Posted on 06/22/2007 10:29:37 AM PDT by SmithL
LOS ANGELES—A Torrance man cannot be reimbursed for thousands of dollars he was forced to pay to support a child he did not father, an appeals court ruled.
State laws do not allow Taron James to demand repayment of the money he supplied before a DNA test confirmed that the child of a former girlfriend was someone else's, the state 2nd District Court of Appeal said in a ruling published Tuesday.
James, 38, said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court.
James said he has been in "financial hell" since the case began.
"The fight is to keep this from happening to anyone else," he said.
James was with the Navy in the Persian Gulf in 1992 when his former girlfriend gave birth to a son and claimed he was the father.
The mother later sought child support and in 1996 Los Angeles County forced James to begin paying $121 a month to its child support unit. A DNA test in 2001 proved that he was not the father and he was allowed to stop making payments.
Last year, a court set aside the paternity finding on the basis of fraud but refused his request for reimbursement.
In its opinion, a three-member appellate panel said state law specifies that a "previously established father" has no right to reimbursement when the paternity is voided.
That appeared to be aimed at protecting a child from financial hardship, the court said.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Laurence Rubin suggested that the state Legislature might change the law to make public agencies, rather than parents, responsible for reimbursement in cases of paternity fraud or error.
"Should the state Legislature enact legislation saying that there will be reimbursement for fathers, we would be obligated to follow the law," said Fesia Davenport, an attorney for the county's Department of Child Support Services.
The law is a ass
How about if they find the actual father, he reimburses the guy as well as pays child support?
Why can’t he sue the “real” sperm donor....ummm...father for back support?
Paul.
Why couldn’t he sue mom for common law fraud and use the support paid as the proper measure of damages (along with every other dime he ever shelled out)?
Sue da bitch.
Better yet, this judge should have just rendered those decisions.
Not that it’s his fault, but I wonder why he waited so long to do a DNA test.
The whole child support system stinks.
Works for me.
I don’t think that would work out too well. She could easily say (perhaps truthfully) that she was believed James was the father.
Sue the woman for theft by fraudulent means.
Put a lien on the beeyatch’s house.
I think the best question is:
Why can’t states pass laws that say that parents are not responsible for child support for children that can be proven through DNA to be not theirs, regardless of time limits.
bump
I do not see any mention of anyone going after the person whose lie started all this.
Very few women do not know who the father of their child is, and given he was away on war duty at times that the child may have been conceived, she could have said “I am not sure.” But she did not.
Why isn't she in jail for perjury and abuse of process.
The fraud would be her statement she was having sex with nobody else that she was completely faithful with him. After meeting with his attorney he would probably clearly remember her having made those statements. Since this was an untrue statement of an current or past fact which she knew or should have known he was relying on to his detriment....bingo, we have fraud. Now what's the best measure of damages?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.