Child support law leaves man a default dad

Tulsa World ^ | October 13, 2008 | Jarrel Wade

[RogerFGay]

Brande Samuels, 29, shows some
of the child support documents from
the Oklahoma Department of Human
Services. Samuels has been forced by
the state to pay child support for a
child but DNA tests show he is not the
father. SHERRY BROWN /
Tulsa World Friday

He promised himself and his family that when he left his prison cell, he would work hard to build a stable and positive life. After two years in prison, he was released early on good behavior and worked for less than minimum wage while he trained to become a welder. But that's when he first got notice from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services' Child Support Enforcement Division that he owed child support, he said.

Now, Samuels owes about $13,000 in back child support, he lives with his ailing grandfather and DHS seizes portions of his wages every month. "The last four years have been the worst in my life," Samuels said about life since leaving prison in 2004. "I went into so much debt." Samuels said under other circumstances he would take full responsibility for the child as a father should.

But he is not the father.

0.00 percent chance

Samuels was aware of the possibility that he might be the father during the pregnancy, he said. But the mother had been in another relationship at the same time.

"She wouldn't even allow me to sign the birth certificate," he said.

Two months later, the mother — Nadia Smith — put his name down as the father when she filed for child support, which Samuels wouldn't learn about until after his Oklahoma prison sentence, he said.

"They make (the mother) give up a name for the potential father. If she doesn't give up a name, then she can't get any assistance," Samuels said about the process to receive child support.

Jeff Wagner, spokesman for DHS, said when a mother is opening a child support case, she names the alleged father and provides "a great deal of information" in the Mother's Affidavit of Paternity.

In 2004, when Samuels left prison and learned of his obligation to DHS, case workers told Samuels if he wanted to fight the original order and get a hearing, he needed a lawyer, he said.

"I just want to be heard," he said. "The court was made for justice. It was made to help make the right decision."

Samuels did not have enough money to pay a lawyer, and no one would take his case for free, so in 2006, he approached Neighbor for Neighbor, a Tulsa nonprofit organization. They helped him prepare papers to require the mother to provide the child for a DNA test.

He found out then that the mother had left the state and had to be tracked down. She had left Oklahoma for Texas, Texas for Iowa, and then Iowa for Mississippi between 2004 and 2007, he said.

Neighbor for Neighbor helped Samuels track her through the courts and filed court papers seeking a DNA test from the child in March 2007, according to court records.

Two months later, Samuels received DNA evidence that the child support had been based on a false assumption. He was not the father — 0.00 percent chance.

"I was hurt. I was actually hurt because they put me through all this stuff without the child even being mine," he said.

After his three years of work, he believed he would be forgiven all his debt for the child, he said.

But it wasn't forgiven, and according to Oklahoma law, it won't be forgiven.

Default fatherhood

In child support cases, the burden of proof is on the alleged father — the accused — according to Oklahoma statutes.

An alleged father must appear at a child support hearing to request a paternity test. If he does not appear, he is legally designated as the father and child support is established in most cases.

Once designated as the father, that person is financially responsible for the child until he or she is 18 or adopted with a few stipulations for petitions which may vacate the original order, according to Oklahoma statutes.

DHS records show that Samuels was served papers to appear for his child support hearing in 2001, but Samuels said he was working in Texas at the time and could not have received the notice.

Wagner said by Oklahoma law someone can be legally served if the subpoena is put into the hands of someone 15 or older who lives at the same residence as the person.

But Samuels said the documents never touched his hands.

Regardless of the outcome of the DNA test, which Samuels spent three years trying to get, it was already too late.

Samuels was ruled the default father in 2001, and legally, DNA has no bearing.

"If you got me on default, you should still have to prove that I'm the father," he said.

This is the second recent story in the media of a default father being forced to pay child support in a bureaucratic nightmare with DHS.

The first, reported by The Oklahoman, was about Micheal Thomas of Tulsa, who had shown that he had never even met the mother and that he had DNA evidence that showed he wasn't the father. Still, he became a default father after missing his initial court hearing.

DHS does not keep statistics on the number of established fathers or default fathers who are not genetically related to the child they are responsible for, Wagner said.

In the eyes of the law and DHS, once paternity is established, there is no difference.

DHS officials would not comment on whether any changes have been made in establishing paternity since the Micheal Thomas case was reported.

---

Paternity figures

Between April 1, 2007, and March 31, the state Department of Human Services established paternity of 20,452 children in Oklahoma —of those cases, 5,208 were forced through court order, according to DHS Child Support Enforcement Division records.

In the same time period, there were 3,127 paternity tests conducted in DHS cases. Of those, 781 of the alleged fathers were found not to be the genetic father and were released from the case.

