|
| Posted by: sarge33rd
- [236141411] Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 09:52
Childless man jailed 13 months for failing to pay child support
ADEL, Ga. – A Georgia man spent more than a year behind bars for failing to pay child support for a child that wasn't his, but he was released after DNA tests showed he wasn't the father.
Frank Hatley, 50, had been jailed since June 2008 for not making payments, but two separate DNA tests in the last nine years showed he was not the father of the boy, who is now 21.
Southern Center for Human Rights attorney Sarah Geraghty won Hatley's release at a hearing Wednesday in Superior Court. A court order has also relieved him of his financial obligation to the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
"State child support officials have shown extraordinarily poor judgment in Mr. Hatley's case," Geraghty said.
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.
Perkins ordered Hatley's immediate release Wednesday after determining that he was indigent. Although he was released, Hatley's paternity case is still unresolved. No future hearings are scheduled.
"Out of it all, I just feel like justice should be served for me in this case," Hatley told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution shortly after his release. "I shouldn't have to keep being punished for a child that is not mine."
Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison, who had a baby in 1987 and told Hatley the child was his, according to court records. The couple never married and split up shortly afterward.
In 1989, Morrison applied for public assistance through the state Department of Human Resources. Hatley agreed to reimburse the state because he believed the boy was his.
Documents show Hatley paid at least $9,500.
But in 2000, DNA samples showed the two were not related, according to court records. A test earlier this month confirmed that.
How, when DNA testing in 2000 showed him to not be the father but rather the victim of a lying mother; was the man not absolved of ALL financial obligation re the child in question????? |
| | | 1 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 12:01
|
showed him to not be the father but rather the victim of a lying mother I am not sure where it says she tried to defraud him and he excepted the child as his. I am not quite sure this case is as cut and dry and you make it out to be.
|
|
| | | 2 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 12:41
|
1) They were never married
2) She obviously cheated on him
3) DNA tests 9 years ago showed him not to be the father
4) AFTER that test 9 years ago, he was ordered to pay the $16,000 in BACK child support for a child which it was now known is not his
Pretty damn cut and dried in my book
|
|
| | | 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 13:37
|
boikin's point is that she might not have known herself, until the 2000 test, that he wasn't the father. There's no indication that she claimed he was after it was proven through the test.
|
|
| | | 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 13:38
|
she may not have known for an absolute fact; but she for damn sure knew there was a possibility.
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 13:42
|
Sure. Doesn't mean she was lying.
You are blaming her for what the state is obviously messing up.
|
|
| | | 6 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 13:46
|
No. I'm blaming her for cheating on him, getting pregnant, and not admitting to him that he may not have been the father to begin with. Had she, the paternity test could have been done then and he probably WOULD have been excused from financial responsibility AND the real father could/would have been held responsible.
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 14:29
|
Maybe. All speculative, though. She might have honestly thought he was the father.
We just don't know. We certainly don't know enough to lay this all at her feet.
|
|
| | | 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 14:36
|
Well,
A) She either had consensual sex (her fault)
or
B) she was raped and never reported it to ANYONE (not her fault for the rape, yes her fault for saying nothing at all about it)
or
C) she was unconcious, had her clothes removed, remained unconcious, was raped, remained unconcious, was reclothed by the rapist, remained unconcious and then awoke none the wiser (yeah right)
(A) is clearly her fault
and
B) while not her fault for BEING raped, it is her fault for saying nothing.
So I disagree...it is her fault.
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 14:37
|
Jeez, don't ever blame Baldwin for tunnel vision, sarge. Or should I say "pot."
|
|
| | | 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 14:41
|
Then give me a scenario under which it is not her fault.
Either she knew, or didnt, that she had had sex with another guy(s).
The only way I am aware of to NOT know, would have been to be unconcious throughout the entire ordeal.
A lie of ommission, is still a lie. She didn't tell him that he MIGHT be the father. She told him he WAS the father. She told him this, perhaps believing it, but knowing full well that he might NOT be the father. That makes it a lie. (Unless as I said, she had been raped and didnt even know she had been raped.)
|
|
| | | 11 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 14:48
|
Sarge - if you want to blame her, you might as well blame him. After all, he believed the kid was his too.
it's not her responsibility to ask for a paternity test, and if both adults believe they are the parent of the child, there's no point in doing one.
personally, i think the state of georgia is at fault for being absurd in the matter, but to blame either adult is no less absurd.
|
|
| | | 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 14:55
|
Of course he believed her. Without reason to think she cheated on him, he had to be the father.
