Man fights $30k child support, says kid not his

[scarystuffyo]

http://www.cbs46.com/story/27022374/man-fights-30k-child-support-says-kid-not-his?autostart=true?autostart=true




DETROIT (WXYZ/CNN) - A bizarre child support case in Michigan is demanding a Detroit man pay thousands of dollars or go to prison - even though everyone agrees the kid is not his.

"I feel like I'm standing in front of a brick wall with nowhere to go," said Carnell Alexander.

Alexander is forever haunted by the big news he got in 1991 during a traffic stop in Detroit.

"You're a deadbeat dad", the cop said. "You're a wanted man. You're coming with me."


Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/27022374/man-fights-30k-child-support-says-kid-not-his#ixzz3HMkWhN82

[Kalidurga]

1. This case is a very bad case of the government overstepping it's boundaries...

However the title is a bit misleading. They are actually now just going after the welfare benefits his ex collected, which is also so very very wrong. I don't think those benefits should have to be paid back even if he was the father, but the fact he isn't is way worse, IMO.

[seaglass]

9. Yes it is misleading as the court is going after payback of the welfare benefits and has already

acknowledged he is not the bio father.

I don't know anything about welfare benefits so I don't understand why they have to be paid back. It seems if she legitimately needed the benefits to raise her child then that's that. I assume there were some verifications over the last 20 years that the benefits were needed.

Are the benefits given as a replacement for child support payments? If so, it seems the bio dad who is part of the child's life, should be coughing up the money.

At the very least the mom should be paying any costs this man is incurring to clear his name and this debt.

[Lee-Lee]

12. The presumption by the courts is

that if he had paid child support the welfare wasn't going to be needed.

Usually in the cases I have worked with the moms have spoken to enough others to know how the game is played and they make up a name and say he is out of state, so they can't find him and as a result they qualify for payments without the father having to pay- quite often while he is still a live-in partner who maintains his address elsewhere on his license so she qualifies for higher levels of assistance.

It all works until the break-up and resulting legal reports, protective orders, etc and then it gets messy fast.

[True Earthling]

71. Nice.. so this is a common scam that fleeces the welfare system

She gets a bigger welfare check that she really doesn't deserve. Isn't there a law against falsifying a welfare claim in this manner? How often is it enforced and what's the penalty?

[Lee-Lee]

83. I can't speak for everywhere

But where I worked enforcement was minimal.

Mostly because if a mother says she thinks person XXX is the father, how can you prove to a standard for a conviction that she isn't being honest?

The claims always came about when the relationship ended. We got called to a domestic disturbance and suddenly dad admits he is living there and wants to drop the dime on her to try and get out of his problems. We referred them to the state investigators, but for the most part they didn't, or couldn't, do much. The mother won't change and admit who the father is because doing so would be admitting perjury in the first place, and because most of the time the dad is a deadbeat anyway so the state check is more reliable.

It's not unlike some of the polygamist sects where one marriage is on the books, all the other "wives" are single moms with mystery dads according to the state so they all get benefits that go to one single (wierd) household.

I don't know how you could fix it, short of a nationwide, 100% DNA database on every single person so at birth all babies are tested.

[customerserviceguy]

103. Yep, a law that isn't enforced

is merely a suggestion.

[dixiegrrrrl]

69. Welfare is paid to the Mom FOR the kids

A lot of welfare rules have changed, but the underlying concept is the money is for the kids support,
and it has always been true that the father is responsible for the payback of welfare.

(Unless the mother is caught working and collecting benefits, then SHE gets charged with fraud)

In this case, Mother apparently claimed he was the father, and he was in no position to argue about it.

Would be interesting to see the birth certificates.
He could sue her for claiming false paternity, and in fact, even tho she has no money to give in a law suit,
winning such a suit might help his case with the courts.


40 years ago my brother got stuck with a paternity suit, there was no dna test to help him out.
Despite the fact we all knew the woman was lying, the courts found him responsible.

[seaglass]

72. This is new info to me, did not know that welfare was paid back. I thought it was similar to

unemployment. I wonder what % gets paid back. Interesting.

[dixiegrrrrl]

78. How much gets paid back is pretty variable I should think.

Depending on how motivated the staff at any one Dept or city or state level
how easy it is to track down the biological fathers
and if re-payment is tied to other benefits, like when you get your license renewed or file taxes or job check or whatever.

Another factor, over all, to consider, is that "welfare' today ( AFDC) is now limited to only a 2 years or so, lifetime.
Used to be, you could stay on welfare until your youngest kid turned 18, and if you kept having kids, that could be a long long time.

[liberalhistorian]

86. They go after the non-custodial parent

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 10:08 PM - Edit history (3)

if the custodial parent is on welfare, they don't go after the person receiving it. And if you're on welfare and receiving child support, most of the support money goes directly to the state as reimbursement for the welfare and you get very little of it.

[Voice for Peace]

101. they become the child support collection agency

and deal with going after the 'deadbeat dad' so the mom
doesn't have to. It's not exactly paying back welfare. I
think this was set up by Reagan, he was big on holding
dads accountable.

[Yupster]

2. Lots of cases similar to this

There was a case not far from me which became famous enough that it was featured on Sixty Minutes some years ago.

A guy had three kids and got divorced when he found out his wife had been having a long term affair.

Court ordered he pay child support for the three kids to the mom who moved in with the guy she was having the affair with.

Mom then told dad that the kids weren't his anyway. She was having the affair throughout their marriage. DNA testing then proved two of the three kids were not his but were indeed the guy she was having the affair with and was now living with.

So, he was forced to send child support each month to the mom who was living with the biological dad.

Short story, he refused to pay, violated a court order by telling the kids why he stopped paying, and ended up in jail.

I know since that story, many states have made changes to their child support laws. Hopefully that kind of stuff doesn't still go on.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

3. My ex did pro bono family law and lobbied for father's rights

And she only half-joked that if a woman claimed Elton John was the father the State of California would unquestioningly seize Elton John's bank account.

[Yupster]

4. The laws need to be updated to the DNA age

It's crazy to have a guy sending child support payments to the real father of the kids.

