[Fido969]

The court refused Doug's request for a continuance to obtain counsel to assist in contesting paternity.

Family court judges are the worst people in the legal community. Divorce lawyers suck, but family court judges are folks who couldn't even make a living as divorce lawyers. They're a dumb as bricks.

[John Semmens]

California Law Enables Paternity Fraud

A California Court of Appeals ruled that Taron Grant James who was forced to make child support payments based on a paternity judgment later proven fraudulent is not entitled to reimbursement. James was named as father on the birth certificate of a child born to Tami Burton in 1992—even though he couldn’t have been the father since he was deployed in the Gulf War during the time of conception.

Ultimately, with the assistance of California authorities, Burton was able to bilk James out of $12,000, damage his credit rating, and put him through years of legal hassles.

Writing for the court, Justice Paul Boland said that while the impact on James may have been harsh and unjust, the law has worked as intended. “The law is intended, first and foremost, to safeguard the child,” Boland explained. “The Legislature balanced the competing interests of the declared father and the child and concluded a right of reimbursement should not be allowed.”

“Basically, California law says that any woman can name any man the father of her child,” Boland continued. “Until that man can conclusively prove he is not the father he will be required to make child-support payments. Even if it takes years to rectify the matter, as it did in this case, the man will not be reimbursed any of the money taken from him. To do so could harm the child, who is the most innocent of victims.”

read more...

http://www.azconservative.org/Column_Archives.htm

[chaos_5]

OK, there is a point when a post becomes too long to read. Yeah.. anyway..

Doug was forced to pay child support into the household of the child's real father

Its times like this when I am tempted to say "ammo is cheap", but I wouldn't want to advocate violence. No, that would be bad.

[TheSpottedOwl]

Gadzooks! That’s a lot of info to read. I was very angry with Gray Davis and his veto of AB 2320(2240-heck, I can’t remember). It stunk to high heaven.

Also, look at the incentives that Social Services gets when they are able to snatch an adoptable child.

[free me]

Good informative (but long!) post.

[GovernmentShrinker]

That child needs to know his or her genetic heritage for medical purposes. That child needs to have the opportunity to establish a relationship with his or her father.

Bull droppings. Lots of people don't know their "genetic heritage", including the vast majority of people who were adopted as infants. And lots more people THINK they know their genetic heritage, despite the fact that several hospital-based studies have shown that a huge percentage of newborns are not the biological offspring of the father listed on their birth certificates. In the very near future, everyone will be able to know a lot more about their personal medical genetics via DNA testing, than they could ever know by knowing who their biological parents are.

And no child will benefit from "establishing a relationship with" a low-life biological father who vanished from the child's life and financial support, and was only dragged back by a court order under threat of imprisonment and wage garnishment.

[chesley]

Justice between the parents is always in the best interests of the child.

[paltz]

The stepparent enters the relationship with the child knowing that there is no biological connection and, despite that knowledge, affirmatively acts to begin providing support for that child. When the stepparent, male or female, wishes to exit from the financial relationship, there is no question that he or she is absolutely allowed to do so. In contrast, the paternity fraud victim has a financial relationship with the child that is founded upon a falsehood. The paternity fraud victim has not been given the chance to make a voluntary choice to provide support to a child despite actual knowledge that he has no biological relationship. When the fraud is discovered and the paternity fraud victim wishes to cease providing financial support to a child, his case should be stronger than that of a stepparent who entered into the financial support relationship with full knowledge that there was no biological connection. Instead, the paternity fraud victim is never given a choice. He is first lied to in order to establish paternity and is then denied relief when the lie is exposed. The court thus becomes party to both the perpetration and the perpetuation of the victimization.

Unfriggin-believeable

[Jim Noble]

This is an extremely simple problem. The law has only been in place for 34 years that causes all of these problems, and it is the result of a Supreme Court decision in 1973, Gomez v. Perez.

Prior to 1973, and for hundreds and hundreds of years, children born to a married woman were legally the children of her husband, and he was responsible for their support, regardless of biological paternity.

The corollary was that children born to an unmarried woman were HER responsibility alone, as they had no legal father, regardless of biological paternity.

The USSC, in its wisdom, eliminated this wise distinction, with the result that biological paternity, rather than prior legal obligation, became the governing factor in child support.