Georgia man jailed for not supporting someone else's child free at last

[thatcrazycajun]

There are no words adequate to convey my feelings at reading this story in my local paper's dead-tree edition this morning:
Jailed for Unpaid Child Support Despite DNA Tests Proving He Was Not Child's Father, Southern GA Man Freed; State Insists He Still Owes $10K
How on God's green and pleasant Earth does anyone justify this kind of governmental idiocy? I apologize to the whole world for the state of my residence once again.

Comments

Child support

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

Stuff like this has been going on for decades. There was a case at least 20 years ago (I remember only that the falsely accused "father" was named Parsons) in which the alleged father and his doctor proved that for years he had been absolutely sterile. However, the judge felt that there was enough other evidence that Parsons could have been the father that the proof could simply be disregarded, as though it really were not proof after all. I saw a summary of the law in this case while I was working as a legal secretary in suburban Los Angeles; apparently in California at least, even the most absolute proof can be treated as though it was simply a hint in a general direction, and can be completely disregarded if the mother's story is credible enough. Yes, I'm appalled too.

Nate

[voiceofkiki.livejournal.com]

And people wonder why I moved.

[tarkrai.livejournal.com]

This is just one more situation where 'common sense' and 'legal sense' are two very, very different things.

Reading between the lines; this is a case of 'if it acts like a duck, and walks like a duck..."; and it wasn't a duck. So- let's look at the details:

1. He *thought* he was the father for 13 years.
2. Child support obligations were dropped when it was proven that he *wasn't* the father.
3. However, a judge is holding him to the financial obligation from when he thought he was the father- the arrears he's trying to make good on are from that time period... and this is what he was jailed for.

So, what would bring about this situation? The welfare of the child. This is a man who was accepting an obligation to pay for 13 years; therefore the judge was holding him to it for the sake of the child.

I'm not saying I agree with the judge (I don't, actually). However, when you have a man who has been paying something for all these years (which sets that legal-cementing precedent) and suddenly see the welfare of the child at stake when no one knows where the *real* father is...

So- I do have a problem with the decision to pay- but I can see the logic in how it was determined. I have a *huge* problem with the jail time- I think that this was patently unfair.

OTOH, I think that he has the right to sue the state. Perhaps, minimum, for the outstanding arrears... :)

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

In the days before biochemistry and paternity tests, a man would legally be declared the father of all children born to his wife, even if the baby's resemblance to the postman was unmistakable.

However, that's not the case here. No marriage.

Unless, Georgia is (or was) a common-law state, like Ohio was when we moved here in 1991. What that meant was if anyone assumed that Alan and I were married and we failed to correct them every time, then *POOF!* we were instantly married! (We finally tied the knot in 1995. Inexpensively.)

And yes, Social Security had people whose job was to track down these common-law widows (despite lack of paper trail) and get survivor's benefits to them.