpunished.

In March 1996, Los Angeles County filed a complaint to establish the paternity and child-support obligations of a "Manuel Nava" who had been named as the father of two boys receiving public assistance.

Based on the information the mother provided, authorities determined that Navarro was the father in question and served him with a complaint.

The county says it made "substitute service" of its complaint by leaving a copy of the summons with "Jane Doe," who was identified as Navarro's "sister" and "co-tenant." Another copy was sent by first-class mail.

The complaint would have asked Navarro to file a written denial of paternity within 30 days, as mandated by federal law. Otherwise, fatherhood would be presumed.

Navarro did not respond to the complaint within the 30-day time period — he claims he never received it.

In July 1996, a court judgment established Navarro's paternity and ordered $247 a month in child-support payments.

Penalties for evading child-support payments can include the inability to obtain a driver's license and other business or professional "licenses" such as teaching credentials.

Credit ratings can also be ruined and the State Department may refuse to issue the "deadbeat dad" a passport. Thus, even if the court-ordered support is not garnished from wages, falsely named fathers have powerful incentives to pay up.

In July 2001, Navarro filed a motion to set aside the court's judgment because a blood test proved he was not the boys' father. Although both the federal and state "challenge periods" had long passed, he argued that the mother had committed fraud by naming him.

He also claimed to have never received the original complaint or default judgment. The court denied the motion.

Navarro's case is not unique. For example, in California, in serving child-support judgments, "substitute service," rather than "personal service," is a common practice.

A March, 2003 study prepared at the request of DCSS, "Examining Child Support Arrears in California," found that most complaints in California are delivered by substitute service, "which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served."

"In Los Angeles County in 2000 ... 79 percent of paternity judgments were decreed by default," father's-rights advocate Glenn Sacks explains. "Most of these men had no idea they were 'fathers' until their wages were garnished."

In an article entitled "Injustice by Default: How the effort to catch 'deadbeat dads' ruins innocent men's lives," journalist Matt Welch asked California DCSS Assistant Director Leora Gerhenzon what would happen if a woman had named "Matt Welch" — a white guy between 30 and 40 years old, who maybe lives in the Los Angeles area, as the father of her child.

Gerhenzon answered, "We run our search on him; if we come back with one Matt Welch who lives in L.A., whose birthday fits that 10-year range, and we have nobody else, we presume in general we have the person."

The argument could be made that current laws encourage false-paternity claims. To receive federal funds on child-support orders, states must name the fathers of the children on assistance. Since there is no federal requirement for DNA testing for paternity, there is no state requirement.

Indeed, father's-rights advocates argue that there is an incentive for states to bypass costly testing which might rule out fatherhood. In 2002, former California Gov. Gray Davis admitted that $40 million in federal funds could be jeopardized by widespread paternity challenges.

For this reason, among others, in 2002 Davis vetoed the California Paternity Justice Act, (AB 2240), which would have extended the challenge period and vacated judgments against falsely named "fathers." Women who knowingly signed false declarations of paternity would have been liable for criminal prosecution.

(Another factor in Davis' veto was the political pressure of groups like the National Organization of Women, who successfully argued that passing the act would harm children who might lose support payments.)

In hearing Navarro's appeal, the Second District Court acknowledged that "by strict application of the law, appellant should be denied relief ... Sometimes even more important policies than the finality of judgments are at stake, however."

The appeals court explained, "the County ... should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature's clear directive that child-support agencies not pursue mistaken child-support actions, the County persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse."

How many falsely named "fathers" could this decision affect?

A study by the American Association of Blood Banks found that "the overall exclusion rate [of paternity on tested men] for 1999 was 28.2 percent for accredited labs."

That figure is undoubtedly higher than what would be found in a random sample of the general population, as men who request tests already have reason to question paternity.

No one knows the real number. What is clear is that courts across North America must follow the Second District Court's lead and exonerate men from false paternity claims.

I have several major annoyances in life. Speed-enforcement, lane discipline, and How badly the 'father' gets screwed by the state if/when a divorce happens, and child support is to be paid. If my wife and I were to seperate, and she was awarded full custody of my kids, I'd likely be out over $1000 a month in 'child support' to their mother.

a THOUSAND DOLLARS a month...wow. Let's break it down:

Housing:

Assuming she'd rent an appartment, the difference between a 1 bedroom place (which she'd have to rent anyway, if she had no custody) and a three bedroom place = $400. Since they are HER kids two, Cut that in half:

Housing costs + half of increased utilities= $250/month
Food = $200 -
Clothes = ($500 year/12/2) $21

That leaves $500+/month for the ex-wife to blow on a car payment...or anything. The extint to which the father of the kids gets jacked beyond reason nausiates me; Why aren't "Men's Rights Group" picketing; lobbying to change laws?