Maybe my contention stems from real life. Iowa law, states that any child born during the marriage, it is the fathers obligation to support. When my 1st wife and I divorced, she was overdue as we sat in the courtroom. We had not lived on the same continent as the other, for 15 months. (She wat THAT overdue.) I had to petiotion the court to set aside any paternal obligation on my part for tht as yet unborn child. (Something I was successful in persuing and had I failed, I would for damn sure see it as "her fault".)
Now this couple wasnt married. She took her clothes off, had sex, and then most likely denied it when she said with some finality that he was the father. (Either she explicitly denied it, (ie lied), or denied it by virtue of not admitting it (ie lied). In either case, she lied, and that IS her fault.
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 14:59
|
Without reason to think she cheated on him
Another speculation.
Look, it is hard enough to sort through family disputes when you have information from all sides. When you only have one side it just becomes an exercise in fill-in-the-gaps.
Sticking to what we know, Georgia's system sucks.
|
|
| | | 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 15:06
|
Sticking to what we know, Georgia's system sucks.
And on THAT premise, we have no argument what-so-ever. :)
|
|
| | | 15 | rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 15:14
|
In matter of accepting TANF or AFDC in any state, they require you to name the "absent father' (if known) as a condition of getting the welfare. I'd imagine if she though (honestly?) he was the father, she put him down. The state is allowed to chase down the (alleged) absent parnet for reimbursement based on the theory that tax payer are taking financial care of the kid in his/her absence.
There are literally millions of these cases nationwide. What's the alternative ... never go after the absent fathers for the reimbursement? Good luck trying to "PROVE" every case of paternity in America. You'd spend billions chasing millions.
When a case like thsi come sot light, it's easy to point fingers, but this is not that much of a rarity (but the go to jail angle makes it newsworthy).
Bad system, but alternative systems have pitfalls too. I can pose no full proof solution to the system.
|
|
| | | 16 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 15:22
|
Speaking for myself, if I had odubts as to the paternity, I'd pay for the test. Hell of a lot cheaper than 18 yrs of support payments.
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 15:27
|
Interesting, rfs. I can see how the state would try to capture the funds (at least, as much as possible).
I would think that there might be some system where a person named as the father could pay for his own paternity test and use it to be free of the obligation, however. Rather than have the state prove the mother's assertion (and assume the not-insignificant costs!), if the father wants out he's got to prove he's not the father and assume any and all costs in doing so.
There might be some costs by the state in maintaining some testing acceptability (maybe this can be mitigated by only accepting test results from clinics already accepted by the state for DNA testing in other areas). But surely the best interests of the state aren't advanced by continuing to insist upon child support from non-parents?
|
|
| | | 18 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 15:30
|
This same ex of mine, had the kids for visitation one summer. It was an extended visitation since it had been 2 years since any had seen/visited the other. During this visitation, she applied for and was awarded ADC payments, which the state then sued me for. She paid no support while I had the kids, and I was to pay none while she had them. Yet, I lost and had to repay the state for ADC payments I maintain she illegally obtained. (I was the custodial parent from the divorce proceedings.)
the "state", by and large, doesnt give a rats ass for a fathers rights. Its all about the mother.
|
|
| | | 19 | rockafellerskank
ID: 2511552911
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 16:04
|
re: 18 the "state", by and large, doesnt give a rats ass for a fathers rights. Its all about the mother.
Yep, and theoretically the kid(s).
PD - Theoretically, yes. However, there is an excercise in theory vs. reality. Take into account the following real life messy sistautions.
1. Mom names "dad" who isn't found or contacted for years (because address sunknown or he's actively hiding) and thus has a large past due account. By this time, where is mom and child avaialble for testing X years later?
2. mom has very little interest in cooperating as if "dad" gets off hook, government will ask her to name a new baby daddy or else may cut off her welfare check. Or maybe even pursue her for welfare fraud.
3. Mom moves to 2,3,4+ states and applies for welfare in each state as she becomes resident. Each state opens case vs. "dad" and states are very bad about talking to each other (50 different computer systems)
4. Often, "dad's" first notification is a wage garnishment or IRS tax intercept. If you read the papers it usually tells you you have X days to dispute or else they consider the claim valid. Many many many people don't know what to do (edcation, litteracy, rights, fear, ignoraance, or just lazy) and viola, state says, hey you didn't dispute this last x days/months/years, so you're cooked. Of course, i imagine a lawyer can help you out, but guess what lawyers cost money.
5. "dad" is no where to be found and avoids massive debts (true deadbeat) for years and years and years and finally wakes up 10 years later and says "hey, that kid's not mine -- i think" :) Do you really want to open the door for 100,000's of tests?
