Calif to enforce its own laws

[happythoughts 0]

clicky

Quote

Paternity: Innocence Is Now a Defense
July 14, 2004
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.net

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.

I can't even figure out how this is defensable.

Quote

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.

Quote

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."

Quote

"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."

Quote

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."

Quote

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.)

"Successfully argued..." What? How do you successfully argue for a harmful injustice based on a lie? Oh wait... I forget, this is the court system.

It would harm the children if the wrong man wasn't giving the mother money? If a woman is having children and doesn't know who the father is, the problem lies with who? She can randomly select a guy to give her money?

Quote

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 about that? A court telling them to do the right thing and they don't want to do it.

Quote

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."

So 28% of the men contesting these rulings cannot receive justice. It is known to be wrong, but because they are men, it is ok?

I'll bet if 5000 women in LA listed someone on the city council as the father of their child, things would change.

[TheAnvil 0]

This was an issue a couple of years ago. Glad this fellow finally got his day in court. I seem to remember the DA for Los Angeles stating 'I don't care whose child it is, we're trying to get $$ for single mothers' or something of that nature. Fidiot.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

This was an issue a couple of years ago. Glad this fellow finally got his day in court. I seem to remember the DA for Los Angeles stating 'I don't care whose child it is, we're trying to get $$ for single mothers' or something of that nature. Fidiot.

This didn't happen just once. News Of The Weird used to print these cases all the time until it became "Non-Weird" by virtue of it being common.

Guys were ordered to continue paying child support for 12 more years, even though it was proven that they were not the fathers (just the richest guy the mother knew).

[TheAnvil 0]

Surely they will attempt to reclaim their $$ via some mechanism....that is really a crime...

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

Repost -

I did a post on this a couple of months ago. Sure, I was proud - my wife did the same thing two days later. See http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1197573#1197573

Here is the case opinion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...atecases/b155166.pdf

peaceful jeffrey had a post in the other thread to which I did not respond suggesting it is "judicial activism" where the court decided not to enforce the law. This is not the case. Rather, the court here examined different laws that led to different results. The court found that California Policy was stated in 2000that "It is the moral, legal, and ethical obligation of all enforcement agencies to take prompt action to recognize those cases where a person is mistakenly identified as a support obligor in order to minimize the harm and correct any injustice to that person.”

So, this appeals court said, "What the county is doing sucks, and there is a basis in law for us doign this."

I, for one, think, "GREAT!" And it's more possible work for me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

I read the case information on the court website. The court stated that this is against the law. The govt offices in charge of enforcement have stated that they don't care.

The interesting thing is the players.

The former Calif gov, Davis, vetoed a bill to extend the window of time that men can challenge the support order using DNA evidence because (1) Calif would lose $40 million in Federal funds and (2) The NOW pressured him because it would take the money of innocent men out of the pockets of women.

One L.A. DA said that it was understood that it was an injustice, but "someone had to support these kids".

What about the real kids of the men?
USA today

Quote

"Think of it. I can get out of jail for murder based on DNA evidence, but I can't get out of child support payments," says Bert Riddick, 42, a computing teacher in Carson, Calif.

Riddick is paying $1,400 a month for a teenage girl born out of wedlock whom he's never met. Strapped, he and his wife are living with in-laws. Their three children, ages 3 to 11, cram into one room. He lost his driver's license for missing support payments and rides a bus 75 minutes to work.

I know a little more about this case. The guy and his family actually became homeless because he couldn't pay for his house. In comparison, the mother of the child is living quite well.