There are guys out there who give the bitch Thousands and thousands of dollars per month; the woman lives in luxury, using 75% of that 'CHILD' support for HER housing, fashion, cars, etc.

Blah..

Anywho, it's GREAT to read about at least ONE Guy (who wasn't even the father) have things go right.



Please drive thru.

 

[freeandfun1]

I got a girl pregnant in high school and her mother wouldn't let me see her. Since my "girlfriend" was a minor, her mother convinced her to sign over rights to her. I objected, but being young and poor, I didn't know what to do. I ended up joining the Army when I was 17 and I always tried to keep in touch. I would send letters, etc. but would never get a reply (at this point I understood as she was still very young). After being in the Army a while and learning more about what my rights were, I had JAG file a petition for me to have visitation rights. Boy, was that a mistake. At this point, my daughter is already 6. So in reply to my petition for visitation rights, I get a bill from the state for $25,200 in back child support plus interest. the total amount was nearly $45,000. I am then told, if I want to see my daughter, I have to pony up all the back child support that had accrued (even though it was never court ordered or even asked for). So basically, I was told, pay up, go to jail, or give up your parental rights.

There wasn't much of a choice and I had to give up my parental rights. It bothered me, but frankly, I didn't know her and it was obvious I was never going to get to know her so I figured it was the best route to go. I regret it some days and others I don't. It was a tuff decision but one that I feel I was forced to make by the system.
and then about 5 years later, my military pay started being short about $350 a month. Seems like the mother went and filed for child support against me while denying me the chance to see my child (when I would be home she NEVER would allow me to see her). Now that I was a little more mature and knowledgable, I went to JAG and they filed a petition on my behalf trying to force visitation.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Thats pretty screwed up free. If you signed over your paternal rights, they should not be allowed to force you to pay support.

Im on the other end of the spectrum, I receive child support. I agree that the system is biased toward the mother in most cases. I once had a boyfriend who had to pay almost half of his monthly income out in child support and kept trying to get another job to cover it, and she'd go for an increase due to the new job and get it. Its nuts. There should be some kind of happy medium somewhere. I dont receive much support, I could probably get a couple hundred more a month (which I definitely need), but I opt out just because my daughter's father and I get along well now, I wouldnt want to tarnish that for her.

Darin... I completely agree with your post, except the part that leaves her $500 for car payment, etc. According to "the law" child support is to cover everything from food, shelter, electricity, clothing, to car payments. I believe they look at all of those things as a necessity in the upbringing of a child.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
Darin... I completely agree with your post, except the part that leaves her $500 for car payment, etc. According to "the law" child support is to cover everything from food, shelter, electricity, clothing, to car payments. I believe they look at all of those things as a necessity in the upbringing of a child.

I listed the neccissities of upbringing - Food, Shelter, Clothes, I could have listed health-care insurance.

I understand that the $ is 'only supposed to go for the child' but that is completely un-inforceable, imo. What I see is the Mother having Custody - and the FATHER paying 100% for the child's 'neccessities'. I guarantee my wife and I don't invest $1000/month into our kids.

If the Mother has custody, she should pay for excactly HALF of what the kid needs - The most obvious abuse of a declaration of needs is 'clothes'. Hell, I doubt we spend $500 a year on clothes for both our kids; God Bless older Cousins of theirs.

A car payment for my wife isn't neccessary to raise kids. HALF a car payment, or the amount of the difference between a sedan and a wagon, maybe...but $500 gets her a $30,000 car.

:bs: to that


Some ppl argue a kid needs $100+ a month for clothes...wow.

Anywho - I'm all bent out of shape, I know; but like Traffic law enforcement, this topics brings my blood to a boil.

hehe

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
Thats pretty screwed up free. If you signed over your paternal rights, they should not be allowed to force you to pay support.

Im on the other end of the spectrum, I receive child support. I agree that the system is biased toward the mother in most cases. I once had a boyfriend who had to pay almost half of his monthly income out in child support and kept trying to get another job to cover it, and she'd go for an increase due to the new job and get it. Its nuts. There should be some kind of happy medium somewhere. I dont receive much support, I could probably get a couple hundred more a month (which I definitely need), but I opt out just because my daughter's father and I get along well now, I wouldnt want to tarnish that for her.

