Skip to comments.MI Man not the Dad, but Owes the State Welfare Reimbursement Anyway
Posted on 07/29/2010 12:29:32 PM PDT by fathers1
One of my first jaw-dropping experiences in the fathers rights arena came back in 1999. I was researching the phenomenon of men who had learned after the fact - and sometimes long after the fact - that theyd fathered a child. I was interested in what happened to their parental rights if a mother kept a mans child secret from him. I was astonished to learn that the rights of such a dad could vanish into thin air. The rule in many states was that, since he hadnt actively cared for the child, he had no more claim to it. The fact that the mother had intentionally deprived him of the ability to do that often made no difference to courts.
So I had lengthy conversations with a number of those dads, one of whom lived in Lompoc, California. Hed had a one-night stand with a woman 16 years previously. They both lived in the same community, but she decided he didnt need to know about it when she became pregnant and gave birth to his daughter. Then she started receiving AFDC payments (now TANF) from the state which were required to be reimbursed by the father. Fifteen years later, the dad received a letter from the State of California saying (a) he had a daughter and (b) he owed the state over $40,000. This was shortly after hed gotten married. He had to get a second mortgage on his house to pay off the state.
This case is very much the same, but in fact much worse (WXYZ, 7/8/10). This time its the State of Michigan thats suing Gary Harper for AFDC payments made to a woman named Dorothy Hoose. She had a son in 1988 and named Harper as the dad. Theres just one problem, though; hes not.
But the State of Michigan isnt interested in technicalities like who the actual father is. Its known for many years that Harper is not the dad and, as far as I can tell, lifted nary a finger to find out who is. Thats because its got Harper on its line and the hook is set. Why go after another fish when youve already got one reeled in?
You see, when Hoose named Harper as the dad, he was in prison. According to Michigan law, the state has to pay for a DNA test for any inmate for whom it seeks to establish paternity. The state knew Harper was in the joint because a Friend of the Court sent correspondence there about his case. But it never offered him the genetic testing.
After he got out, he didnt have the $500 it would have taken at the time to determine whether he was the dad or not. He didnt do the test until years later, when he had the money. That test proved he wasnt the dad, but it was too late. His window of opportunity for disproving his paternity had closed. Thats one of those technicalities the state is interested in.
So as of now, Harpers on the hook for $22,500, down from the $50,000 the state claimed at first. Hes got an attorney, Susan Pushman, who says that the states failure to provide DNA testing when Harper was inside means it cant complain that he didnt do it on his own when he got out. If Michigan had done what it was obligated to do, it would have known Harper isnt the father, is her argument. The case is pending.
The child in question is now 22 years old. Perhaps oddly, he and Harper have gotten to know and like each other pretty well. Thats a positive development in an otherwise tawdry affair.
Its worth asking why the State of Michigan has expended such effort in trying to bankrupt a man it knows has no responsibility for Hooses son. After all, Harper has been trying to get his life back together after his time in prison, and hes done a pretty good job of that. But if the state has its way, itll tear down whatever hes built. Nice.
What truly escapes me is why state welfare authorities dont just ask Hoose who the father is, do DNA testing on him and, if shes right this time, demand payment. Whats the problem with getting the right man and letting the wrong one go? What state interest is served by soaking a man whos not the father and letting the man who is go free? One of the points of child support is that he who fathers a child should be financially responsible for it. In Harpers case, the State of Michigan has it exactly backwards.
Sounds fair. NOT.
Looks like the law was made to please the biggest supporters of the dems - militant man-hating feminazis. That explains it all. Men have no rights under leftist fascism. Men are only good for their money.
The facts don’t matter only the law and we can all feel better with the words of Alcee Hastings where that is concerned:
“There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along.”
—Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.)
“Its worth asking why the State of Michigan has expended such effort in trying to bankrupt a man it knows has no responsibility for Hooses son.”
As you probably know, there’s nothing more dangerous or arrogant than a lazy prosecutor or state’s attorney. “We don’t have to, you lose, pay up or we’ll take everything you own.” The most forceful argument I can think of against mandatory presumptions.
Colonel, USAFR, Esq.
You know, they used to have these things called press gangs...
Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.
But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.
Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.
Compound this with a "mother" claiming a guy is a father and a case is brought into family court. If the guy cannot be reached to appear (say he lives in a different state); be default, he becomes the legal father. No DNA needed.
"Family" court is a God awful abomination. I escaped it somewhat lighter in the pockets; but with most of my liberty intact.
Doesn’t even require un-zipping these days.
Had a friend this happened to. Dated a girl for about a year, broke up and never heard from her again. That is until about 5 years later when he got a letter from her lawyer demanding child support.
He wanted to make sure it was his so he did the DNA test and sure enough it was his. So...he decided to do little checking on this ex girlfriend and lo and behold he dug up some nasty stuff about her and used it against her in court.
He wound up taking FULL custody of the little girl and almost had her sent to jail for numerous charges.
So ladies, if you think you will ALWAYS win this kind of case, beware, you may not like the outcome.
Is there any possibility that he could sue the woman who LIED to the state and now has inflicted him with sever emotional and financial strain?
I never got in much trouble (6 figure touble) with my pants zipped up.
This piker got off easy with just the massive injustice and 5 figure trouble.
Yet another reason to remain single, CELIBATE, and sane.
It only took 3 trips to the cleaners to figure that out.
That is true, but staying zipped stops a lot of it.
MI is messed up and completely lazy in any friend of the court situation unless its a huge payoff.
..or slander, libel, defamation of character. He should throw the kitchen sink at her, and use whatever judgment he gets to seize any assets she has.
In a lot of places a woman can name a man on the BC as the father with whom she has never had sex and the guy won’t know until the state comes after him; usually after the time for him to rebut the BC that he doesn’t know about in the first place. You could keep it zipped and still get screwed, so to speak.
***Anytime a man cant keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.***
“Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.
But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.
Anytime a man cant keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.”
And you have never made a mistake in your entire life?
Even if “They should have kept their pants zipped up” this is completely wrong. These men are getting screwed by the state and these lying skanks.
These men need to seek justice OUTSIDE the legal system, since none exists within it. The evildoers can be harmed as well... financially and/or physically.
It’s relatively easy to do if you have the stomach for it...
I vaguely remember a case in So Cal where a man paid child support for years but after paying it all those years found out he wasn’t the kids dad after all.
I believe he quit making the payments and the DA came after him even tho he could prove it wasn’t his responsibility. DA didn’t care. He was already “on the hook” and had been for years. DA wasn’t the least bit interested in getting this guy’s money back for him either.