DNA tests, new law could help some men escape child support payments

Started by blackmanxxx, May 15, 2007, 08:25 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

blackmanxxx

DNA tests, new law could help some men escape child support payments

By Georgia East
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted May 14 2007


Francisco Rodriguez thought he had all the proof he needed to get out of his child support payments: DNA evidence proving he's not the father and a signed affidavit from the child's mother asking he be relieved of the payments.

But four years later, Rodriguez, 32, a massage therapist from Fort Lauderdale, still must pay $305 a month in child support for the 15-year-old girl.



LocalLinks

"I don't have any business paying for someone else's child," said Rodriguez, who challenged the support three times but was rejected with little explanation each time, according to court documents.

He is hoping Florida's new "paternity fraud" law, enacted last June, will help his case. It relieves men of support payments if they can prove they are not a child's biological father.

The law, however, applies to future support and does not allow men to recoup money already paid. It also requires that a man be substantially up-to-date on payments.

As of mid-March, seven men statewide had their support orders overturned. In Broward County Circuit Court, there are eight pending cases, including Rodriguez's.

When the Department of Revenue attempted to open new child support cases between October 2005 and October 2006, DNA tests showed about 29 percent of the 15,154 men initially named as a child's father were falsely identified.

Agency officials said that mirrored the results of the previous year.

Although some men say rumors prompted them to get a DNA test early in a relationship, others said they had no reason to question their biological link until years later.

"It's usually not till 10 years go by and a wife or girlfriend blurts out, `You're not the father,' that he really starts thinking about it," said West Palm Beach attorney Robin Roshkind.

That's what happened to landscaper Ronald Oliver, 43, of Lauderdale Lakes.

In court documents, he said he learned the truth about his 27-year-old daughter when she was 19.

"Her mother called and said I couldn't walk her down the aisle at her wedding because her real father would," said Oliver, who has DNA evidence showing he is not the biological father.

He still owes $5,000 in back support, however, and said it's unfair that the new law is unlikely to help him.

"I just want them to squash what I owe and give me my life back," Oliver said.

John Walsh, 40, of Deerfield Beach, wants the same thing. He recently challenged his $400-a-month support requirement. He said two weeks after his 8-year-old son was born, he learned he was not the father. He has since had DNA tests indicating there is no biological relationship and filed a challenge to his support orders earlier this year.

Walsh said he fell behind in payments over the years and is now about $10,000 in arrears.

"I've been put in jail twice for not paying," said Walsh, who owns a painting business and is still close with the child.

Carnell Smith, founder of U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, began lobbying for change after learning in 2000 he was not the biological father of the girl he thought was his daughter.

"If a married man cheats on his wife, he broke his marital vows," said Smith, of Atlanta. "But if his wife does the exact same thing, she gets to hide behind the child and say it's in the child's best interest to continue taking the money."


Smith ended up taking his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and eventually the laws in Georgia were changed. Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Alabama, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona and Wyoming followed suit.

Rodriguez hopes that when he appears in court in mid-May, the outcome will be positive.



LocalLinks

He said he had a four-month relationship with the child's mother, Debbie Alvarez, in the early 1990s. The child was initially given her mother's name, according to court documents.

It wasn't until 2000, when she applied for public assistance, that Alvarez and the Florida Department of Revenue tried to collect child support from Rodriguez.

Problems began when Rodriguez didn't respond to four requests from the court to take a DNA test in 2000. He said he didn't get the notices, but court documents show they were sent to an address listed for him.

The same year, a judge granted a petition filed by the state on behalf of Alvarez to name him the father. Under Florida statute, the state can establish a man is the father in a child support case if the man doesn't respond to notices to take a DNA test.

In 2003, when the state attempted to garnishee his wages, Rodriguez obtained a DNA test proving he wasn't the child's biological dad.

Alvarez signed an affidavit in 2004 supporting his attempt to end the payments. But that didn't help.

"I'm so sick of it. I've had my credit ruined," said Rodriguez, who near Thanksgiving last November was arrested and jailed for not paying.

Alvarez could not be reached for comment, but her mother, Geraldine Murray, of Miramar, said they thought the whole thing would end once they agreed in writing Rodriguez wasn't the father.

Murray has temporary custody of Alvarez's children.

"I don't think it's fair for Frankie," Murray said. "But it's not my daughter's fault. She went to court and did everything she was supposed to do."

Georgia East can be reached at [email protected] or 954-385-7921.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-spaternity14may14,0,671909.story?page=2&coll=sfla-home-headlines

TheManOnTheStreet

"The law, however, applies to future support and does not allow men to recoup money already paid. It also requires that a man be substantially up-to-date on payments."

So let me see if I can understand this.  If he is up to date paying for a child that is not his, they will remove only future payments. In other words, no responsibility on the state nor the mother for the fraud and certainly no reimbursements.  But if he is behind in payments that were fraudulently ordered, he must still continue?

WTF is that shit?

TMOTS
The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

gwallan


"The law, however, applies to future support and does not allow men to recoup money already paid. It also requires that a man be substantially up-to-date on payments."

So let me see if I can understand this.  If he is up to date paying for a child that is not his, they will remove only future payments. In other words, no responsibility on the state nor the mother for the fraud and certainly no reimbursements.  But if he is behind in payments that were fraudulently ordered, he must still continue?

WTF is that shit?

TMOTS


And the type of person they are protecting could be this one
Quote
In court documents, he said he learned the truth about his 27-year-old daughter when she was 19.

"Her mother called and said I couldn't walk her down the aisle at her wedding because her real father would," said Oliver, who has DNA evidence showing he is not the biological father.

That is incredibly spiteful.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Garak

As someone pointed out on mensactivism.org.

This is still a case of the defendent having to prove his innocence. Why isn't the burden of proving paternity on HER before she is allowed to collect a dime?

I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!

Mr. X

Quote
DNA tests, new law could help some men escape child support payments


Love the title and how it implies men are trying to weasel out. Instead of a title like:

"DNA tests, new law to help men not to pay unjust child support payments."
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

TheManOnTheStreet

Awww come now X... that was just so damned easy... we all ignored it!

:-)

TMOTS
The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

LSBeene

The title is very prejudicial and makes the man, the one lied to/decieved/defrauded as the bad guy.  How about:
"DNA Tests stop lying unfaithful women from collecting fraudulant 'child support' from men who are not fathers"

Gotta love this: [emphasis mine]
Quote
But four years later, Rodriguez, 32, a massage therapist from Fort Lauderdale, still must pay $305 a month in child support for the 15-year-old girl.

Quote
"I don't have any business paying for someone else's child," said Rodriguez, who challenged the support three times but was rejected with little explanation each time, according to court documents.


Because they HAVE no explanation for making the wrong guy pay.

And the mom who told the "father" he was not the father and could not walk "his" little girl down the aisle ...

That's cruel in the EXTREME.

This law is a good start, but the two provisos are crap:
1) He has to be up to date  ---- for support he should NEVER have had to pay in the first place?!

2) He cannot recoup the losses to income that he was defrauded!?

Steven
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

Go Up