Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bureaucratic idiocy - Court says man owes child support for kid who isn't his

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bureaucratic idiocy - Court says man owes child support for kid who isn't his

    I'm no expert on MI paternity law. However, this judge has to be capable of coming up with a more effective resolution than this.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nationa...snt-his/nhtJ7/

    Court says man owes child support for kid who isn't his

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

    That's Carnell Alexander. He currently owes about $30,000 in back child support. The state of Michigan says if he doesn't pay up, he could face prison time. But here's the thing: The child, who is now an adult, isn't Alexander's, and he has the DNA tests to prove it.

    Lynn Berry for HLN: "Carnell Alexander's ex-girlfriend put his name down as the father of her child when she applied for state assistance. That was 27 years ago. That put him on the hook for everything she received."

    The state of Michigan requires everyone applying for welfare assistance to give either the name of the child's father or list all men who could potentially be the father.

    On Michigan's Department of Human Services website, it clearly states failing to do this could result in "your public assistance benefits [being] reduced or canceled."

    Ex-girlfriend: "I had to put his name down as the father. It was the only way I could get assistance. ... Everything is my fault that I put him through."

    WXYZ says Alexander didn't even learn he'd been listed as the father of the child until he was pulled over in 1991 for a traffic stop. It was then he was told there was a warrant out for his arrest because he'd failed to pay about $70,000 in child support.

    "I knew I didn't have a child, so I was kind of blown back," Alexander says.

    The Pundit Press reports despite having a DNA test conducted, a Michigan judge says Alexander is still required to pay $30,000 to the state in child support since he never signed a summons issued to him more than two decades ago.

    Alexander says he wasn't even aware of the child support case and the summons and therefore was unable to sign it because he was in prison at the time.

    A writer for Opposing Views says the ex-girlfriend, who wished to remain anonymous, is attempting to help Alexander. She appealed to the court on his behalf, letting the judge know the child's biological father is involved now.

    The court, for the moment, is staying firm on its ruling that Alexander must pay the $30,000 or go to prison.

  • #2
    As crazy as it sounds, it happens more than you think. In fact, in my family. I adopted my sin after his presumed father wanted to challenge his paternity. Unfortunately, my son was 4 by this time and in Texas law, a man has 4 years from the date of birth to petition on the paternity otherwise it stands regardless of DNA. He isn't biologically his son but he was lucky we found a loophole to terminate his rights and I adopted him.

    Sometimes the laws are screwy buts that why you should educate yourself on them to be able to use them to your favor or to avoid issues.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by eaker995 View Post
      As crazy as it sounds, it happens more than you think. In fact, in my family. I adopted my sin after his presumed father wanted to challenge his paternity.
      I think you meant "son".

      In the original article, I couldn't help but chuckle at this:
      "Alexander says he wasn't even aware of the child support case and the summons and therefore was unable to sign it because he was in prison at the time. "

      If the woman was going to fake a dad, seems like she could have aimed a little higher.......

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes. Thanks. I'm at work so typing on my phone too fast and autocorrect loves to mess with me. I usually catch it but not this time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ive seen people who were not the biological father have their names put on birth certificates to "help" the mother out.Then years later when it comes up claim they shouldnt be liable.

          Comment


          • #6
            Happens all the time in many states.

            CA law for example requires the court to do what's best for the CHILD.... and having someone provide child support is clearly best for the child, so an adult who has been acting as parent in some fashion, ie: "uncle"/ mom's boyfriend, can be required to continue to support the child even after the other relationship ends.

            It can also happen when the presumed father turns out not to be, but the real father isn't in a position to support the child.
            Last edited by tanksoldier; 10-28-2014, 09:33 PM.
            "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

            "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

            Comment


            • #7
              I work juvenile court alot--------just like a husband is presumed to be the father ----which of course is not always the truth

              This happens a lot
              Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

              My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

              Comment


              • #8
                Have a better story. Man and woman have child in Trinidad. Male clearly on birth certificate as father. Woman had married man to get into the good ol' USA. Once in NYC, woman proceeds to divorce man. woman hires attorney, man goes pro-se. In divorce decree, woman states no children of marriage. Few years later woman petitions in Family Court for child support, claiming male is father of child. I repped man in Family Court. Pointed out to the court that a ruling from the State Supreme Court stated no children. Ruling from the higher court trumped all the woman's evidence. No child support for her. Child support, paternity rulings can make your head spin.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
                  Happens all the time in many states.

