glennsacks.com: "In the UK You Can't Sue For Paternity Fraud" (plus some GOOD news)
leno...@yahoo.com
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3246&cp=all#comments
You may have to scroll upwards to read Robert Franklin's article,
which includes a link to the case in point. Check Celia's comment at
#19 - I think she's a lawyer.
Excerpts from Franklin's article:
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Aikens and Mr. Justice Bennett,
said: 'This whole case can be categorised as a misfortune to all those
engaged in it. I would not wish to be the one to extend their
misfortunes further.'
With those words a British judge declined to allow a man who had been
the victim of carefully calculated paternity fraud for 18 years, to
recover damages for that fraud from his ex-wife. Cuckoldry is now
officially enshrined in British law. It appears to be the policy of
the British state to, if not outright promote it, not discourage it
either.
(snip)
But all is not lost elsewhere. In Georgia, U.S.A.:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3254#comments
(also by Robert Franklin)
First paragraphs:
Hard as it may be to believe, a Georgia man is actually going to get
back the money he paid in child support for a child who wasn't his.
Read about it here (The Augusta Chronicle, 3/2/08). The judge in the
case, David Roper, ruled that the mother and the biological father
would have to pay Kenneth Samuels, the duped dad, over $14,000 in
child support he paid over several years.
And apparently this order is not unique; there've been others like it,
albeit rarely. So why in this case? What distinguishes it from other
cases of paternity fraud?
Apparently the mother, Jamie Hope and the biological father Oba
Wallace, knew or strongly suspected the child was Wallace's from the
time it was two years old. Nevertheless, when Hope filed an action to
collect child support from Samuels, she unequivocally named him as the
father. That's what Judge Roper didn't like; he said it constituted
fraud and obligated her to repay Samuels. (Of course Wallace never
made any such claim in court, so why he should have to pay Samuels
isn't clear.)
This directly contradicts the laws of at least some other states, like
those of Texas, where I live.....
(snip)
Lenona.
Coffee's For Closers
88d66b...@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, leno...@yahoo.com
says...
> http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3254#comments
>
> (also by Robert Franklin)
>
> First paragraphs:
>
> Hard as it may be to believe, a Georgia man is actually going to get
> back the money he paid in child support for a child who wasn't his.
> Read about it here (The Augusta Chronicle, 3/2/08). The judge in the
> case, David Roper, ruled that the mother and the biological father
> would have to pay Kenneth Samuels, the duped dad, over $14,000 in
> child support he paid over several years.
>
> And apparently this order is not unique; there've been others like it,
> albeit rarely. So why in this case? What distinguishes it from other
> cases of paternity fraud?
>
> Apparently the mother, Jamie Hope and the biological father Oba
> Wallace, knew or strongly suspected the child was Wallace's from the
> time it was two years old. Nevertheless, when Hope filed an action to
> collect child support from Samuels, she unequivocally named him as the
> father. That's what Judge Roper didn't like; he said it constituted
> fraud and obligated her to repay Samuels. (Of course Wallace never
> made any such claim in court, so why he should have to pay Samuels
> isn't clear.)
The biological father should have been paying to support the
child all along. His obligation was, instead, paid by the duped
guy. Therefore, the biological father owes reimbursement.
> This directly contradicts the laws of at least some other states, like
> those of Texas, where I live.....
The right way to do it, is to have DNA testing, on demand, by
either parent, at any time. Without the other parent having any
authority to deny the test. And, if it isn't your child, then
you wouldn't have to pay. Any previous payments would be
required to be reimbursed.
Such DNA paternity testing should ideally be done on a routine
basis, for all births.
Any other system is just about the mother and the court
railroading a guy for money that he doesn't morally owe.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Rod Speed
> http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3246&cp=all#comments
> You may have to scroll upwards to read Robert Franklin's article,
> which includes a link to the case in point. Check Celia's comment at
> #19 - I think she's a lawyer.
> Excerpts from Franklin's article:
> The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Aikens and Mr. Justice Bennett, said:
> 'This whole case can be categorised as a misfortune to all those engaged
> in it. I would not wish to be the one to extend their misfortunes further.'
Wota terminal fuckwit.
> With those words a British judge declined to allow a man who
> had been the victim of carefully calculated paternity fraud for
> 18 years, to recover damages for that fraud from his ex-wife.
That does not however mean that no one will be able to
do that in future with more flagrant examples of fraud.
> Cuckoldry is now officially enshrined in British law.
Like hell it is.
> It appears to be the policy of the British state
A particular judge is not the british state.