[hunter]

104. Count me among those who think DNA is irrelevant to the arguments.

Any child born into this society is a child of this society.

It's a Constitutional issue.

[Yupster]

106. If each kid is of us all, then

we should all pay for the kid, not some poor shmoe that is picked to pay.

[TorchTheWitch]

8. he should have paid child support

When a man accepts a child as theirs and takes care of them as their father biology or not they ARE the child's father. Frankly, any man that believes a child is theirs and acts as their father is a shallow shit for suddenly no longer caring about the child when they find out that it isn't biologically theirs.

The OP case is entirely different. The man never knew of the child and the child is biologically not his. The child's mother also takes full blame in that she could only get welfare if the father of the child was identified by name (which is absolutely idiotic). In desperation she said she used his name in order to receive welfare but has never acknowledged him as the father and is trying to help him now in being absolved of any responsibility.

The state dropped the child support money they were claiming he owed but still want him to pay several thousand dollars for her receiving welfare by using his name in order to get it. That's also crazy since he had nothing to do with her using his name. If any money is owed to the state for welfare benefits received fraudulently then she should be the one responsible since she was the only one involved in fraudulently using his name.

But, it's crazy and woman shaming that she had to identify an individual man as the child's father in order to get welfare benefits in the first place. What if she became pregnant by a man who she only knew their first name or by rape by a stranger or just had sex with more than one man during the time she likely conceived? What the hell does that have to do with needing welfare? The child still exists and she still is in need of the funds regardless. The only reason for this father naming requirement is to shame women just as deserving of welfare as any woman that can name who the father is, and either way the child still exists. It not only punishes the woman for not knowing who the child's father is but also punishes a completely innocent child that needs care that the mother can't give without the welfare aid.

According to the video in the linked piece it was discovered that he never received a summons about the case all those years ago because the person delivering the summons said that he tried to serve it but that the guy refused to sign in when in fact the guy was in jail at that time, so the server lied and never tried to serve it on him at all.

Welfare requirements piss me off anyway. People like myself that our out of funds, can't get any financial help from family or friends and can't find a job can't get welfare without either being pregnant, have underage children, have an alcohol or drug problem. That's what's required in my state. Us responsible folk that are sober, drug free, and childless/not pregnant just get kicked to the curb and starve in a cardboard box in an alley losing everything they own and when they only need benefits until they get back on their feet. I'm a hair away from starving in a cardboard box myself if I can't get some kind of financial assistance from someone since my new job can't give me any shifts until possibly some time in November or only an occasional shift if someone calls out.

It particularly pisses me off that my crazy next door neighbors have been getting welfare for years when the husband has good paying construction work, and they still bum stuff off of their neighbors like me who are in much worse financial straits and can't get welfare... cigarettes, toilet paper, diaper money when their youngest wasn't potty trained, dog food, whatever - it's always something. And to top it off I recently learned that for all the years they've been living next door they haven't paid a single mortgage payment. Their mortgage company went bust right after they bought the house, and whatever company got their mortgage obviously doesn't seem to know they exist. So they ended up with a virtually free house they've not had to pay for for about 8 years now. People like that fraudulently getting welfare that don't need it is a slap in the face to people like me and all the people that need welfare and can't get it or can only get it like that poor woman who had to fraudulently put in someone's name as the father of her child when it shouldn't matter a damn if she knew who the father was or not.

[Dorian Gray]

10. Completely agree

with everything here regarding welfare above. The mother should not have had to claim the father. The case is whacked out.


As for the neighbors, they will be in dire straits when the mortgage company unearths their mortgage. Or they have to pass the deed on to their dependents. The house will probably be taken from them.

[TorchTheWitch]

13. actually the house being taken from them is my secret hope

I can't stand these people for a lot of reasons though oddly there's many times that when they're acting normal they can be fun and even somewhat generous. I do love their kids. It's very strange. I both like them and despise them though mostly I think I despise them.

So far it's been like 8 years and still no mortgage company has recognized that they exist. I've really had to wonder after all this time if they have ended up with a free house. I doubt they'll live there forever, and I can see them selling it or dying in it without giving a cent to anyone. Leave money for their kids? Never. They'll likely kick them out the day they turn 18.

[liberalhistorian]

85. If it's any consolation, I believe they will

eventually get their karma in regards to the house. I'm a former real estate paralegal, so I can imagine how it will go. When they bought the house, the mortgage was recorded at the county recorder's office. In order to sell it, all kinds of legal stuff has to be done and I guarantee that that will uncover that the mortgage has not only not been paid off, but hasn't been paid on for years. The title insurance company will be the first to discover that, and quickly. Then they will really be in a world of hurt financially, because, by now, you're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in not just the mortgage itself but years worth of late payment penalties, fees and interest. So they will not be able to sell that house without the karma bus roaring on down the street headed right for them. And the same thing will happen in terms of an estate. When one of them dies, and it goes through probate, generally a new joint survivorship deed is prepared, signed and filed, and the same research process will uncover that the mortgage has not been paid or even paid on.

Then there's the matter of the property taxes, which are usually rolled into mortgage payments so I'm surprised that nothing's happened on the county end of that unless they're paying it themselves, which they don't sound like the type to do.

And I think there will come a time when the mortgage company will, indeed, discover their existence. Companies like that always do, even if it takes a long time.

[TorchTheWitch]

94. From your lips to God's ears

I think they're mad as a hatter for just stopping paying their mortgage. They'd have to have known especially in the beginning that someone would figure it out and then they'd be thousands and thousands in debt. After all these years though they're convinced they got a free house. Worse, at this point they feel entitled to keep and not have to pay any back mortgage or any future mortgage because of the bank screwing up. Now they've even convinced themselves because the original bank went under because of fraudulent mortgages that everyone that had a mortgage with them got a free house. Go figure.

Thanks for the info. We neighbors still hold out hope.

[davidpdx]

14. I agree with you for the most part

except for:

The only reason for this father naming requirement is to shame women just as deserving of welfare as any woman that can name who the father is, and either way the child still exists.

