Childless man freed after serving time for child support violations

[Bob Hubbard]

Interesting

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/15/georgia.child.support/index.html

• Story Highlights
• Frank Hatley was jailed last year for falling behind on child support payments
• Hatley had paid for 13 years until he learned boy might not have been his
• DNA test proved child wasn't Hatley's, but court still ordered back payment
• The south Georgia man was released from jail Wednesday

Translation: We don't care he's not your kid, pay up anyway because we don't care as long as someone pays up. Or else.

 

[Darksoul]

-Someone must protect the children. Would some please think of the children?

(Sarcasm is fun!)


Andrew

 

[Big Don]

While litigiousness generally grates on me, I hope this poor guy sues the hell out of the judge, the prosecutor and the state.

 

[celtic_crippler]

No wonder people think that Georgians are dumb hicks... strike another one up for GA! Yee-Haw!

We got one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation and our state government addresses this by raising property taxes. We got judges that prosecute a man for not paying child support when he has no kids while real dead-beat dads run amuck with no repercussions (I know several women that battle with this). It's just...INSANE!

...Bob, you sure you want to risk driving through here in August?

 

[jks9199]

The problem is that, by not paying, he was in violation of a court order. It turns out it was an unjust order, since he wasn't the father, but until that order is rescinded or changed, he's bound by it. It sucks big time, and the state should morally/justly should not only stop hounding him & absolve him of any child support obligations related to this kid, but even repay him the 13 years (go after the real dad, who skated completely!). But until the legal process is in place, you gotta pay. It's like making payments on a car that's been totaled -- but the insurance company hasn't taken it off your hands and paid off the debt yet.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

...Bob, you sure you want to risk driving through here in August?

Yeah, I'll be ok. I have a high tolerance to "stupid" from my own dealings with the family court system. LOL

 

[Frostbite]

No wonder people think that Georgians are dumb hicks... strike another one up for GA! Yee-Haw!

We got one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation and our state government addresses this by raising property taxes. We got judges that prosecute a man for not paying child support when he has no kids while real dead-beat dads run amuck with no repercussions (I know several women that battle with this). It's just...INSANE!

...Bob, you sure you want to risk driving through here in August?

I don't think it's just a Georgia thing. I've heard of that situation happening here. Apparently the court's opinion is that if you accept responsibility for the child, whether he's yours or not, you can't back out of it later.

 

[geezer]

Help me out here. If I read that article right, it says that Mr. Hatley was only held responsible for the back child support payments for the period prior to 2,000 during which he believed the child was his son. In other words, at that time he had not been paying child support for the kid even though he thought the kid was his.

Furthermore, the article mentions that he was "hard working" and even offered to pay some child support from his welfare check!

Sounds like a deadbeat to me!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Why didn't he get a DNA test 13 years ago when he first got the court order for child support?

Sounds like everyone was stupid in this case.

Deaf

 

[MA-Caver]

The problem is that, by not paying, he was in violation of a court order.

Thing is the man DID pay or paid until he couldn't anymore and it wasn't his fault!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_wrongfully_jailed
Although Hatley was freed from making future payments after a 2001 hearing, Superior Court Judge Dan Perkins had ordered him to continue making $16,000 in back payments. He paid $6,000 of that before being laid off from his job.

I agree that deadbeat dads need to be caught up and made to pay for a child they helped bring into this world. But it's quite another thing to be jailed for not paying and the kid isn't theirs.
I agree... hope he sues their collective dumb butts off.
DNA testing should've been done before jail sentence was decided upon... just to be sure. He could've spent additional time to pay off the costs of the tests had it proved positive he was the father.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Cost of a DNA test?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_DNA_test_cost

"If you require the test to be admissable in court, which is often required in cases of child support or disputed paternity, the costs go up. Some say to $500 or $600. (According to one FAQ Farmer: "I've just had a fully legally binding DNA test, following a dispute with my wife with regard to access to my 3 year old daughter. The test cost me nearly $500. I would have paid near half that if I didn't require a legally binding result.") "

I see on the internet $89 buck test. I'd think the lawyer cost more than the test!

Deaf

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I know someone who years ago tried to do the right thing. The girl said in court, under oath, that she had no idea who the father was. Judge said, "DNA test is $600, you pay. Want it?" Being broke, he said no. A few years later the same girl in a different county took the guy to court. This time, he had no choice as the judge ordered the test done, at his cost. When it came back positive, they hit him with 10 years arrears, payable immediately or jail time. When the past case was brought up the judge "didn't care". He's now paying something around 30% support (NY limit is 17%) despite being current because his payment is based on "what he could potentially earn", not what he actually does. The judge in question is currently dying of incurable cancer, so karma works I guess.

 

[David43515]

In some states you are the "legal" father of any child a woman gives birth to while married to you whether they`re biologically yours or not.That means you`re responsible for thier support unless a judge says otherwise.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

In some states you are the "legal" father of any child a woman gives birth to while married to you whether they`re biologically yours or not.That means you`re responsible for thier support unless a judge says otherwise.

This is absolutely true. In California though, you have a limited time period in which to dispute this presumed parentage.

 

[MA-Caver]

In some states you are the "legal" father of any child a woman gives birth to while married to you whether they`re biologically yours or not.That means you`re responsible for their support unless a judge says otherwise.

As I see it, you get into a relationship with a woman who has children (not yours) and it becomes a question of ethics, you still treat them decently like you would any one else's children. Marry the woman with children is assuming the responsibility because it becomes a moral issue. However I feel that biological fathers should continue to support their own children but the childcare payments should be reduced by half after the mother re-marries, because it's still an obligation.
After all it takes two to make 'em... at least the old fashioned way.

 

[jks9199]

"What he could potentially earn"!!

I could, potentially, be earning millions. I might, with time and practice, be a top MMA star or a movie star. I could work for an agency that pays much more than my agency does... Or I could work (or at least report & get paid for) more OT. Every year, just about every law enforcement agency has one or two guys who make lots more than the chief or anyone else... Of course, those guys never turn down OT, look for extra duty gigs, and so on, and have less than no life... The same argument could be said of almost any of us!

Now, if he's got five degrees, relevant work experience, and is deliberately turning down better paying jobs to try to short the baby-momma, that's one thing. But how the hell do you force someone to earn what they potentially could -- ESPECIALLY in the current economy!

 

[Big Don]

But how the hell do you force someone to earn what they potentially could -- ESPECIALLY in the current economy!

Oh, they don't care if you ACTUALLY earn that, just that you PAY the percentage they want of your "potential" earnings.

 

[arnisador]

In some states you are the "legal" father of any child a woman gives birth to while married to you whether they`re biologically yours or not.That means you`re responsible for thier support unless a judge says otherwise.

We've had this discussion before. This is a very old aspect of common law from pre-DNA testing times intended to protect families. If a married couple had a child and another man claimed it was his, the burden of proof was on him--the presumption was that the husband was the father. It was a pro-family idea, but it needs updating for modern times, with DNA testing, child support, changing values, etc.

This is absolutely true. In California though, you have a limited time period in which to dispute this presumed parentage.

Yes, of course such a period is necessary. After that, if a man claims to be and acts as the father, it cuts both ways--he can indeed be the father and have legal rights appropriate to that status, but has the obligations too. If a man believed he was the father of a child and acted as a good father to that child for 13 years and then the mother learned via a DNA test he wasn't, should he be denied visitation rights since he's not the "real" father? That would be a sad story too.

The same basic principle is at work in that scenario and the one under discussion here. If a person is the legal father, he those rights and responsibilities during that time period.