Vox

I migrated my blog to WordPress and the archives are a bit jumbled. You will now find the category of Paternity Fraud here: http://www.bkennelly.com/vox/archives/category/paternity-fraud

What Makes A "Deadbeat"

Long time readers know that I have issues with paternity fraud (OK, I have a lot of issues, but I'm not talking about that now)

Advice Goddess touched on it a few days ago, and followed up with another post regarding "Deadbeat Dads" specifically. There is some good info to be had in the posts & the comments.

From The Duped Dads Archives

I found this old article on the plight of fathers specifically, and men in general, when dealing with women and the court system - Child Support Lock Up.

Now, I can't say I support his suggestion that men "join the 'Marriage Strike'", but I certainly can see why he would be motivated to bring it up.

Marriages are falling apart, society has ceased to value intact, two-parent families, industries have sprung up to cash in on the heartbreak. There are many factors, sometimes the husband/father is the bad guy. Sometimes he isn't. He will probably get the blame either way.

Duped Dads

I have ranted about the problem of Paternity Fraud before, now it a appears Time Magazine has taken a peek at it. A glancing and superficial one, granted, but at least they looked.

Advocates for these so-called duped dads say such men should be treated as victims of fraud and liken the need for paternity-disestablishment amendments to truth-in-lending laws. They point to many an egregious case in which the law's marital presumption of fatherhood has ended up enslaving a divorced dad, like the Michigan man who proved he had not sired his son but was still ordered to send child-support payments directly to the boy's biological father, who was granted custody after the mom moved out of his place and left the kid there. Increasingly, policymakers across the country are turning a sympathetic ear to such complaints. Florida last year joined Georgia and Ohio in allowing a man to walk away from any financial obligations regardless of how many years he may have been acting as a minor's father if he discovers he was deceived into parenthood. Fathers' rights groups in Colorado, Illinois and West Virginia are pushing for similar legislation that would remove or extend existing time limits for challenging paternity.

Yes, indeed, that makes sense. The duped dad sending money to the bio dad, and the perpetrator mother gone.

(Hat Tip Divorce Law Journal)

In New York, once you accept paternity, you are the father - regardless of the facts.

Even In Dear Abby

I am pretty sure that there is a reason this father is wanting the whole family to get their DNA tested - perhaps he suspects the truth.

He, and the son, are entitled to it.

Not that the courts actually care about the facts - but those two will.

In The Media

Paternity fraud covered in Law & Order, in an episode titled "Deadbeat".

A man is found shot, and it turns out he has an outstanding warrant for unpaid child support. Much of the show is dedicated to demonstrating what a bad guy he was and how pathetic it was that the mother had to scrape by because he wasn't paying. The son is sick and his only hope is a bone marrow transplant, and we are lead to believe that he was unwilling to donate.

As the story unravels, we find that he was indeed willing to get tested. Oh, but maybe the mother approved of his being killed because she did know he wasn't a match, perhaps from old medical records.....?

Nope, she knew he wasn't the real father and he would have found out, too, had he gotten tested. The gist being that, if he proves he is not the biological father she has no claim to that back child support money. That is certainly how it should be.

Unfortunately, we know better.

Listening To Paint Dry

I listen to talk radio, mostly in my car to and from work. Tonight I got in the car to go home and the host promised to talk about "Deadbeat Dads" in the upcoming hour, and specifically a man who sent an email and was upset about Sheriff Joe's latest round up.

You all know that this is one of my pet peeves, so I was very interested. I waited...and I waited.....

And he talked about the Mayor being called for jury duty and played a sound bite of him talking about it - over and over and over and over.....
It was truly like listening to paint dry. He had 4 or 5 callers with jury duty stories, which could have been informative little bits if he didn't go on and on and on and on about the Mayor - and asking the same questions over and over. (OK, you guys probably know that another of my pet peeves is repetition - just get it freakin' out there and move on. You can stay on the same subject if you have additional information otherwise, wrap it up!)

He ended up repeating the jury duty bit for the full final hour of his show and never got to the Deadbeat Dad story. What are the odds he'll cover it tomorrow?

The Incentive

Found more proof that the state is intentionally supporting paternity fraud in order to line their pockets.

Paternity fraud can no longer be tolerated or funded with federal taxpayer money. When considering the technicalities of paternity fraud, it is a form of repackaged prostitution supported and enforced with the police power of the state. Suggesting that there are "common law traditions" for this, as some courts have, is a fallacy. It is little more than an ignorant, or worse yet, intentional misconstruing of maxims of law to promote the fraudulent and immoral collection of taxpayer money at the expense of families and especially children.

Retaliation against those lawyers who would dare challenge the corrupt system has become routine practice by the Court run bar systems all across the country. For example, Barbara Johnson of Massachusetts is in the midst of disbarment proceedings for daring to publicize the corruption of the Massachusetts courts, ...[snip] ...Bob Hirschfeld of Arizona was disbarred many years ago for daring to challenge the legal establishment and aggressively represent fathers in custody actions...