That is not entire true. Naming the father allows the state to at least attempt to go after him to reimburse them for however much money the state provided. Granted the chances of them getting it are slim if the father isn't providing for the child, but they have to try. Whether they are given the correct information is another story.

[TorchTheWitch]

17. she would not have gotten welfare benefits if she didn't name a father

That right there says it all and why she felt forced to enter in a name. If she didn't name a father she would not have gotten welfare benefits. That has nothing to do with them being able to track the father for any payments though I'm sure they would have interest in doing so once a father IS named which is exactly what they did in this guy's case. It's their refusing her welfare benefits without that father's name that makes this ALL about shaming women and taking it out on not only the woman but the innocent child by refusing welfare benefits without that name.

[Sheldon Cooper]

19. I don't think it's woman-shaming to require that the father be named.

As a taxpayer, I have an interest in seeing that both parents be required to support their children. Naming the presumptive father so he can pony up child support is fine by me.

If a woman is raped and made pregnant by someone unknown to her, there would need to be some mechanism in place for helping her and the child. But sorry, being required to name your kid's presumptive father is not shaming.

And I have no problem with requiring DNA testing for all parties to insure that people aren't unjustly forced to support children that are not theirs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. "When a man accepts a child as theirs and takes care of them as their father biology or not..."

Except when the mother left for the real father he accepted the children as his own.

Also, the fact a person has been defrauded doesn't mean the law should be penalizing them for acting under a false assumption.

[TorchTheWitch]

36. baloney

Child support is for the welfare of the child not as a weapon to be used against the child's mother. There's is something very wrong with any man who cares for and acts as the father to a child they presumably love until they find out the child isn't biologically theirs. I know a couple of people that were wronged by the women who fathered their children yet they both love the children they thought were biologically theirs (or in the one case knew immediately from birth wasn't biologically his since he was very obviously of a different race) who wouldn't dream of no longer loving and caring for their children and paying their child support to make sure they have anything they need. That's what REAL fathers do, and it has nothing to do with biology.

Any man that would stop loving a child they believed was biologically theirs and acted as their father that would refuse to pay support for that child is an asshole that never loved that child and don't give a shit if they have the things they need to live. And how any man can believe a child was theirs and care for and love them can suddenly stop loving them and wanting to see them have everything they need when they find out the child isn't biologically theirs never loved that child, and how could any man in such a position not love that child? They're fucked in the head. And the men I know that still love and care for their children they found out were not biologically theirs and always will would be the first ones to say so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. "Child support is for the welfare of the child not as a weapon to be used against the child's mother

or father.

There's is something very wrong with any man who cares for and acts as the father to a child they presumably love until they find out the child isn't biologically theirs.

Yeah. Only a fool would feel betrayed, lied to, cheated and destroyed.



The mother is living with the biological father. He is taking the children as his own -- and he damned well better, because they are. HE is obligated for their care and support.

The mother is a liar and a cheater. She's a horrible person and a horrible parent. "Despicable" is not too strong a term. She probably shouldn't even have custody of the kids but guess what? She'll keep them and the defendant cannot be awarded custody -- BECAUSE THEY AREN'T HIS CHILDREN.

[liberalhistorian]

87. Yes, the mother is a horrible person and

yes, he has every right in the world to feel betrayed, cheated and lied to because he was, no doubt about it. But you do NOT NOT NOT take it out on the CHILD who knows you as his or her father and whom you've raised as their father. That is what is sick, frankly, and it does tremendous damage to the child.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. Who is taking what out on the child?

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

The children are with their real father living in his house. They are his responsibility. She's not a single mother living in a hovel outside the village somewhere.

And the sngle biggest detriment to the children is the fact their mother is a horrible person. As I said earlier, she shouldn't get the children but the defendant will never be awarded custody because they aren't his kids.

[liberalhistorian]

92. First of all, by taking it out on the child, I meant the

men who suddenly cease all contact with the child once they get the DNA, even if he's the only father the child has ever known in his or her life. And there are plenty of men who do just that, and it's cruel beyond belief to the child and it means they never really loved that child. The child may now be "living with both biological parents", but he or she did not know the bio father as her father. Parenthood is a lot more than blood.

And as for the defendant not having a chance at custody, that isn't necessarily true. There have been several cases where fathers in similar circumstances have won custody because it was in the "best interest of the child", as the child only knew HIM as the father and they had a parental relationship.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. "Parenthood is a lot more than blood.'

OK but setting aside for the moment the fact that the father may be devastated and soul-shattered let's just consider 2 things --

1) If choosing to break contact with the child is as egregious as you say -- and you paint the picture of someone being essentially morally bankrupt if they choose to do so -- then why insist a child be raised by such a person?

2) Being a moral dirtbag is not cause for lifelong financial penalty. If it is then let's charge the lying adulterer who is the first-cause of the entire issue.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

105. The woman created the relationship between those kids and her ex

If he wants to maintain a relationship with them, he should be allowed to do so in the best interest of the children, but the BIOLOGICAL father should be required to support them, especially in this particular case, since they are all living with him.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. Honest question- Were you addressing me or TorchTheWitch? Your post sounds more towards the latter.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. No worries ... and you brought up a fair point. nt

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

[liberalhistorian]

88. There's a huge difference. The difference

is that the woman was not there from the very beginning of the child's life, even before birth, thinking of and raising the child as her own.

[Yupster]

23. So a woman cheats on her you,

defrauds you by lying on government documents, then moves in with the biological dad and then turns around and wants you to send her and the biological dad money so you can pay for their kids, and you see this as the guy being a shallow shit?

Isn't the guy the victim here? He had an awful lot of wrong done to him.

Yes he agreed to act as dad, because he thought he was the dad. People agree to a lot of things and then back out when they find they've been defrauded. We don't enforce contracts that were purposely dishonest. Except in these cases that is.

But your thinking is that this should be enforced because he agreed to it, even admitting he was lied to when he signed the contract? Would you feel the same on any other issue? One person knowingly lies about a contract, the lie is important and proven, and it should be enforced anyway? You don't really think that, do you?