6. "dad" just wants to save a buck and wants to test/dispute, etc... without good cause.
7. state case workers are already overworked and underpaid. they cannot keep up with the "normal" undisputed cases. Do you think thay have time to dedicate to these complex paternity/DNA issues? Then, reverse the damage (there's paperwork for everything) including wage garnishments, refunds, credit reporting, IRS notification, bank levys, etc...
Feel free to volunteer a tax increase to fund the child support innocense project.
Crappy system, but as long as we as American's wish to excercise our freedoms to screw who w ewant and have children out of wedlock in causal fashion, this baggage is a part of the system.
If you are ever named in a child support case, get a lawyer ASAP and act to preserve your rights. Of course, the poor will just have to BOHICA (Jim Rome reference)
|
|
| | | 20 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 16:38
|
re: 18 the "state", by and large, doesnt give a rats ass for a fathers rights. Its all about the mother.
Yep, and theoretically the kid(s).
sorry, i'm going to disagree with that. speaking as the child of a VERY nasty divorce (30 years later, my parents still refer to each other as "the b!tch" and "the b@stard"), Texas really didn't give a crap about my mother, me, or my brother.
yes, my mom got prime custody. they alternated weekends and my dad got me and my brother 1 to 2 nights during the week.
my mom had given up her career - she has a college degree, which may not seem unusual now, but when she graduated in the mid 60s, it still wasn't common place - to be a housewife and mother.
she hadn't worked in nearly 15 years when they split, and with two children under 10 to raise and a huge gap in her work history, it wasn't easy to find a job that could support the family.
there is no alimony in the state of texas. and the child support for me and my brother? 220 bucks a month - TOTAL.
so i respectfully disagree that it's all about the mother...and the kids.
|
|
| | | 21 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 16:40
|
There is too alimony in TX.
Requires that the marriage be at least 5 yrs old; but it most certainly is there.
|
|
| | | 22 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Thu, Jul 16, 2009, 23:52
|
Texas has something called "spousal maintenance" nowadays. it's still very hard to get, but didn't go into affect until 1995.
When my folks split in 1979, there was no alimony in Texas. you gotta scroll down, but this article explains it...
On September 1, 1995, Texas became the last state in the country to authorize the award of alimony payments in divorce proceedings. TX FAMILY § 8.001. Until then, Texas courts had ruled that the state constitution prohibited alimony awards because alimony was not marital property existing at the time of the divorce. Instead, Texas courts said that alimony awards necessarily involved calculations based solely on the future, post-divorce earnings of the ex-spouse who would be making the alimony payments.
Texas courts also observed that spouses who sacrificed educational or career opportunities during the marriage to raise children so their spouses could pursue educational or career opportunities of their own could be adequately compensated for their sacrifice by receiving a larger share of the marital property than spouses who had not made such a sacrifice. In other words, Texas courts believed that since they had the power to give one spouse a larger share of the marital property to compensate for any career or educational sacrifices that spouse made during the marriage, there was no need to award alimony too. Courts also questioned why ex-spouses should be under any obligation to support each other after divorce, when the whole purpose of divorce is to end the costs and benefits of marriage.
But judges, lawyers, and scholars increasingly criticized the Texas statutory scheme as being unrealistic. For example, before 1995 Texas courts routinely ordered ex-spouses to pay child support from their so-called post-divorce "future earnings," and these orders survived scrutiny under the state constitution. Critics of Texas law saw no reason why state courts could not order ex-spouses to also pay alimony out of wages and salary they earned after the marriage terminated.
Additionally, critics assailed the absence of alimony provisions in Texas Family Law as being unduly harsh. In a large number of divorces where neither spouse had acquired substantial assets during the marriage, Texas courts were powerless to compensate spouses who had sacrificed educational and career opportunities, since in such situations there were essentially no assets to divide in the first place. As a result, spouses who successfully pursued educational or career opportunities at the expense of their partner were allowed to walk away from the marriage "scot-free."
|
|
| | | 23 | sarge33rd
ID: 236141411
Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 09:43
|
Call it what you will; post divorce support payments not of child support; from one party to the other...are alimony payments.
|
|
| | | 24 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Fri, Jul 17, 2009, 10:41
|
and my point is that alimony by any name didn't exist in Texas in 1979, and barely exists in Texas now, unless the spouse being asked for support was convicted of some sort of spousal abuse, or, if the spouse doing the asking can prove that he or she cannot support his or her self, meaning, if that person can hold down a job, they're not likely to get "alimony" in Texas.
|
|
|
|