UPDATE: There's more

The problem here is a very fundamental question of fairness. No matter what happens, someone is going to lose. On the one hand, it certainly isn't fair for a man to be forced to pay child support for a child who isn't his. If a DNA test can be used to establish paternity and force a man to make such payments, why can't it be used in the reverse?

On the other hand, it would certainly be a serious loss for the child if such payments are allowed to stop. Child support payments can be crucial when it comes to the health, education, and welfare of a child. That, however, is a poor argument - yes, the child may need financial help, but that doesn't mean that the help must come from a man who isn't the child's father. If the aid is so important, why not track down the actual father and make him pay? We don't grab random men off the street and force them to make child support payments for kids that aren't theirs merely because the aid is important.

Who's Your Daddy?

It certainly seems that Paternity Fraud is getting it's time in the spotlight lately.

I previously posted about my friend who has been caught in this nightmare.

Then there was a breakthrough case that actually awarded the duped dad a refund of child support to be paid by the biological father, though it fell far short by not punishing the mother who perpetuated the fraud.

Recently, Chris Cagle found out that his girlfriend was attempting this trick on him.

Amber Frye has just been caught after extorting money from the wrong man for the past 4 years - and she would probably have continued to get away with it if she had allowed him visitation.

Now, I am hearing advertisements for home DNA test kits on the radio. Though they may not do any good

Unlike capital murder convictions, which are being overturned around the country because of DNA evidence, family court cases typically hew to the "finality of judgment" principle to prevent disruptions in children's lives. Or, in the words of former California legislator Rod Wright, "It ain't your kid, you can prove it ain't your kid, and they say, 'So what?'"

Here is a news report of a man who has been fighting his case for 14 years. Note Sheila James Kuehl (from Dobie Gillis) who says, "if this is unfair to the fathers, well, frankly, the law hasn't cared for 20 centuries and so I'm going to err on the side of the ancient law" Basically, "screw logic & screw you".

This was just one more thing that Gray Davis messed up on.

"The courts decide that I have to pay the child support because it is 'in the best interest of the child.' But I wonder which child they're talking about--the child whom tests have shown is not mine, or the three children who are mine and who I have to feed and clothe every day. Is taking half of daddy's money for 18 years in their best interest?"

You'll remember that in my friend's case, he has been hindered in his employment despite having a biological child to support.

There are countless websites regarding this problem, which seems to be epidemic

• PATERNITY AND FRAUD
  
• US CITIZENS AGAINST PATERNITY FRAUD
  
• There's an online petition
  
• Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud
  
• Female con artists rewarded, men punished, families broken
  
• Reason Magazine gives us a story of a man who never even met the mother but is none the less on the hook for support. (Currently on hold pending her submission to DNA testing, but already costing him over $10,000 in legal fees)
  
• NJCAPF
  
• You can find paternity fraud stuff at Cafe Press
  
• Australia deals with it too
  
• Strategies for fighting paternity fraud

The list goes on and on and on.......

All of this leads me to believe the time may be coming when women not only cease to be rewarded for this behavior but will, with any luck, be punished for it. After all, if she sold you a piece of land that wasn't her's to sell, she would be facing charges. If she sells you a child that isn't yours, she simply racks up $charges$ . If faced with jail time, I think a lot more women would reconsider "daddy" shopping.

Personally, I would support a law to require a paternity test prior to ANY child support order being put in place, even if the paternity has been 'established' via marriage.

There are signs of substantial fraud or mistakes in identifying fathers in child support disputes. The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father.

I would also support prosecution in all instances of fraud, you get no pass because you are female or engaged in a form of fraud about which "the law hasn't cared for 20 centuries".

Duped Dads

I posted about a case of paternity fraud that a friend of mine is dealing with, then CNN posted statistics that suggest 1 in 25 men could be raising and/or supporting children that they erroneously believe to be their's.

Now comes news of a New Jersey case that was decided in favor of the duped dad - a reversal of what usually happens.

The significance: family courts are beginning to reflect a growing impatience with paternity fraud; perhaps this is in reaction to a shift in societal attitudes.

Predictably, the pathbreaking New Jersey decision raises more questions. For example, if a deliberate fraud was perpetrated for 30 years by both the biological mother and father, why is only the father held liable?

Like the writer, I too am uncomfortable with the judges' decision to absolve the mother who perpetrated the fraud of any responsibility, but I am happy to see the husband get some compensation - though I know that the money does little to help with the emotional toll her actions must have taken on him.

As she says

And, when a legal proceeding occurs, intentional fraud should be punished. BEC — along with the natural father — committed intentional fraud.

The New Jersey decision is beneficial in granting increased recognition to the plight of paternity fraud. But an obvious problem remains. Two people committed fraud. Only one of them bears any liability.

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).

Nov 1988 - SM hears from FC, a woman with whom he was previously involved, that her 3 month old baby boy, NHS, is his. SM tries to make the family situation work, living with them for several months. Eventually, the reasons they broke up in the first place become overwhelming and they split again. FC refuses to allow SM or any members of his family to see NHS. SM's mother takes her savings and mounts a year long custody battle on behalf of SM for the child she believes is her grandson.

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.