> to, if not outright promote it, not discourage it either.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> (snip)
> But all is not lost elsewhere. In Georgia, U.S.A.:
> http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3254#comments
> (also by Robert Franklin)
> First paragraphs:
> Hard as it may be to believe, a Georgia man is actually going to get
> back the money he paid in child support for a child who wasn't his.
> Read about it here (The Augusta Chronicle, 3/2/08). The judge in the
> case, David Roper, ruled that the mother and the biological father
> would have to pay Kenneth Samuels, the duped dad, over $14,000 in
> child support he paid over several years.
> And apparently this order is not unique; there've been others like it,
Yep, right thruout the world which has law derived from the english system.
> albeit rarely.
Not that rarely now that DNA allows incontrovertible proof of paternity.
> So why in this case? What distinguishes it from other cases of paternity fraud?
The circumstances, just like with every legal ruling.
> Apparently the mother, Jamie Hope and the biological father Oba
> Wallace, knew or strongly suspected the child was Wallace's from the
> time it was two years old. Nevertheless, when Hope filed an action to
> collect child support from Samuels, she unequivocally named him as the
> father. That's what Judge Roper didn't like; he said it constituted fraud
> and obligated her to repay Samuels. (Of course Wallace never made any
> such claim in court, so why he should have to pay Samuels isn't clear.)
It aint just about claims.
> This directly contradicts the laws of at least some other states, like those of Texas, where I live.....
Yep, some states have chosen to have black letter law on the subject.
leno...@yahoo.com
> > albeit rarely.
>
> Not that rarely now that DNA allows incontrovertible proof of paternity.
>
> > So why in this case? What distinguishes it from other cases of paternity fraud?
>
> The circumstances, just like with every legal ruling.
Unfortunately, "circumstances" don't necessarily help the man. See
this (you may not believe it, but Reason Magazine is pretty reliable).
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html
Since this is from 2004 (I read it about 2 years ago) I don't
understand why it showed up in Google News just over three weeks ago,
on Jan. 12th. (I was searching on "paternity fraud" when I
rediscovered it.)
In a nutshell, it tells the story of California's Tony Pierce, who got
targeted for child support by a woman who knew perfectly well she'd
never even met him - and the courts didn't care what Pierce's DNA test
said. Apparently, the courts' attitude is pretty common, even if women
like that aren't. The reason? Quote:
Once paternity is "established," even if the government has never
communicated with the father, the county court imposes a payment rate
and schedule under the statistically mistaken assumption that he makes
a full-time salary at minimum wage. (State audits have found that a
full 80 percent of default dads don't make even that much.) To collect
the money, the county may put a garnish order on the purported
father's paycheck or place liens on his assets. If the mother has
received welfare assistance after the child was born, the man will be
hit with a bill to pay back the state, plus 10 percent annual
interest. "That's what they're trying to do, is get some reimbursement
to the state," says Carolyn Kelly, public relations officer for the
Contra Costa County DCSS. "As you can imagine, [that's] millions and
millions and millions and millions of dollars."
(end)
>
> > Apparently the mother, Jamie Hope and the biological father Oba
> > Wallace, knew or strongly suspected the child was Wallace's from the
> > time it was two years old. Nevertheless, when Hope filed an action to
> > collect child support from Samuels, she unequivocally named him as the
> > father. That's what Judge Roper didn't like; he said it constituted fraud
> > and obligated her to repay Samuels. (Of course Wallace never made any
> > such claim in court, so why he should have to pay Samuels isn't clear.)
>
> It aint just about claims.
Glad you think so, but, assuming the real father didn't want a child,
Franklin and other MRAs (men's rights activists) have an unfortunate
tendency to lump unwilling fathers together with men who were never
biological fathers at all, as if they both deserved complete sympathy.
(Of course, we're not talking about adoptive fathers here.) Maybe
Franklin was saying that since the crime lies with the mother, she
should be paying for everything. However, the biological father SHOULD
have been supporting his child, so why not try to ensure the child
doesn't suffer, as she would if the mother had to make all the
payments to Samuels?
Lenona.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> albeit rarely.
>> Not that rarely now that DNA allows incontrovertible proof of paternity.
>>> So why in this case? What distinguishes it from other cases of paternity fraud?
>> The circumstances, just like with every legal ruling.
> Unfortunately, "circumstances" don't necessarily help the man. See
> this (you may not believe it, but Reason Magazine is pretty reliable).
I believe it, the US legal system has been completely off the rails for centurys now.
It is better than lynch mobs tho.
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html
Absolutely classic example of a judgement that needs the wisdom of solomon
and the US legal system has never ever had anyone like that in it.