[hfojvt]

34. but this fraud is about people

If you have, say, a seven or eight year old child who has called you father for all their life and you have called them your child, and that changes your feelings for the child?

Hard to tell though. Being a single guy in my thirties, I was prepared, and fully expected to raise somebody else's child as my own. There was a woman I wanted to marry who had a five year old daughter. The daughter was crazy about me, her mom, not so much.

So say we get married when the girl is five, and are married for six years, and then her mom divorces me. I've spent six years now raising this girl as my own. I am not gonna stop caring about her, but am I going to care enough to send her mom a child support check for $500 every month for the next seven or more years? Whoa. That's an awful lot to ask.

[TorchTheWitch]

40. any man that loved a child when they thought it was theirs biologically

that would suddenly stop loving that child when they find out it isn't their child biologically is FUCKED IN THE HEAD. This is about the love and needs of an innocent child they ACCEPTED as being the father and acted as the father and professed to love as a father not some human bludgeon to use on the head of the mother that wronged them.

One of my friends knew right at the birth that the child he was expecting wasn't his because of the child's obvious mixed race. Because of her cheating they divorced but he still loves that child, and has always cared and worried about him as his own. He's adamant about paying child support so his child has what he needs and does and gives a lot more when needed or if he feels his child would enjoy some special thing. He's the best thing that ever happened to that kid when the biological father eagerly gave up all parental rights when my friend asked him to because HE wanted to be that child's father and never loved his wife even when they married. I wore black to that wedding it was such a mistake and everyone knew that it was. It was the most funeral-like wedding ever. Several years ago he fought for an won full custody, and that beast that bore that child doesn't give a rat's ass about him and never did. She's remarried pretending to love the child she's had with her current husband (and if he dumps her she'll dump that child she professes to love as well and find a new sucker).

Two of my other friends both have children they found out much later in their lives weren't biologically theirs. One never married the mother in the first place, and the other divorced once finding out that the mother cheated on him and pretended that the child was biologically his. Both have always paid child support, provide most the the actual care for their children and are fighting for full custody of them since neither of the mothers care about those kids, and one of them has always had a serious drug problem. They adore their children and insist they are the real fathers of them, which they are since neither of the biological fathers want a thing to do with them.

Guess who it was that finally convinced me that what I've been saying is true? Those three men, and it took a lot of heated debates before I finally acknowledged they were absolutely right.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

62. You don't think it FUCKS WITH SOMEONE'S HEAD....

....when they find out the kids they thought were theirs biologically are not....and the same with the kids think their dad was their bio dad and find out they weren't?

In that case, the woman moved in with the real dad. His money ain't good enough?

There's definitely someone who needs to be punished in that scenario, and no it's not the kids. I'd be all for establishing a third party court appointed trust to make sure the woman doesn't get to touch a fucking dime while the kids are taken care of.

[StevieM]

70. The man can keep loving that child as an ex-step father. But the child also has a real father

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

and that real father has rights and responsibilities. In this case, if I understand correctly, the mother is living with the biological father, who will be raising the kids with her.

You seem to take for granted that it is best for the kids not to change dads. I don't agree. I think biology matters.

Finally, it is incredible to me that a court actually forbade the step father from telling the children the truth. Don't they have the right to know their history and origin?

[TheKentuckian]

107. Fine and dandy if that is the way these fine gentleman feel but I don't support the force of law for

that morality.

No way there should be any expectations on the guy in the OP. That is just flat batshit crazy.

[Crunchy Frog]

111. That's very fine and admirable of them

but you can't legally force someone to love someone else. If the psychological relationship is gone, and the biological relationship never existed, I can't see any justification for legally forcing someone to pay child support for a child that isn't theirs.

And this seems to be about squeezing money out of people, not about preserving psychological relationships.

[jberryhill]

60. Doesn't work that way

He chose to marry her. Any children born during the marriage are presumptively his.

Unless you REALLY want to back up the family courts, this one is a very old rule which, at the end of the day, is not all that unfair. He picked his wife, the state didn't.

[Yupster]

100. The rule used to make sense sinmce there was no way of telling for sure

the rule no longer makes sense since we can now tell for sure.

[jberryhill]

114. that's not the only issue

How much public resources do we want to commit to sorting out these personal dramas?

What is the problem sought to be solved here? Too many men are unable to abandon children they've raised as their own for years.

[TheKentuckian]

108. She picked the father, not him. What is "fair" about it? It is a fact he isn't the father no

presumptions required.

[Crunchy Frog]

113. It's a very old rule which is now an anachronism

due to the existence of accurate paternity testing.

[Tikki]

28. A neighbor raised and supported a now grown man from the time he was born, but the mother rightfully went after...

the birth father and received child support from him.

The child grew up calling my neighbor dad and still lives on and off with my neighbor.

The mother and my neighbor did not stay together as a couple (they never married) after 12 years...my neighbor
raised him alone from that point on...the mother moved out of State.

Of course he will always be there to support this young man, but the birth parents should, also, be responsible
unless they have gone through a court relinquishment.


Tikki

[jwirr]

30. In my day when AFDC was new a man who was not the father was not expected to pay for the children

of another man. The reason? Because it was hard enough to start over for a single mother without this "stay away - danger sign" around her neck. No one was serious about dating and or marrying a single mother with children if he had to take financial responsibility for the children while their biological father goes free. The law was changed and the part of the Department of Social Services that collects child support became serious about their job.

This case seems to be really out on a limb forcing a man who is not the father to pay child support. They need to look at the biological father and ask how much he paid and why he did not. I appears to me that the mother did not tell them where he was (in the state) and he did not either.

[Major Nikon]

39. He shouldn't have to pay child support

Nobody should be required to pay child support to a child that is living with their biological mother and father. If anything he should sue the biological mother and father for back child support which the biological father should have been paying all along. It has nothing to with whether or not he cares for the children.

[WolverineDG]

73. Because both parents have a legal obligation

To support their children. Not woman-shaming at all.

It's not my job or obligation to pay for someone else's kids beyond making sure we have good schools, parks, & safe communities.

If you need welfare, fine, take it. But don't say it's "woman shaming" to have mothers provide information about their children's fathers.

