August 23, 2005
Fraud is Fraud
What if someone scammed you for payments of $400 per month over 18 years - $86,400 not counting lost interest, etc. Now imagine getting scammed for that much cash and your state helping the perpetrator take your hard earned dollars. It is happening every day.
This is the story of a man, we'll call him Scammed Man (SM), and a woman, we'll call her Lying Scheming Manipulative Fraud Chick (FC) - and a child, hers not his, so we'll call him Not His Son (NHS).
1989 - Joint custody is awarded and SM's name is put on the birth certificate. Child support is ordered in the amount of $250 per month. SM has visitation every weekend and makes full support payments.
March 22, 1992 - SM's biological son is born.
March 1996 - FC takes SM back to court to raise the child support amount. Despite the amount of time SM has NHS, and the extra bills paid by SM, reducing financial support needed by FC, the court raises the support amount to $430 per month. SM arranges and pays for a paternity test.
June 22, 1996 - The paternity results show conclusively that SM is not NHS's biological father.
July 12, 1996 - SM receives papers that FC filed requesting the court to terminate all previous orders; revoking paternity, visitation, support & custody. SM files papers agreeing to the termination. SM receives an order to appear before Judge Norman Davis. SM does not retain an attorney, believing he is only appearing to agree to the termination request.
November 8, 1996 - Judge Davis informs FC and SM that he does not believe that the termination request is in "the best interest of the child". He orders FC and SM to come up with something he feels will be better for NHS, requiring SM to continue paying support despite the new information negating his paternity, dismissing FC's knowledge of the real father's identity. Without legal representation, SM is unaware that the state cannot order a man to financially support a child that is not his. As no adoption ever took place, NHS is neither biologically nor legally SM's child. In order to avoid greater expense in the future, and unaware of his legal rights, SM agrees to $200 per month and every other month visitation with the stipulation that it is a non-modifiable order, believing that to be his only option. SM pays the new amount for approximately 12 months then, realizing how ludicrous and unfair it is to be forced to pay for someone else's child, he stops.
For the next eight years nothing is said of the support. SM continues seeing NHS, giving him money directly for his meals and spending, and paying for his clothes, shoes, haircuts, etc.
April 2004 - SM is served with papers demanding $20,000 in back support. SM retains an attorney and prepares to return to court. SM's attorney suggests paying the $200 per month till the case is settled, so he does.
2004 - SM's attorney argues that Judge Davis did not have the legal right or jurisdiction to force SM to pay support for someone else's child, and that the 'agreement' is therefore null and void. Rather than reviewing the facts, Judge Cari Harrison washes her hands of the decision, saying that since a previous judge had already decided the case, and both parties had agreed to a non-modifiable order, the order would stand. The fact is never considered that SM agreed under duress after being told, incorrectly, that he had no choice. The only option left is more expense and taking the case to appellate court.
Judge Harrison has since issued a Deadbeat Dad arrest warrant, as well as suspending SM's professional license - thus eliminating his ability to earn a living and support his biological son. All in order to force him to support someone else's biological son. That's our justice system.
If she had entered into an agreement with him that involved her selling a plot of land, and he paid on it for 10 years only to find out it wasn't hers to sell him, she would be charged with fraud, possibly sent to jail, and he would be entitled to restitution. With paternity fraud she just gets more money awarded....
Did SM make mistakes - oh, yeah, no question. Starting with trusting a woman ;-) But none of the mistakes he made validate her claims on his income.
And he is being punished simply because he was too trusting.
FC is one of those women who give females a bad name. In my book she is right up there with the "I'll get pregnant and he'll marry me" girls. She is simply the "I'll pick the most financially attractive prospect" to defraud. And that makes her trash.
And she is being rewarded for her behavior.
And the true biological father, the one who actually had a hand (or other body part) in bringing this child into the world is off the hook.
I certainly don't believe any child support judgment should be finalized without a paternity test, even when paternity has been "established by marriage" - I have previously said that men are pigs, but the fairer sex can be just as bad.
PaternityFraud.com has a suggestion for 'fathers' to take the mother and true father to civil court - but that option may not be available to SM after the Harrison non-judgment. Anyone out there with any knowledge of family law, particularly in Arizona, who might have a suggestion?
Unfortunately, it appears that after the founder of the Paternity Fraud website won his case, he lost interest. It doesn't seem to have been updated recently.
UPDATE: Timing is everything - look what CNN posted today.
Posted by Vox at August 23, 2005 12:03 AM | Paternity Fraud , politics