                  CA law for example requires the court to do what's best for the CHILD.... and having someone provide child support is clearly best for the child, so an adult who has been acting as parent in some fashion, ie: "uncle"/ mom's boyfriend, can be required to continue to support the child even after the other relationship ends.

                  It can also happen when the presumed father turns out not to be, but the real father isn't in a position to support the child.
                  I guess I never really pictured it from that perspective. I suppose it benefits a few children, but it doesn't take the duped fathers' plight into account at all. They find out that they've been had for years, then they're told that the truth is irrelevant, and to keep the checkbook out. Brutal.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Also, the states have a financial interest (surprise!) in enforcing CS orders because they receive federal funding based on the amounts they collect. Whether the non-custodial parent (usually the father) is able to pay, unable to pay or refuses to pay doesn't matter. It then follows that the states have a vested interest in the number of divorces (where children are involved) or paternity suits brought by unmarried parents (usually mothers).

                    I think also there's a common-law element to it. When a man agrees to financially support a child, he is in effect acting as the father, even if he's not the biological one. So it's a two edged sword, in that on the one hand, the man has "obligated" himself to support a child that may not be his, but on the other hand, if the child is not his and he is unaware of that fact, then he's essentially been duped.
                    It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      But what about when a man believes they are the father, raises the child for years, the child calls him dad, they go to ball games, ride bikes, fish, but he finds out years later he is not biologically the father. Has he been duped? This child is essentially his by Bertie of him raising that child. I've seen many men get upset and suddenly try to cut off from the child. Did those years of loving the child mean nothing at that point? What about the child who knows this man as "dad"? Are they now left out, confused and wondering what is going on and who they are? There is more to being a father than blood. Ask my son.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Love that auto correct again. I really need to put that thing in check. The "Bertie" is supposed to be "vertue".

                        Came back to this with another point. This is a 2 edge sword but not for the man.

                        A woman has you paying child support for a child you raised but is not biologically yours. You still have just as much rights as if you were the biological father. How many stories have you heard about a mother who basically wants to get paid but doesn't want the man in the child's life? Guess what? Too bad. If a court decides you are the father and has you paying, you have the right to be involved in that child's life. Only then, it's up to you if you will step up to that challenge or back down and crawl away and complain about how you are paying for someone else's child when you could be a part of it, watch this child grow, love it and it loves you and enjoy the life you and the child has. THAT is being a man and THAT is what being a father is.
                        Last edited by eaker995; 10-29-2014, 10:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by eaker995 View Post
                          But what about when a man believes they are the father, raises the child for years, the child calls him dad, they go to ball games, ride bikes, fish, but he finds out years later he is not biologically the father. Has he been duped? This child is essentially his by Bertie of him raising that child. I've seen many men get upset and suddenly try to cut off from the child. Did those years of loving the child mean nothing at that point? What about the child who knows this man as "dad"? Are they now left out, confused and wondering what is going on and who they are? There is more to being a father than blood. Ask my son.
                          In applicable cases, that outcome is certainly the best. However, the example in the story is from the other end of the spectrum. The man was completely unaware, uninvolved, and unrelated.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Very true. I was commenting more on the comments others were starting to make. The story is a different case.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by eaker995 View Post
                              Love that auto correct again. I really need to put that thing in check. The "Bertie" is supposed to be "vertue".

                              Came back to this with another point. This is a 2 edge sword but not for the man.

                              A woman has you paying child support for a child you raised but is not biologically yours. You still have just as much rights as if you were the biological father. How many stories have you heard about a mother who basically wants to get paid but doesn't want the man in the child's life? Guess what? Too bad. If a court decides you are the father and has you paying, you have the right to be involved in that child's life. Only then, it's up to you if you will step up to that challenge or back down and crawl away and complain about how you are paying for someone else's child when you could be a part of it, watch this child grow, love it and it loves you and enjoy the life you and the child has. THAT is being a man and THAT is what being a father is.
                              Lacking the desire to 'adopt' a government imposed foster child does not make someone any less of a man. Many good folks have the time, resources, and desire to raise a child. That is a wonderful thing, but it should occur on their terms.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5578 users online. 328 members and 5250 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X