CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ADVOCATES: The Liar's Club
By Roger F. Gay
The legal definition of insanity is (roughly) the inability to distinguish right from wrong. It occurs to me that child support enforcement advocates are building their defense, anticipating the day when this crude con-game will all come crashing down around their pointy little heads.
The provocation for this article includes the cases of John Ruff in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr. Damon Adams, a dentist in Traverse City.
John's girlfriend told him that he was the father of her daughter and John decided to "stand up and be a man and take responsibility." Legal paternity was established and a judge ordered the payment of child support.
Years and $26,000 in child support payments later, long after the relationship ended, he heard rumors that the child was not his. He decided to get a DNA test and it turned out that the rumors were true.
John did the obvious thing. He scheduled a hearing in Oakland County Court and explained the situation to Judge John McDonald, providing the DNA result as proof. Now at this point, a person who fails the test proving legal insanity would think it was over. One might even wonder if John can get his $26,000 back some day.
No, said Crazy Judge McDonald. John must continue to pay child support.
Dr. Damon Adams, a dentist from Traverse City who is pushing for legal reform understands the problem from firsthand experience. Shortly after his marriage of 25 years ended, he discovered he did not beget his fourth child, who was 8 at the time. Adams also presented DNA evidence but was told that he had to continue paying more than $18,000 a year in child support.
As if that isn't enough, get a-load of the booby hatch escapees who've rushed to the press to excuse or in fact support forcing not-the-father's to pay child support.
The explanation of the cause of the problem deserves serious consideration for a Liar's Club prize. Not only has it found its way into the newspaper story linked above, but its an explanation that reached millions of homes throughout the world through the vehicle of a well-known talk-news television personality.
According to Christi Goodman, program manager for the National Conference of State Legislatures; "The current legal system is based on 500 years of common law that gave children born within a marriage the right to claim the man in the marriage as their father."
Nice try Ms. Goodman, but the United States hasn't used 500 year old common law for a long time. I'm sure. Not only was John's not-daughter not born within a marriage, but child support in the United States has traditionally been a matter between parents, not a man in the mother's marriage and her children.
Remember when politicians all over the country were saying, "There's no excuse for not paying child support." You heard it on TV. The first working television was invented in 1884 and patented by Paul Nipkow. The key technical development leading to modern televisions was patented in 1927 by Philo Farnsworth. In 1934, the British company Gaumont bought a license from Farnsworth to make systems based on his designs. In 1939, the American company RCA did the same. So, when you heard it on TV it had to be less than 500 years ago.
Let me give you a hint. After 200 years of child support law in the United States, formulated and applied in the shadow of the Constitution, the federal government got involved in child support collections in a big way in 1975. They eventually passed laws offering states more federal funding based on the amount of child support they collect. Apparently, either not able to pass competency tests or passing the test to establish legal insanity, states began forcing millions and millions of regular payers to pay through their system and called everything paid "collections." That increased the amount of federal funding they received through fraudulent accounting.
Here's a sampling of federal laws on child support including the years they have been passed since 1502.
1975 Social Security Amendments (PL 93-647). Comprehensive child support legislation that enacted Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Officially established the federal child support enforcement program.
1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments (PL 98-378). Extended welfare system child support enforcement practices to include all non-welfare related child support cases. Made a range of practices mandatory (such as mandatory income withholding for past-due support payments). Created the federal incentives system, paying states, and everyone involved with child support a little something extra for more child support.
1986 Bradley Amendment; rule provides that child support arrearages may not be modified retroactively, except when paternity is disestablished.
1988 Family Support Act (PL 100-485). Required the use of politically defined formulae for determining the amount of child support ordered. Increased emphasis on simplified automated enforcement practices and for establishing paternity. Mandated wage withholding for all support orders, current and past-due.
1992 Child Support Recovery Act (PL 102-521). Made it a federal crime to fail to pay past-due child support obligation for a child living in another state. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) Model Act. Streamlined the processing of interstate cases. UIFSA was revised in 1996.
1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) (PL 103-66). Simplified the paternity establishment process even further and established medical support provisions for all children.
1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (PL 104-193). Part of a comprehensive revamping of the welfare system, including new guidelines for paternity establishment, distribution, collections, and federal and state automation. Mandated implementation of UIFSA, federal and state case registries, and the $4.5 billion national New Hire Directory for tracking financial information of all US residents and their families.
1998 Child Support Performance and Incentive Act. Made several changes to the child support enforcement program. It altered the federal government's method for awarding incentive payments to states, but not by much. Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act. Provided for federal felony penalties for egregious failure to pay child support.