[Gormy Cuss]

47. There's a fundamental difference in your scenario, namely that the man had accepted paternity

during the marriage and to the children he was their father. The court needs to consider the interests of these innocent children in the decision.
Considering an established parental role also works to the advantage of parents who WANT to retain the legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood in spite of no biological link.

That said, cases like the OP are pretty clear cut -- he was just a name on a form and should in no way be held liable.

[AngryAmish]

81. It is in the best interest of the child to have Bill Gates acknowledged as their father

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Why isn't Gates stuck with the bill?

[Gormy Cuss]

120. It's in the best interest of a child to have adults accept responsibility for their actions.

Being a parent for years and then one day saying they're suddenly uninterested in the child's well being because there's no biological link is irresponsible and emotionally immature.

If Melinda Gates had children with someone else but Bill Gates has raised them I'd like to think he's enough of an adult to understand that his anger and frustration should be aimed at her, not the children who see him as their father.

[AngryAmish]

124. The state has no business policing emotional attachments, immature or not.

[Gormy Cuss]

126. No, but the state can define adult responsibilities to minor children

and can also define parenthood beyond biology. Also, the emotional well being of children is one of the considerations in custody orders.

[treestar]

5. Children born during a marriage are presumed to be legitimate

Here's a state law:

§ 8-204 Presumption of paternity in context of marriage.

(a)?A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1)?He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage;

(2)?He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within 300 days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;

(3)?Before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or within 300 days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity or divorce;

(4)?After the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, whether or not the marriage is or could be declared invalid, and he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:

(i)?The assertion is in a record filed with the Office of Vital Statistics;

(ii)?He agreed to be and is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or

(iii)?He promised in a record to support the child as his own; or

(5)?For the first 2 years of the child's life, he resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as his own.

(b)?A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by an adjudication under subchapter VI of this chapter.

74 Del. Laws, c. 136, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;

[MADem]

6. How long before DNA sequencing becomes part of the birth certificate issuance process, I wonder?

If the child is adopted, or a byproduct of surrogacy, might there be a requirement to tick a box waiving the DNA test, or something?

Maury and other "Who's Your Daddy?" shows notwithstanding, the days of "Mummy's baby, Daddy's maybe" could be in the past, if there was any demand for it.

[Javaman]

18. prenatal prenup. ;) nt

[exboyfil]

26. That will lead to a lot of surprises

One study showed a significant percentage of children born to married women were not fathered by the husband (I think the number was in the 10 to 20% range, but I cannot find the reference now). The study was being done for other reasons, and confidentiality prevented any additional details.

You always wonder about these things. My younger daughter did the taste test gene for Biology, and the results did not match the expected results. I have no reason to suspect that she is not my biological daughter, and, even if she wasn't, she has been my daughter for 17 years and will always be my daughter.

[Major Nikon]

41. That range is attributed to people who have questioned paternity

Which is undoubtedly higher than the general population.

[exboyfil]

43. You are right

That number came from Diamond's book "The Third Chimpanzee"

Here is a comment on Diamond's sourcing. I have independently verified from other websites. Probably the number is closer to 5%.

I am pretty disappointed in Diamond. I usually have a little better discernment about such things.

http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/19/diamonds-vengeance/comment-page-5/
To give a single example, in _Third Chimpanzee_ he makes a dramatic claim about false paternity rates… that turns out to be completely unsupportable and almost certainly bogus. To be specific, Diamond cites a false paternity rate that’s likely in double digits (“5 to 30 percent”) based on two cases — an unpublished 1940s study of blood groups in babies, and later anecdotal evidence from “several studies that did get published” suggests this is typical, and goes on to spin an airy castle of evo-devo supposition thereon. Unfortunately, the unpublished study turned out to be completely unavailable, while the “several” published studies don’t seem to have existed. Basically, he seems to have been flying on anecdotes and half-remembered studies that he hadn’t read very carefully.

[MADem]

122. What were the expected results? Isn't that test something like seventy percent or less?

And can't things like dental work or infections influence??

You're talking about that paper strip thing, right? I'll admit I'm not really up on all that "supertaster" stuff!

[exboyfil]

123. Neither my wife or I had the gene

but my daughter did according to the test. Not really a big deal, but kind of gets you to think a bit in spite of yourself. My older daughter looks very much like me, but my younger one (the one doing the test) looks like my wife.

Two Non Tasters can produce a Taster and of course you are dealing with an uncontrolled lab kit from an online Biology class. Like you said lots of reasons besides genetics for flaws to occur during the test.

Here is a study I found on it.

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythptc.html

[MADem]

125. Lots of variation, there!

It's something that, apparently, can wax and wane! I know there are days when I like--even crave--cilantro, and other days when I don't like it as much. Hmmm! Could be that you and/or your spouse are "on the edge" and have a sliding scale of tastiness!

[jwirr]

32. On all welfare applications it asks who the parents of the children are. If this was not answered

correctly then it is welfare fraud.

[JimDandy]

48. True. Unless there is a statute of limitations, the state should

be pursuing her for fraud. I suspect there is a SOL, otherwise the ex-girlfriend would not have come forward to help him. The state already has a judgement against him though-low hanging fruit and all.

[MADem]

119. Lots of times, people (men, in this case) THINK they are, but they're not.

Otherwise Maury wouldn't have a job! It would be a sneakier trick to implant a woman with an egg not hers, without her knowledge (though if she was doing in-vitro and the doctor screwed up, well, anything is possible, I suppose).

Doing the DNA at birth--parents and children--would solve that issue, unless the parents already know as a result of surrogacy or adoption or donation of sperm or egg that there won't be a match.

If someone sincerely believes that they (or their paramour) is the parent, and says as much, they aren't defrauding--there has to be a deliberate lie in there.

[Yupster]

21. This is what needs to be caught up with DNA technology

Before DNA, there was no way to know who the dad was, so it was presumed.

Today, we don't have to presume. We can know.

We don't have to accept fraud anymore, and we shouldn't.

[closeupready]

24. +1000. Or the law can be rewritten to "presume pending DNA testing completion."

