Started by SouthernGuy, Jul 14, 2004, 02:54 AM
On June 30, a California man being forced to pay child support for a child he had not fathered got his day in court when the Second District Court of Appeal of California overturned a paternity judgment against him. Los Angeles County, which had imposed the judgment, knew that Manuel Navarro was not the father of the child in question because DNA testing had proved so. Yet under both federal and state child-support laws, the county was still able to demand Navarro pay child support.The court's landmark decision in Navarro's favor may well become the controlling authority for contested paternity in California and a legal precedent nationwide.Navarro's case is typical of the false paternity claims and child-support laws that prompt men's-rights activists to condemn the family-court system as being virulently unfair to men.When an unwed mother applies for welfare in California, the Department of Child Support Services routinely requires her to name the father(s) of her children.The information provided is often incomplete. Moreover, even though the mother signs a declaration under penalty of perjury, false declarations go unpunished.
In an article entitled "Injustice by Default: How the effort to catch 'deadbeat dads' ruins innocent men's lives," journalist Matt Welch asked California DCSS Assistant Director Leora Gerhenzon what would happen if a woman had named "Matt Welch" — a white guy between 30 and 40 years old, who maybe lives in the Los Angeles area, as the father of her child.Gerhenzon answered, "We run our search on him; if we come back with one Matt Welch who lives in L.A., whose birthday fits that 10-year range, and we have nobody else, we presume in general we have the person."
"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."
I don't know if the feminazis are really the problem - the problem is that they can get away with all of it because of Chivalrous Men.
I'm starting to think that the enemy isn't really the feminazis - they are just yapping little chihuahas - it's the men who allow themselves to be used by them based on chivalry. Like, really.
Chivalry, and Chivalrous are NOT the concepts suitable for the associations you make.
My dear lady