Article

2009-08-12 -Lurid Crime Tales-

Childless man released from child support debt

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2009-08-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 ...Okay...I see what the problem was here: It wasn't that he wasn't the father, but that the state told him he owed it money and he hadn't paid.

Debt to the state trumps all.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2009-08-12 00:21|| 2009-08-12 00:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, in American business law, if you give someone a substantial gift, repeatedly, and establish a dependency with that gift, the courts may decide that you must continue giving that gift.

This is frequently found in cases where a man is paying child support and discovers the child is not his. The courts use the logic that a parent-child relationship existed, even if it was not true. So child support must be continued.

But in this case, the twist was that he was jailed, even though he had no ability to pay. And that is a very different kettle of fish, hearkening back to debtors' prisons. It is also illogical, because they cannot earn money their way out of jail.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-08-12 00:36|| 2009-08-12 00:36|| Front Page Top

#3 Wait till somebody gets jailed for not filling every form out just perfectly with our comming 1000 page Healthcare System.

Posted by 3dc 2009-08-12 01:16|| 2009-08-12 01:16|| Front Page Top

#4 Men being forced to support the children not their own but who are the children of women with whom the men have had relationships but to whom they were never married isn't a particularly uncommon thing.

Courts view the support of children as a social good and often look for any opening to land a financial hook into any convenient party who is able to pay. A few "standards" that I've seen used: any cohabitation, acceptance of responsibility for the child by the man (as in the instant case), recognition by the child of the man as the father, and even in one case money given to an ex-girlfriend on a couple of occasions allegedly to support her (but not his) child after the pair had split.

Once the payor is hooked by the system all of the normal rules apply and courts will almost never release a payor from this sort of obligation merely because it is later discovered that the child is not his. Note that here Hatley was released from jail because he was found to be indigent and unable to pay, *not* because the court determined that he was not responsible for making the court-mandated child support payments. I'm skeptical that any event other than the child reaching maturity will release him from his obligation to pay, such would be the norm with this sort of thing.

As egregious as Hatley being jailed is the way state social service attorneys go after men in these instances. Often as not it's essentially a railroading of someone who can't afford or doesn't want to waste money on an attorney to combat the legions of taxpayer-funded attorneys who represent women & children and as a result is an easy mark to be tagged with support payments because he just doesn't understand that in many cases it makes little difference to the courts whether the child in question is his or not.

Posted by AzCat 2009-08-12 02:28|| 2009-08-12 02:28|| Front Page Top

#5 "Men being forced to support the children not their own ~~but who are the children of women with whom the men have had relationships but to whom they were never married~~ isn't a particularly uncommon thing."

Fixed it for ya - it's called the welfare state.

Posted by no mo uro 2009-08-12 06:38|| 2009-08-12 06:38|| Front Page Top

#6 A clearer example of government abuse could not be found. I am not ligtigious, but I hope he sues and get a huge settlement. Whomever was in charge of this case should be demoted to gutter cleaner (you can't fire civil servants).

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2009-08-12 08:49|| 2009-08-12 08:49|| Front Page Top

#7 And how many of the women have been prosecuted for filing false official statements/documents? What part of 'thou shall not bear false witness' don't they grasp. This undermines everything the women worked for in the 20th Century in obtaining equality before the law when 'exemptions' are granted which clearly destroys the principles of justices and fairness. It makes the whole effort nothing more than a play for power and privilege. It's not a game where one picks and chooses what gets applied to everyone and what is not. That the state plays along with this injustice for convenience in collecting resources only chips away further the legitimacy of the state's authority.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-08-12 09:04|| 2009-08-12 09:04|| Front Page Top

#8 "The Law as a rule, has not much to do with Justice..."

Posted by mojo 2009-08-12 11:39|| 2009-08-12 11:39|| Front Page Top

#9 Actually, in American business law, if you give someone a substantial gift, repeatedly, and establish a dependency with that gift, the courts may decide that you must continue giving that gift.

O rly?

Ima recall the strange case of Santa Claus vs. Kids Inc.

Posted by .5MT 2009-08-12 20:09|| 2009-08-12 20:09|| Front Page Top

#10 Agreed on all points, P2K.

Posted by lotp 2009-08-12 20:13|| 2009-08-12 20:13|| Front Page Top

#11 Yes, I have also hear it said we are entitled to justice but weather or not it's fair is another issue.

Posted by Dale 2009-08-12 20:45|| 2009-08-12 20:45|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:54 Redneck Jim
23:50 Redneck Jim
23:44 Redneck Jim
23:32 Redneck Jim
23:18 Redneck Jim
23:12 Capsu78
23:11 Redneck Jim
22:57 Redneck Jim
22:49 ed
22:34 Bright Pebbles
22:26 Large Snerong7311
21:41 notascrename
21:40 Rambler in Virginia
21:27 Procopius2k
21:23 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
21:16 Procopius2k
21:12 Frank G
21:03 Procopius2k
20:52 Percy Spons4194
20:45 Dale
20:23 746
20:21 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
20:20 Mike