[SoCalDem]

93. Every newborn has blood drawn..

Why not just run a DNA sample and store it away for a future date when it might become relevant?

Mom & Dad are a happy couple, so why rock the boat...BUT,. if that child ever needs a match for a medical reason or if Mom & Dad split, then the DNA becomes very important..

and if a DNA test was a part of a routine blood draw, perhaps women might be more careful to conceive with their husbands (not their boyfriend)...

[JimDandy]

45. They were not married. She was an ex girlfriend who knowingly and purposefully lied

to the State of Michigan in order to receive welfare benefits, while hiding the true identity of the bio father so that the state would not pursue him for the money.

[DetlefK]

7. Falsification of documents, miscarriage of justice...

"The state sent a process server to Alexander's dad's house. The process server was supposed to deliver to Alexander the summons. The process server then signed the summons saying that Alexander was delivered it, but refused to sign it.

"I wasn't there so I couldn't refuse to sign," Alexander said.

Records show Alexander had been arrested as a teenager and was locked up when the process server came to the house."

[Orsino]

20. Is there evidence that the process server even visited the residence?

The cases againt the poor guy amount to "we were given your name." The law is an ass.

[Major Nikon]

56. Even if the process server did, the guy was in jail at the time

I once knew a person working as a process server who I wouldn't trust to deliver a pizza. The whole idea of non-governmental process serving is ridiculous.

[JimDandy]

31. The Process Server lied, the mom lied, and the bio father lied.

A real 'travesty of justice' was what was served here.

[Mariana]

33. If that's true, the process server belongs in prison

for a good long time. Also, every single summons he "served" should be reviewed.

[JimDandy]

54. A couple years ago I caught a Process Server lying on a neighbor's

document. She had back dated the service date. I saw her post the document on their door and was able to physically ID her. The neighbors were away that week, so they would have never been the wiser unless I had given them a signed statement to that effect.

People like these two process servers should always be prosecuted to the full extent of the law because they are breaking the public trust and the court's reliance on their truthfullness.

[Lee-Lee]

11. Something seems missing here

A person ordered to pay child support will get a lot more than just the one summons to come to a hearing.

They would also get the legal results of that hearing, then continual notices they are past due.

The address it is sent to is tied to the one on your drivers license.

So we have multiple issue here- he probably ignored a lot of legal notices after, assuming since it wasn't his he could. The process server appears to have lied. His parents at that residence appear to have not told him anything, or he ignored if they did.

The mother needs to be prosecuted for perjury. She went into the paternity hearing knowing he wasn't the father but stayed silent and let the judge rule based on her falsified testimony.

Likewise the process server needs to be prosecuted.

However because he ignored this for so long odds are the statue has run out and they can't be.

I am just amazed that there is no way that he got any legal notice for all those years. He almost certainly did and ignored it.

[Whiskeytide]

27. I don't think that's what happened...

It looks like he did not know anything about this child - or at least knew nothing about any claim that he might be the father. The mother put his name on a welfare application because a name was required for approval - not because he was actually the father. She never pursued support from him, and the DA never went after him (no lawyers were ever involved and no court cases were ever filed). It is now the government - 20 years later - trying to get reimbursed for the welfare it paid to her over the years for a child that, according to their records and nothing else, is his.

I think its entirely likely he never received any kind of notice what-so-ever until this proceeding was filed.

[Lee-Lee]

29. Unless they do things very different there

That's not how it works.

The paternity hearing was only needed so that an order for support could be made- the court order staring child support would be issued at the same hearing.

Your are the father, you must pay XXX.

That order woudlserve be put in the system. The child support caseworkers and enforcement officers would make attempts to collect. Many attempts.

Nobody gets $60,000 in arrears with nothing happening along the way to attempt to get it collected.

[jeff47]

53. There was no paternity hearing.

She did not seek child support, so there was no paternity hearing. The only thing that established paternity was the name the mother put down on the welfare form.

What's going on is the state paid a lot of money in welfare to the mother to support the child. The government is attempting to be paid back for the welfare money from "the father". It isn't child support, it's welfare to support the child.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. That's a big No on your first sentence.

My husband's bank account started being garnisheed 10 months after a judgment had been issued against him for child support. We were never notified before that and there was never a notification of a court hearing. This was from an 18-year-old daughter for whom he had been paying child support her entire life. When she turned 18, we stopped paying. Unbeknownst to us, the mother filed for more child support as the daughter decided to go to college. We were never notified of that either as we would have been more than happy to pay her state college tuition and her other expenses. But we were never asked, instead the mother just filed with the court for an extension of child support until she was 21. The judgment was made in January (can't remember the year now), we were NEVER called into court, never saw a process server and 10 months later, my husband's check started being garnisheed for $1200.00 a month. So, we were 10 months in arrears through absolutely no fault of our. We had to start paying the $1200.00 a month PLUS $500.00 a month for arrears until the $10,000 was paid off. Her college costs were nowhere near that much but the mother was happy to spend the extra on herself (we know this for a fact).

You can't imagine the nightmare that is the child support system here in California if you're the non-custodial parent. They have made an art out of making deadbeats out of the good guys.

[Lee-Lee]

49. You kind of made my point

While the failed to notify you, they caught up to you in just 10 months.

I can't imagine them not attempting go collect all those years in this case.

[Le Taz Hot]

51. Actually, I didn't.

We got NO summons. You claimed that we would have gotten several. We got none. And "caught up to us in just 10 months?" Yes. at which point we were $10,000 in arrears. It gets better. WHILE we were paying back the arrears AND paying current child support, my husband got pulled over for a minor traffic violation and got hauled into jail. Why? There was a Warrant out for his arrest (which we were also never notified of) because of non-payment of child support even though we were paying it. There's more -- after the daughter's 21st birthday when we were no longer supposed to be paying child support and after the arrears had been paid back, they continued to take the $1200 a month out of my husband's salary for 8 months after that. A year later, they FINALLY paid us back what they had overcharged us. That may mean nothing to you but it caused us unbelievable amounts of hardship.