2002 H.R. 4737, the "Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002." Expands passport denial program, increases federal administrative offset funding, requires periodic update of child support orders, increases tax interceptions, funds additional technical projects, and charges fees for the pleasure of being victimized the child support system.
I'm calling now for a show of hands. How many of you believe that 500 year old common law is the basis of the child support decisions discussed above? Just as I thought. I don't see any hands raised.
Not had enough yet? I have. But there is no end to child support advocacy. There is more. Legislators in Michigan and other states introduced laws to give men like John Ruff and Damon Adams a break. But there are people who defend the status quo.
Last year, the Michigan House passed a package of bills that would permit people to get out of paying child support when a child is not biologically theirs. The bills also permit the cancellation of child support arrearages in such cases and penalize mothers who fraudulently say a man fathered their baby.
The bills sat in the state Senate Committee on Families, Mental Health and Human Services until they died a natural death. Chairwoman Senator Beverly Hammerstrom's staff explains that it's mostly because of legal concerns. Funny how passing laws can be like that.
Amy Zaagman, chief of staff for Senator Hammerstrom, says Hammerstrom is not really against the idea, it's just that when paternity is established, men give up their rights. And the bill, which is on discontinuing child support. One major "legal problem" she found is that the bills do not stop men from seeing children they have established a bond with. Obviously men should pay to see children.
"Where is the best interest of the children in all this?" said Zaagman. "Here's someone who had a relationship with the child, established some responsibility for the child . . . yet now he doesn't want to be responsible anymore but wants parenting time? How does that benefit the child?"
Well, there's one more person who passes the test.
Meri Anne Stowe, Chairwoman of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is opposed to changing the law. She says she can sympathize with men who are married and later discover a child is not biologically theirs. Isn't that nice? But Stowe said she is even more concerned about the children in these cases. "We don't want to illegitimize a whole class of children, and we don't want to impoverish a whole class of children," Stowe said. "We have to look at the greater good."
I have an idea. Back when I was in early manhood, the military draft system was sending men off to Vietnam. Not everyone was called. A lottery was held and you got called if your number was low enough. If you are unable to get away with pleading legal insanity, you are likely intelligent enough to understand the suggestion. I don't want to explain it clearly for fear that the others might make it into law.
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst and director of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology. Other articles by Roger F. Gay can be found in the Men's News Daily archive.
-----------------------------
The DadsDivorce.com e-Newsletter brings you questions & answers, articles, and news... delivered conveniently to your e-mail. You can join our newsletter from our web site at "http://www.dadsdivorce.com/newsletter/"
MY ANALYSIS AND OPINION:
Although this e-Newsletter is from DadsDivorce.com, it is not just for Dads! There is so much information, questions and answers for both Moms and Dads in the weekly e-Newsletters and on the Website that I recommend visiting this site by clicking the link to the left.
I know that there have been thousands of articles written about Deadbeat Dads and the less frequent Deadbeat Moms. This article addresses the problems that, due to the science of DNA paternity testing, have risen when the alleged Father is not the actual Father, whether within a marriage or when the child is born illegitimate.
So far, the Courts are standing by the 200 years of American Law that says a child born within a marriage is presumed to be the Husband's. Many States and Local Jurisdictions do not require mandatory DNA testing in the case of illegitimate children when attempting to collect child support, especially when the Judgment is obtained by Default (when the alleged Father does not contest the allegations in Court.) Because of this breakdown in the Judicial Process, thousands of men, women and especially children are being entangled in a web of lies. These men and women become embroiled in an 18 year dispute over paternity, and the children are victimized by not having the love and affection of their natural fathers and the natural fathers are victimized by never knowing of their child.
Many States are trying to address these problems with legislation, but face mounting opposition from different "right's groups" and from Washington, D.C. itself.
Since the cost of DNA testing has come down to less than $500.00, there is no reason for the two unmarried adults and the child to not be tested just to make sure that the correct father acknowledges paternity. It's a small price to pay for the benefit and peace of mind of the man, woman and child!
In the case of a child born within a marriage... that is a much stickier issue since there is so much law supporting the presumption of paternity. Since I am politically active, I did propose legislation that encompassed this issue, as well as the Abortion issue but it never made it off of someone�s desk. Ha! Ha! I will write about that another day!
Sincerely,
Lenny Vasbinder, P.I.(Retired)
[email protected]
*-This site is always being updated. Please visit all of our other pages for more information, articles and opinions.
**-No part of this Analysis, Opinion or Conclusion should be construed as Legal Advice. This is only an example of things that can happen during the Investigation, Pre-Trial, Trial and Post-Trial processes in a Family Court Proceeding. Please consult an Attorney for Legal Advice or Assistance.
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005-Copyright-Lenny Vasbinder Private Investigator