---

Jarrel Wade 581-8310
jarrel.wade@tulsaworld.com

[RogerFGay]

Take your pick. How about - Sarah Palin is not a woman. Is it ok for me to state emphatically that she is?

[wtc911]

You don’t respect a man who diligently maintained a relationship with his daughters even after they had been moved 1500 miles away? I question your judgment.

[An American In Dairyland]

I don't see any end to the argument, so I was just hoping we could mutually understand one another and agree to disagree.

Only so long as you do not continue to point out the wrongs and the need to change them while continuing to ignore the track record of one candidate who you still cheerlead for here. That is hypocrisy pure and simple.

As a factual matter, I haven't seen evidence to support what you're saying.

Are you saying you didn't even bother to read my entire post yesterday to you on usenet? Why do I even bother? I HAVE proof. The investigator FOUND real legal documents from Judge Suddock in Family Court that are proof.

I pointed out yesterday that you, like almost everyone else never ask to see the proof. I have links. I've said this to you before. Do you want them? If so, I'll email them to you BUT if you're not going to read them then say so because I don't want to waste my time.

It wasn't even her divorce and her sister and brother-in-law ended up with joint custody. It's certainly far from clear to say the least.

Far from clear now? Give me a break. Read Branchflower's report. HE quotes the judge in the divorce case. That it wasn't her divorce or HER husband makes this all the more serious IMO. Just think what she'd do if it was her husband.

So, what's the value of focusing on that question at the expense of focusing on real issues in a concrete way?

Just because the campaign and the Republican Party say there's nothing there folks, move along doesn't mean it is true. It IS a real issue but only so far as men's and father's and family issues go. You cannot divorce what she did from these issues and she HAS been found guilty of doing that. I'm sorry that is inconvenient for you just now, but if you really want to see changes made in the current family issue arena you must take a stand on this issue. You cannot have it both ways here or you lose credibility.

Sarah Palin has also been accused of forcing rape victims

I don't know whether to call the above a Red Herring or a Straw Man. I think it is both. I NEVER mentioned Palin and rape on this thread or in any conversation anywhere with you. We are not discussing rape or rape victims here, we are discussing men and father's issues here. Why are you trying to change the subject?

[An American In Dairyland]

Take your pick. How about - Sarah Palin is not a woman. Is it ok for me to state emphatically that she is?

You are being deliberately ridiculous now and you are still trying to change the subject. I never ever claimed she wasn't a woman. As a matter of fact, I get that accusation here and on usenet all of the time. IF she's getting it, she's a big girl just like me and she can handle just like I do.

Back to the subject of men's and father's issues. There are NO false accusations against her here. They have been documented in Family Court and in Branchflower's reports. I suppose he's partisan too now even though he's been a Republican most if not all of his life. Some people can be conservative and even Republican and still point out the facts however they fall. Face up to it. She did what she was accused of and she was foolish enough to allow it to get on a Family Court transcript.

[Theophilus]

This man's constitutional rights are being violated!

Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Pan_Yan]

I read the report on the Troopergate issue. Okay, I didn't read the entire thing, but I did read the transcript of the family court and the findings section (43 pages, I believe?).

I understand the governor's desire to protect her sister from an ex husband who by all accounts is not someone most of us want to be related to. And also, by most accounts, he is not fit to wear the badge of a law enforcement officer. However, he seems to be protected by a powerful union.

I believe that the governor overstepped her bounds. I don't think she did anything illegal, but the problem is that her office allowed her access that other citizens don't have. She apparently used this access to try and resolve an issue that did not directly involve her office in an official capacity.

I also don't think this disqualifies her the vice presidency. Once again, it is the choice of voting for the best available. McCain does not inspire more than a small percentage of the electorate. Palin probably does not deserve the level of fervor she has inspired. But she appears to be a better candidate on the issues and conservative ideology than any of the other three on the top tickets.

I don't think Palin’s bad decision making related to the trooper issue makes her an unfit choice. Roger should be free to support her, even if she has a history of actions that are directly contradictory to Roger's beliefs on the topic he values the most. In the end she has more pluses than minuses. An Obama presidency would be far worse for families than a McCain presidency.

To quote Ronald Reagen “Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff.”

[RogerFGay]

I spent time looking into the Wooten thing, so I don't think I've gone into the discussion without knowledge. Certainly I looked into it before writing articles making reference to the facts. What I found was a gossip mill with people grasping at straws and spinning. The "evidence" is that there was some kind of battle going on within the family and later that Gov. Palin didn't want the family problem encroaching on her political life. The he-said-she-saids go back and forth for a while - offering anyone who wants to take sides and opportunity - but without Sarah Palin being much in the middle of it - and it eventually settles down. Wooten was not fired and he has joint custody.