[JimDandy]

63. The notices were all sent to an old address of his.

The investigation confirmed that. He also was living out of state or in jail while this case of lies against him was proceeding through the system.

States suspend the driver's licenses of people who owe child support if they are within their jurisdiction. That he wasn't also cited for a suspended DL when he was pulled over, makes me wonder if his license was out of state. That would fit with everything else in this case.

[davidpdx]

15. I hope he eventually prevails

When I was younger I was told by a woman I was involved with that was pregnant that the child was mine. That was going to pretty much automatically make me responsible for the child. Fortunately I had an opportunity to take a paternity test and the results were negative. I have no idea who was the father, but my guess is she had a few to choose from and thought I was the biggest chump.

[Takket]

22. what's incredible about this is....

There isn't even an argument between the mother and father! She says in the article that everything he is going through is her fault! It isn't even like she is making a claim against him and there needs to be a decision made one way or the other. the Court is chasing its own tail.

[closeupready]

25. Judge Judy is probably presiding over this one. That would explain it.

[Shrike47]

35. He's known for 23 years he was named as father and owed support and NOW he's fighting?

What you are supposed to do is IMMEDIATELY file a motion to set aside the judgment. You don't have forever to fight; the law favors finality, whether it's right or not.

[BklnDem75]

42. The article in The Root says he's been fighting it ever since he heard about the charge...

Alexander told the news station that he learned about a paternity case against him in the early '90s after a police officer called him a deadbeat dad during a traffic stop. The officer also informed him that there was a warrant out for his arrest for unpaid child support.

"I knew I didn't have a child, so I was kind of blown back," Alexander told the news station.

Alexander has been fighting since then to clear his name, with little success. Here is how the story unfolds: The state claims that in 1987 Alexander fathered a baby. The state also claims that it sent several notices to an address on file and that Alexander ignored those notices. Alexander says that he never got the notices because they were sent to an address where he no longer lived. When he heard about the child, he went to court.

"And when you were telling them in court—'That it was not my child'—they told me it was too late to get a DNA test," Alexander told the news station.


http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/detroit_man_is_not_the_father_but_court_says_he_owes_30k_in_child_support.html

[Shrike47]

57. My problem with him 'fighting' it, I bet all he did was appear on the contempt charge and deny.

People say they are 'fighting' legal issues when they are not, in fact, doing anything meaningful from the point of view of a court. I did support enforcement for the state for years. Complaining at hearings is not likely to be useful.

What would been useful would have been filing a timely motion to set aside the judgment on the grounds of failure of service and lack of notice.

Of course, I am reading my experience in to the article. But, in my experience, people don't hire lawyers and then wonder why nobody listens to them.

[BklnDem75]

61. He's facing jail for a $30k debt he received for no reason...

If he doesn't have a lawyer, I'm sure it's because he can't afford one.

[hunter]

37. Dumb ass parents. It's about the kids, not about these so-called adults.

Nevertheless, if we had a generous welfare system and welcomed every child into our society, then conflicts like this wouldn't happen.

But I guess we've got to cut taxes on the uber-wealthy and build useless aircraft carriers and fighter jets and shit.

Anyways, all money belongs to "We the People." If you think it's "your" money and you'd rather spend it on yourself than the children of the woman you sleep with, then you are not a nice person.

[BklnDem75]

46. Not sure I agree with this stance...

He's not a parent. He found out about the charge when the kid was 14 years old. There's no relationship there. If your ex has a kid with someone else, refusing to pick up their financial burden makes you a bad person? Why?

[exboyfil]

50. According to the story

the only time he was notified of the existence of this child was done with the improper process service. If that is the case I cannot see how he should be responsible for the welfare benefits.

On the other hand if the state can demonstrate that he was notified and did not take timely action to correct the issue, then he is and probably should be, on the hook. In that case the state was prevented in pursuing its appropriate course of action (further investigation to determine the actual father of the child).

[BklnDem75]

55. The story states he was in prison at the time they attempted to serve him...

The state's own records are more than enough to vindicate Alexander.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. Dumb ass prosecutors and judges?

If ever there was a case that should be simply dropped, this is it. The state is demanding he pay everything they spent for kids that weren't his. Would you feel free to say the same thing about 'not nice persons' if out of the blue, the state you live in told you you had to pay them $60k to pay for kids some other guy fathered on a woman you dated briefly 3 or so decades ago? And have other people judgmentally say 'it's not "your" money?

[hunter]

64. It's been going on since 1991?

No way in hell would I ever volunteer to be a poster boy for the DNA-testing "men's rights" crowd.

Just look how this thread is going...

It's terrible reporting here, the story is entirely undeveloped, just the usual inflammatory T.V. news junk. Why can't we talk about a family court system already overwhelmed by this he says / she says bunkum and an incredibly stingy welfare system?

The only thing this story tells me is that the U.S.A. is not actually a first-world nation. But look, distraction! The kid's not his and the woman is a cheater! DNA testing proves it!



Fuck that, it's all bullshit.

Either we care about kids in our society, or we don't. Clearly we don't.

Like I said, it's about the kids, not about these so-called adults.

[BklnDem75]

68. It's not about the kids...

It's about a man facing jail time through no fault of his own. That 'kid' is now 35 years old. It's about a system that continues to kick down the poor.

[hunter]

74. Focus. The system is the way it is because we reject a generous welfare system...

... and far too many men use women and abandon children.

This fellow may very well be an "accidental catch," but he doesn't seem to be in any immediate danger.

Yes, if the facts are as they are presented, then the state needs to write this off.

It is, without a doubt, a messed up and underfunded system.

On the other hand imagine how miserable this guy would be if he'd fractured his penis having sex and didn't have insurance to cover it. He could easily be $60,000 in medical debt, it would hurt, and he might be forever after shorter and bent. Misadventure is always possible in sexual encounters. Life is a roll of the dice.

My observation is that the television coverage of this story, and many of the responses to it, STINK.

It's all "Look here! Another cheating woman does a guy wrong and the system beats him up!!!"

And the true story is how our welfare system is wretched, and most of the guys these courts deal with are indeed rotten mates and fathers who would rather spend money on themselves and their latest girlfriends than their own kids.