Darin... I completely agree with your post, except the part that leaves her $500 for car payment, etc. According to "the law" child support is to cover everything from food, shelter, electricity, clothing, to car payments. I believe they look at all of those things as a necessity in the upbringing of a child.

to clarify, initially I didn't give up my rights the mother did to her mother. but then her mother would always have an excuse for why I could not see "her" daughter. Sometimes she would even come out and just say, "I don't want you around her".

She had never applied for Child Support. It wasn't until I went to court to get visitation rights that she replied with a suit against me for back child support. She didn't need it nor had she ever asked fori it, it was her way of blackmailing me. As long as I didn't get the courts involved, she wasn't worried about CS. But once I sued to see my child, she used it. That is why the bill was so much.

Anyways, we have a relationship today and she has a child so I guess I am a very young GP. As much as we try, we haven't been able to get that close but time will take care of that I am sure.

 

[dilloduck]

Damn--you hit MY pet peeve here! I filed for divorce from my wife and was in postion to have full custody with standard visitation. I was also entitled to $500 child support since I was the main caretaker of the child (basically a role reversal deal) In the interest of my son, I only asked for the minimal child support and made sure that he was with his mother 50% of the time. She kept the house and I found an apartment .
While looking for a job to support my self and my son 50% of the time, my ex sued me to have all my child support taken away and won because I didn't have a job yet! I got to pay attorney fees also!
She again to me to court the following year (in spite of legal agreements to mediate) and due to Texas law, I was now required to pay HER child support even though I had voluntarily given her thousands for expenses for my son !
Worst part was that she didn't even initiate the suit! It "popped up " on some computer that showed that no one was paying support to the other and a warrant was automatically issue against ME. She took advantage of it and the rest is history.

What a totally fucked up sexist system that does more to promote animosity than care for the child.

 

[lilcountriegal]

The laws definitely need rewritten somewhere. But where is that fine line? I think sometimes people forget that this is for the kids and one person just tries to "screw" the other. In the case of my ex-boyfriend, he was paying over $500 a month for one child... he drove around in a company truck and couldnt afford a car payment along with a house payment. His ex was driving around in a brand spankin new SUV with nice jewelry, etc. Those kids would have been "taken care of" had she been driving around in a tiny little Neon.

BUT... on the other spectrum... when I got divorced years ago, my ex husband filed for spousal support when I was making $12,000 a year and won. I was the "sole breadwinner" (he failed to mention his pension check he received for close to $100,000) so I was ordered to pay him $100 a month. His defense: he was an alcoholic who suffered from an anxiety disorder and was unable to work so he needed me to support him.

The whole thing is BS. Unfortunately, I dont foresee any reasonable way to fix the system.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Damn--you hit MY pet peeve here! I filed for divorce from my wife and was in postion to have full custody with standard visitation. I was also entitled to $500 child support since I was the main caretaker of the child (basically a role reversal deal) In the interest of my son, I only asked for the minimal child support and made sure that he was with his mother 50% of the time. She kept the house and I found an apartment .
While looking for a job to support my self and my son 50% of the time, my ex sued me to have all my child support taken away and won because I didn't have a job yet! I got to pay attorney fees also!
She again to me to court the following year (in spite of legal agreements to mediate) and due to Texas law, I was now required to pay HER child support even though I had voluntarily given her thousands for expenses for my son !
Worst part was that she didn't even initiate the suit! It "popped up " on some computer that showed that no one was paying support to the other and a warrant was automatically issue against ME. She took advantage of it and the rest is history.

What a totally fucked up sexist system that does more to promote animosity than care for the child.

yep. i am a proud texan, but that state's system is the one that screwed me up too.

 

[dilloduck]

Lawyers don't want it fixed. It's thier bread and butter. Can you imagine how much money could have gone to the kids instead of having to pay the lawyers ???

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
The laws definitely need rewritten somewhere. But where is that fine line? I think sometimes people forget that this is for the kids and one person just tries to "screw" the other. In the case of my ex-boyfriend, he was paying over $500 a month for one child... he drove around in a company truck and couldnt afford a car payment along with a house payment. His ex was driving around in a brand spankin new SUV with nice jewelry, etc. Those kids would have been "taken care of" had she been driving around in a tiny little Neon.

