the child support system in north america IS BROKEN
Posted: 2/25/2004, 10:45 am
more proof
--
#1
http://www.freep.com/news/locmac/case21_20040221.htm
Child support just, court says
Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004
BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support for their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.
The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area man, now 29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the fault of either of the parents."
The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County judge, who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.
The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels, and all of the participants either could not be reached or declined to discuss the case Friday.
The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was not the child's father.
The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had no knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said forcing him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the crime against him.
The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for the mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an "important public policy."
Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old daughter he has never met and, until four years ago, did not know he had fathered.
Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@freepress.com.
--
#2
http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml
this one is a lot longer, but far more pointed.
Tony Pierce remembers vividly the exact moment in November 2000 when the state of California began trampling on his life. "There was a loud angry pounding at my door at five o’clock in the morning," he recalls. "Very scary."
It was a female police officer with a complaint accusing him of being the father of an 8-year-old girl in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco. "I’m like, ‘Great! I’m definitely not the father of anybody,’" he says.
There were excellent reasons to think so. He had never met or heard of the mother of the child. He had never lived in Northern California, and at the time of conception (spring 1991) he was attending the University of California at Santa Barbara, beginning a monogamous relationship that would last for two years. What’s more, he’s a condom fanatic -- only once in his life, Pierce swears, has he failed to use a rubber during intercourse, and that was "many years after." (He’s been a friend of mine for 15 years, and I believe him.) And if the summons had included the mother’s testimony (it was supposed to, but did not), he would have seen himself described as a "tall" and "dark" black man named "Anthony Pierce." Pierce is a hair over five feet, nine inches; he is so light-skinned that even people who know him sometimes don’t realize he’s black; and no one calls him Anthony except his mom.
The front page of the court document gave simple but misleading instructions: "You have 30 days to respond to this lawsuit. You may respond in one of two ways: 1. File an Answer to the complaint with the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, not with the District Attorney....2. Settle the case with the District Attorney. You may call us at (925) 313-4200 to discuss your case." Concluding incorrectly (but understandably) that he could settle the matter over the phone, Pierce called -- three times that day -- and tried to weave his way through a labyrinthine phone tree. Finally he found a human being, who instructed him to leave a message with a home phone number. The department called him back the next day and left a message; it took another three calls from Pierce before he reached a caseworker for the first time.
"I said, ‘What do I need to do? I’m not the father,’" he remembers. "And they were like, ‘OK, well this is what you do: You just call in every day, and then we’ll understand that you’re not it, because if you’re it, you’re not gonna call us every day.’"
Pierce did everything he was told over the next three weeks of phone tag, except for comprehending that the 30-day deadline for denying paternity in writing was etched in federal law, regardless of what he discussed with Contra Costa employees -- who he says never once told him the clock was ticking. "All they were doing was delaying me from doing what I needed to do," he says. "It’s a huge scam -- huge scam....They’re just counting the days. They’re like, ‘Sucker, sucker, sucker, sucker.’...And this is the government!"
Two months later, after the phone conversations had ended and he assumed he was off the hook, Pierce received notice that a "default judgment" had been entered against him, and that he owed $9,000 in child support. He was between dot-com jobs, and his next unemployment check was 25 percent smaller; the state of California had seized and diverted $100 toward his first payment. Suddenly, he was facing several years of automatic wage garnishment, and the shame of being forced to explain to prospective employers why the government considered him a deadbeat dad. "That’s when it hit me," he says. "I mean, it’s mostly my fault -- ‘Fill out the form, dumb-ass!’...But it’s so rigged against you, it’s ridiculous."
read the rest at
http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml
--
#1
http://www.freep.com/news/locmac/case21_20040221.htm
Child support just, court says
Man ordered to pay for boy he fathered at 14 with older woman
February 21, 2004
BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A man who had sex with a married woman when he was 14 owes child support for their now teenage son, even though under state law, the sex act was likely a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released Friday.