There's personal drama there but nothing that opens up a solution to the political destruction of marriage and family.

[RogerFGay]

In 1993, the 9th federal circuit court of appeals reclassified marriage and family issues from civil law to social policy. Under the new classification there are no civil rights - the Bill of Rights has in effect been decommissioned. The fathers’ rights movement grew, analysts have been analyzing and writing about this stuff since about 1990. The personal life is now a government program and all the people subjects.

[RogerFGay]

She apparently used this access to try and resolve an issue that did not directly involve her office in an official capacity.

I understand that's an accusation but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support it.

Besides that - my point about Palin is in the public response. What is it that excited people? You don't and in fact shouldn't go too deeply looking for the truth about Palin to answer this question. (And I honestly doubt we're going to learn much about her anyway before the election.) People responded on raw initial image as amplified by their hopes and dreams. So - what did the Palin bounce mean? What desire were people expressing in their emotional response? Noting that this is "Palin essence" more than Palin herself:

The secret formula for a McCain victory is to bring the Palin essence into the campaign as more than just a highly successful convention speech. Fight the culture war. Give us a democratic choice. The bounce will return as a solid lead. Find the lost Americans with a promise to return to constitutionally based civil law, something the conservative base, the middle, and even many on the left actually favor, and they will surely vote overwhelmingly in his favor. Simply put, take the idea, the image, the feeling that produced the Sarah Palin bounce, take the Palin essence and turn it into real political promise. source

BTW: I also analyzed the Obama campaign in such articles as: Reinvigorating the Obama Campaign and Obama / Biden: Four More Years of Bush.

[seemoAR]

I am very impatient with people who seem to think it is okay for a woman to have an affair and bring a child into a marriage. Some people on this forum seem to believe the poor, dumb, gullible husband should just suck it up and raise a child that isn't his. The same people(women) wouldn't allow a cheating husband to bring his girl friend's child into her home. ;0) Why should any man be required to pay child support for his wife's illegitimate children? I have been in a marriage where I honestly don't know about my children since my dear ex-wife was cheating the whole 9 years we were married. I buried my head in the sand and ignored the all to common signs. I paid more than the required amount of child support. I paid for 15 years. My children are grown now, the youngest is 31, and I have no contact with them. By the way, I kept my **** to myself.

[Pan_Yan]

I am very impatient with people who seem to think it is okay for a woman to have an affair and bring a child into a marriage. Some people on this forum seem to believe the poor, dumb, gullible husband should just suck it up and raise a child that isn't his.

Was your comment directly in response to something I posted? I understand your commment, but I hope I'm not counted amongst those "some people'. I believe that parenting is a 100% commitment by both parents equally. I also believe that the most important thing that I can do for my children is respect, honor and love their mother. Infidelity is not acceptible from either party.

I am sorry for the situation you are in regarding your children. We can't go back and repair the past, but God will always work with us where we are now.

[seemoAR]

The subject of this thread was a man being forced to pay child support for another man’s child. Some people on this forum seem to be OK with that.

[metesky]

Land of the sleaze,
Home of the knave...

[AbolishCSEU]

Well here in NYS you can get automatic notices of ficticious “arrearages” similar to the way seniors get fake bills in the mail asking them to pay or else; and many of them do!

We all know that CSEU gets proportionate admin fees to the amount of matriarchy, ahem, I mean child support they collect. They have no incentive to follow a court order stating the actual amount of CS nor does the court have any incentive to grant a downward modification (unless the payor/non-custodial parent happens to be female)

Case in point, my husband makes $28K a year. He has three children from his ex-wife. He has a court order of $12K per year in CS. Even though the amount is directly scooped out of his paycheck every single week, he still gets “arreage” notices every 6 months or so with some arbitrary amount with a notice threatening jail or driver’s license suspension. He has paid since day one; actually he VOLUNTEERED his ENTIRE PAYCHECK for the first 6 months that he and his wonderful modern day feminist *now* ex-wife separated. In the meantime, this wonderful feminist ex-wife has inflicted parental alienation on the three children; telling them that daddy is pond scum and doesn’t pay any child support!!! So how is THIS fair? File this under “good thing the new wife is gainfully employed” department.

[An American In Dairyland]

There's personal drama there but nothing that opens up a solution to the political destruction of marriage and family.

Never said it did. That's another strawman argument on your part.

My point, one you haven't been able to refute, is that when Palin has already demonstrated her anti-man leanings just by her actions in her private life (more telling than what a candidate says in public), then there's NO likelihood of her being helpful to men, father's and family in the future. What isn't helpful, is harmful by default.

No one's been talking about marriage in *this* context--you're trying to move the goal posts here again in your effort to obfuscate what I am talking about.