BUT... on the other spectrum... when I got divorced years ago, my ex husband filed for spousal support when I was making $12,000 a year and won. I was the "sole breadwinner" (he failed to mention his pension check he received for close to $100,000) so I was ordered to pay him $100 a month. His defense: he was an alcoholic who suffered from an anxiety disorder and was unable to work so he needed me to support him.

The whole thing is BS. Unfortunately, I dont foresee any reasonable way to fix the system.

Validation and justification expense reports - each month, the person receiving support payments annotates and justifies EVERY expenditure over $50 on a form - when the form is validated by an impartial party, the person paying writes the check.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Originally posted by -=d=-
Validation and justification expense reports - each month, the person receiving support payments annotates and justifies EVERY expenditure over $50 on a form - when the form is validated by an impartial party, the person paying writes the check.

I thought about that too, but there are so many ways to dupe expense reports. That paper would be good for nothing more than to wipe your ass with.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
I thought about that too, but there are so many ways to dupe expense reports. That paper would be good for nothing more than to wipe your ass with.

No more ways than exist to falsify tax returns - both could be subject to Audit.

(shrug).

 

[lilcountriegal]

i still think falsifying expense reports is easier than taxes. It doesnt take much to ask a friend/relative for their grocery store receipt/gas receipt. Certain things such as utilitiy bills cant be falsified as easily as others, but you could bet your ass should I be on the receiving end of the expense report, I'll be asking everyone and their brother for receipts for gas/groceries/clothes.

 

[5stringJeff]

My wife receives $300/mo from her ex husband. Although he lives less than 5 miles away, we hear from him four times a year - the four days he is allowed to visit our daughter (I think of my wife's daughter as mine because I am the only father figure she has, and because I love her to death.). He doesn't call, doesn't write, nothing. Frankly, it's fine by me. I certainly wouldn't want to try and re-figure the child support deal; he could easily try to get greater visitation (which he obviously isn't interested in, but he would do it to spite my wife) or we could get less in child support because of relative incomes.

What amazes me is that this guy has totally turned his back on his daughter, who has never lived more than 15 miles away. But at the same time, it makes me very happy, because I enjoy being a father and don't care for the competition!

 

[lilcountriegal]

Its men like that, that make me sick to my stomach Jeff. i think its awesome you stepped in and were a dad to a child who had a shithead biological father.

My daughter's dad and I had quite the rocky start... he didnt even see her until she was close to 2 years old. Now he takes her on visitation that we arranged ourselves about 4 times a year for 3 weeks at a time. Best part of it is he does all the driving (he lives in Maine, I live in Pa).

Its sickening that a man who lives half a coastline away can find more time to see a child than a man who lives 5 miles away. When she gets older, teach her how to soap cars and give her the address.

 

[lilcountriegal]

either that, or teach her how to pee in his whiskey.

 

[krisy]

This whole situation totally disgusts me. I read an article a while back about a guy who had been married for a while. Supposedly him and the "wife" had 3 or 4 kids. He finds out that she had been having an affair for years and 3 of the 4 were not his!!!!! Guess what? You got it-he had to pay child support for all 4 kids!!!! Then,when tried to talk to his his "real" son about it(who happened to be the oldest) they said he couldn't see the kid anymore unless it was supervised because he was not supposed to discuss it with the children. I was sick to my stomach. These lamo no brain judges need to change their thinking. Can you imagine paying support for 3 kids that aren't yours. He allready had the shock of living with a woman who he thought loved him,they had a life together. then he gets the whole shock that she had an affair,then he finds out these kids that he helped deliver and raise aren't his!!!


Here is my question.Why don't these fathers immediately ask for tests? Also,in a case like this guys,the wife admitted they weren't his,so why did they not get the real dad? It's just sickening. Let these unresponsible,not worthy mothers pay for thesekids instead saying-"well,someone has too". And don't even get me started on NOW. Why don't they pay for the kids of these irresponsible mothers?!!!!

I'm fuming at this. I am glad someone finally got somewhere.

 

[insein]

Im glad that many women feel as outraged as the men. Bottomline is that both sides have scumbags. The court shouldn't help matters by siding with the scumbags.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
His defense: he was an alcoholic who suffered from an anxiety disorder and was unable to work so he needed me to support him.

Woah wait a minute. you telling me, people can be paid for being a drunk? That is messed up on so many levels. "Im a drunk i need someone else to support me waaah"

 

[Annie]

I have to run, but will be getting back to all. Have a interest in this topic!