The case involves a Macomb County woman and a former Detroit-area man, now 29, and their son. The court ruled that "the purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of the child; it is awarded without regard to the fault of either of the parents."
The unanimous three-judge panel reversed a ruling by a Macomb County judge, who had found that ordering child support would be unjust.
The case files were suppressed on the circuit and appellate levels, and all of the participants either could not be reached or declined to discuss the case Friday.
The case was precipitated in 2000, according to the panel's decision, when the mother divorced and a blood test determined that her ex-husband was not the child's father.
The father, who was 14 at the time his son was conceived, said he had no knowledge of the child until he was notified by the court.He said forcing him to pay child support would reward the perpetrator of the crime against him.
The appeals court rejected that claim and said the payments are not for the mother, but to support the needs of the child, which is justified as an "important public policy."
Last week, the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a western Michigan man owes child support to a 21-year-old daughter he has never met and, until four years ago, did not know he had fathered.
Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@freepress.com.
--
#2
http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml
this one is a lot longer, but far more pointed.
Tony Pierce remembers vividly the exact moment in November 2000 when the state of California began trampling on his life. "There was a loud angry pounding at my door at five o’clock in the morning," he recalls. "Very scary."
It was a female police officer with a complaint accusing him of being the father of an 8-year-old girl in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco. "I’m like, ‘Great! I’m definitely not the father of anybody,’" he says.
There were excellent reasons to think so. He had never met or heard of the mother of the child. He had never lived in Northern California, and at the time of conception (spring 1991) he was attending the University of California at Santa Barbara, beginning a monogamous relationship that would last for two years. What’s more, he’s a condom fanatic -- only once in his life, Pierce swears, has he failed to use a rubber during intercourse, and that was "many years after." (He’s been a friend of mine for 15 years, and I believe him.) And if the summons had included the mother’s testimony (it was supposed to, but did not), he would have seen himself described as a "tall" and "dark" black man named "Anthony Pierce." Pierce is a hair over five feet, nine inches; he is so light-skinned that even people who know him sometimes don’t realize he’s black; and no one calls him Anthony except his mom.
The front page of the court document gave simple but misleading instructions: "You have 30 days to respond to this lawsuit. You may respond in one of two ways: 1. File an Answer to the complaint with the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, not with the District Attorney....2. Settle the case with the District Attorney. You may call us at (925) 313-4200 to discuss your case." Concluding incorrectly (but understandably) that he could settle the matter over the phone, Pierce called -- three times that day -- and tried to weave his way through a labyrinthine phone tree. Finally he found a human being, who instructed him to leave a message with a home phone number. The department called him back the next day and left a message; it took another three calls from Pierce before he reached a caseworker for the first time.
"I said, ‘What do I need to do? I’m not the father,’" he remembers. "And they were like, ‘OK, well this is what you do: You just call in every day, and then we’ll understand that you’re not it, because if you’re it, you’re not gonna call us every day.’"
Pierce did everything he was told over the next three weeks of phone tag, except for comprehending that the 30-day deadline for denying paternity in writing was etched in federal law, regardless of what he discussed with Contra Costa employees -- who he says never once told him the clock was ticking. "All they were doing was delaying me from doing what I needed to do," he says. "It’s a huge scam -- huge scam....They’re just counting the days. They’re like, ‘Sucker, sucker, sucker, sucker.’...And this is the government!"
Two months later, after the phone conversations had ended and he assumed he was off the hook, Pierce received notice that a "default judgment" had been entered against him, and that he owed $9,000 in child support. He was between dot-com jobs, and his next unemployment check was 25 percent smaller; the state of California had seized and diverted $100 toward his first payment. Suddenly, he was facing several years of automatic wage garnishment, and the shame of being forced to explain to prospective employers why the government considered him a deadbeat dad. "That’s when it hit me," he says. "I mean, it’s mostly my fault -- ‘Fill out the form, dumb-ass!’...But it’s so rigged against you, it’s ridiculous."
read the rest at
http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml