California Poised to Show Common Sense on Paternity
Jason G
whittled down by the sprogjacking lobby, oops, I mean "child rights advocates".
Some highlights from one case:
---
Bert Riddick pays $1,400 a month to support a
child he has never met, and "DNA has proven he is not mine."
"My family is ruined by something I had nothing to do with,"
Riddick said.
---
Some men do not receive notices to appear because state law
permits summonses to be delivered to job sites where they may
no longer work or to their last-known home addresses.
---
He didn't know a former girlfriend had named him the father until his wages were
garnisheed, he said.
--
Let's hear it for state Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon!
Measure allows men to contest child support
By Michael Gardner
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
August 14, 2002
SACRAMENTO - Nick Napoli pays $180 a month in child
support for a boy who is not his son.
The biological father "gets all of the love. I get the bill," said
Napoli of Cloverdale in Sonoma County.
Napoli and hundreds of others are trapped in a legal system that
forces them to pay child support even when the biological father
steps forward , or is identified later through DNA testing.
Lawmakers, trapped in a clash between the men's rights and the
desire to protect children, are moving to strike a balance in such
contested paternity cases.
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a
legislative compromise that would allow men to challenge
child-support orders in limited circumstances. In all cases, they
must be armed with DNA tests that prove they did not father the
children.
Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles who is carrying the
measure, called it "Miranda rights" for unsuspecting men.
"Why should someone be forced to pay for a child who's not
theirs?" Wright said.
But the issue is not that clear-cut, said child-rights advocate
Lupe Alonzo, who has participated in negotiations on the bill for
the Center for Public Interest Law of San Diego.
"You've got to think of the child's interests," said Alonzo,
referring to the emotional and financial ties to a nonbiological
father.
Once broadly written to offer a range of new rights for men to
challenge paternity, the measure has been narrowed to apply
only in those cases of court-ordered "default judgments." Those
cases occur when the alleged father does not appear in court.
Some men do not receive notices to appear because state law
permits summonses to be delivered to job sites where they may
no longer work or to their last-known home addresses.
Under the existing law, default judgments stand - even when
DNA tests prove someone else is the father. Under the
compromise, AB 2240 would allow a man to challenge default
orders if DNA evidence proves he is not the father. But a man
would have to pay support if the child had lived in the same
home with him or they established a familial bond.
The bill would not provide all men with another day in court.
For example, in divorce cases, husbands would be responsible
for child support even if it's later proved that the child was
conceived in an extramarital affair. But the bill stops short of
directing judges to automatically overturn child support orders
in all cases - even when the biological father is identified.
"Biology does not make a father. ... In the child's eyes, you are
the father," Alonzo said.
Wright was unhappy with being forced to cut a deal, particularly
after the broader version cleared the Assembly on a 57-3 vote.
But, he said, it was either accept the offer or lose the bill.
Wright dismissed the significance of bonds that may develop
between the nonbiological parents and children, Wright said.
"They just write checks," Wright said of most men who are forced
to pay.
Valerie Ackerman, an attorney with the National Center for
Youth Law, remains opposed to the bill.
"The front end of paternity establishment has to be fixed," she
said. At a minimum, the system of notifying alleged fathers of
their rights and responsibilities needs to be improved, she said.
Ackerman said some legal safeguards exist. A man has six
months from when he has learned he's been named as the father
to mount a challenge, she said.
Despite the limited reach of the legislation, Bert Riddick of
Carson embraces it. Riddick pays $1,400 a month to support a
child he has never met, and "DNA has proven he is not mine."
"My family is ruined by something I had nothing to do with,"
Riddick said.
The compromise legislation provides hope for Riddick,
disappointment for Napoli.
Riddick would benefit because his child support was ordered as
part of a default judgment. He didn't know a former girlfriend
had named him the father until his wages were garnisheed, he
said.
On the other hand, Napoli will keep writing monthly checks
regardless. He had agreed to support the child, believing he was
the father, and created a familial bond until ties were severed.
No default judgment was involved.
Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a former family law attorney who voted
against the bill, said it is vital to a child's interest to have a father
figure in his or her life.
"What makes a father? This bill says the donation of genetic
material makes a father. I don't agree," said Kuehl, D-Santa
Monica.
But numerous men who regularly lobbied for the bill this year
say in many cases they never had a chance to form a
relationship. More importantly, as Riddick asked, "What about
my own children? What about their interests?"
Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon, voted for the bill. Sen. Ray Haynes,
R-Temecula, opposed it.
--
Jason G
"Condescending piety is the last refuge of the beaten."
--Mary Ann, a.s.c.
Jason G
>
>Let's hear it for state Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon!
>
Whoops, that should be Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles who is carrying the
measure. Peace is a local legislator.
Jim
<jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVExoxTHISxoxPART.com> wrote:
>Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles who is carrying the
>measure, called it "Miranda rights" for unsuspecting men.
>
>"Why should someone be forced to pay for a child who's not
>theirs?" Wright said.
You mean, like the childfree, perhaps?
Jim
Jason G
>>
>>"Why should someone be forced to pay for a child who's not
>>theirs?" Wright said.
>
>You mean, like the childfree, perhaps?
>
Three points.
The Rocket Scientist
> "Why should someone be forced to pay for a child who's not
> theirs?" Wright said.
I ask that same question every payday when a major portion of my
earnings are summarily confiscated by the gummint.
Bill Sullivan
Dalton
> > >theirs?" Wright said.
> >
> > You mean, like the childfree, perhaps?
> >
> > Jim
>
> to pay for a child that's not theirs. Dumbfuck.
You mean the real father who should pay instead of the sap paying
monthly installments? Cocksmoking assmaster.