[BklnDem75]

89. Somehow, I don't think this guy really cares about the big picture...

He's fighting the result of someone's lie, and his freedom is what's in immediate danger.

[hunter]

98. And that's probably how he pissed of the judge.

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorting out the fools from the liars is difficult, very messy work.

Especially when most of the adults in these situations are liars and putting themselves first.

DNA!? It's rubbish. All us humans are kin.

I'd like to live in a society where none of this mattered.

All children would grow up in healthy environments and become healthy adults.

Generous benefits for children, and maybe the courts can quietly sort out or dismiss all the soap opera messes adults make.

Every kid deserves a safe secure place to live. No worries, be they the biological offspring of the king or the pig keeper.

Every kid welcomed to this world and cherished.

[BklnDem75]

99. Or maybe the judge is just an ass...

We don't live in an ideal world where we can all hold hands and take care of each other. If this guy has children of his own, I'm sure he'd like his money to go towards feeding them instead.

[hunter]

102. Call me back when he's behind bars or they are taking money from his pay check.

Until then he's a poster boy for the "men's rights" crowd and he's accepting legal advice from deceptive people or idiots.

Yeah, I'm cynical about politics and the lackey press.

[BklnDem75]

112. Because he's fighting a bs decision?

Invoking "men's rights" doesn't mean he should just accept his fate.

[hunter]

116. Did I say that?

It's the framing of the question by the news media and some of the comments here that irked me.

[Codeine]

58. Sleeping with a woman and not producing

a child does not mean I need to feel good about spending money on kids they may it may not make without me. It's silly to assume I'm not a nice person because I would rather use the product of my labor on my own needs than those of another person simply because that person's mother and I had sex at some point.

[hunter]

65. It's about the kids, not about you.

How hard is that to comprehend?

This society is selfish, punitive, and broken.

It's in society's best interest to make sure children are provided for. Poverty damages kids and damaged kids become damaged adults.

So far as I can tell this guy hasn't been sent to prison or had his wages garnished yet.

I'm also certain that the existing welfare system nets plenty of guys who use women and abandon kids.

[Mojo Electro]

67. It's about the kids!

So then how about we garnish your paycheck to take care of a few kids that aren't yours, and put you in jail if you can't afford it?

After all, it's in the best interest of society.

[Codeine]

76. And those kids shouldn't be my personal responsibility

because I was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's a biological father who needs to bear that burden, not some random-ass schmuck.

Tell ya what; we'll go ahead and hit you up for child support for my two stepkids who have deadbeat dads. After all, it's about the kids, so I'll be expecting a check by Monday.

[hunter]

95. Want a check from me?

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 10:45 PM - Edit history (2)

You'll have to stand in line.

My credit rating bit the dust with shit-falling-from-the-sky-unexpected-medical-expenses and kids in college.

It's weird how different my world is from the world of my parents. My dad's union medical insurance really did cover everything. My sister and I graduated from state university debt free.

I don't resent any taxes I pay in support a generous welfare system, medicine, or education. But I do resent taxes I pay for our standing military and war machine.

If you can support kids who are not biologically your own then that's a blessing, 100%. Humans are fortunate because our genetic heritage is usually the lesser part of who we become as adults. Parenting matters.

As I said in previous posts, this guy isn't living in some permanent fractured penis hell, it's merely a bad bureaucracy limbo. No need to be a poster boy for lesser men who feel they've been wronged by cheating women. Jesus. Talk about stereotypes. Why would anyone want to be them?

It's not real money until the state takes it, and nobody is imprisoned until they've slept behind bars a couple of days. Hell, I've had worse times sleeping in airports after the weather goes bad or terrorists run amok.

[stevenleser]

117. No. "Think of the children" is an emotional appeal that shouldn't trump justice and fairness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Throughout the centuries, "Think of the Children" has been used to justify all kinds of bad policies from the simply unfair to the genocidal.

Either it makes sense and is fair and just, or it isn't. What happened to this guy isn't fair or just and it definitely does not make sense.

[dsc]

66. Not in this case it isn't

the kid won't see a dime of this money, not one single, solitary, dime. This is about a cheap ass state getting its money back and probably charging usurious interest to boot.

[Beaverhausen]

59. People need to read the article before judging this man

jesus people, READ THE ARTICLE!!!

[Shrike47]

77. Think about this: since he didn't 't properly contest the judgment in 1991, the State had no

opportunity to go after the right guy. Because he failed to put the State on notice, tax payers are out $30,000, but they should just suck it up?

I'm not saying that would be the correct way to view the situation, but it is a viable argument that the State could make.

Isn't law fun?

[BklnDem75]

80. The state is responsible for keeping all parties informed...

If the state fails to serve, that's not Alexander's fault.

[Shrike47]

109. But in 1991, he discovered the judgment. As the judge told him in court, he should have brought

it up then. At that point, the child was still a minor and the real father could have been determined. The State had a facially good proof of service, why would it investigate further?

[BklnDem75]

110. The judge is referring to the original appearance...

The appearance he couldn't make because he was in jail, and was never informed about. When he found out, the judgement was already a done deal.

[Shrike47]

115. I was referring to a judge's comment I read about this case in another article with more info.

Because I've appeared at tons of these hearings, I got interested and googled this case for more info.

As an attorney, I absolutely loathed support enforcement work but it was part of the job.

[stevenleser]

118. I think anything the state intends to do to you, taking money or imprisonment wise, the state has an

obligation to get it right and if it doesn't, the state should be liable.

[joshcryer]

121. Yes, law is awesome.

This dude will be fine. Once all the avenues are expended. It sucks, but it's a rare case.

[SomethingFishy]

97. My ex-wife and her mom,

after we got divorced and I got custody of the kids, didn't ever pay a dime in child support. What they did do was use the kids names to apply for TANF funds and got them. Once the state figured out that I had custody, their funds were cut off and I was forced to pay back all the money the state had given them. Over 3 grand I had to pay to the state, even though I didn't see a dime of that money or a single dime of child support. Still haven't.