In Texas, Don't Expect Justice in Paternity Fraud Cases
May 25th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.That's right, you're not from Texas,
That's right, you're not from Texas,
That's right, you're not from Texas,
But Texas wants you anyway.
- Lyle Lovett
If you're male, Texas does want you. After all, there might be some child support you could pay. And if you're Attorney General Gregg Abbott, it really makes no difference that you're not the child's father, just give him your name and he'll be glad to take a default judgment against you. No muss, no fuss and the Lone Star State will get that many more federal dollars. So come on down, we'd love to "have" you.
This article is about as good a one as I've read about all the different ways a man in Texas can be trapped into paying for a child who's not his (Dallas Observer, 4/2/09). It discusses in detail how Texas law favors paternity fraud, how the AG's office routinely strips men of their rights, how "notice" of hearings in child support cases often consists of a letter mailed to a wrong address. That's how a default judgment can get taken against the wrong man, and once it is, his chances of ever getting off the hook become vanishingly small.
The article deals with one man, "Antonio," who began to get the message that his children weren't his when they were 5 and 7 years old. Unfortunately for him, the Texas statute of limitations on DNA testing in child support and custody cases is four years. Apparently that statute starts to run when the child is born, so Antonio was out of luck. But one judge ordered DNA testing anyway; the results proved he was not the father but the appellate court ordered the results sealed. The fish was hooked and they were not going to let him go.
As an aside, it should come as no surprise that this type of legal chicanery happens mostly to poor and uneducated men. Those who don't know their rights and who can't afford an attorney are the ones the AG's office is most happy to prey upon.
And finally, the article talks about two courageous judges in Dallas County who tried to do the right thing - order genetic testing in paternity fraud cases - only to be slapped down by appellate courts. More astonishing still is the its description of the vendetta conducted by the Attorney General's Office against those two judges. Apparently, Abbott's office solicited affidavits from its own attorneys on which it hoped to base a complaint against one of the judges.
To thicken the plot still further, one of those attorneys refused to sign the affidavit, saying the "facts" stated in it weren't true. She was fired and now has sued the Office of the Attorney General alleging her discharge was because she refused to perjure herself. Those are just her allegations, and the civil suit is pending. Read about it here (Law.com, 5/19/09).
No article would be complete without some totally inane excuses made for the system as it is. According to those apologists, allowing men to actually learn whether they're a child's father or not would "destabilize" the family. Just how stable a family is in which the mother has an extramarital affair, gives birth to a child who's not her husband's and proceeds as if nothing is amiss, these people don't explain.
They also don't explain how tagging the wrong man for support while letting the actual father off the hook encourages men to be responsible for the children they father.
And let's be clear; there are countless situations in which courts don't give a tinker's 'damn' about family stability. If they did, they'd outlaw divorce in families with minor children. After all, what's more destabilizing to a child than divorce?
So the argument that requiring the actual father to be the one to support the child would unacceptably destabilize the child is a red herring.
The Dallas Observer piece is long, but it's an excellent primer on the some of the many ways family courts are unabashedly anti-dad.
Thanks to John for the heads-up on both articles.
"));
19 queries. 0.342 seconds.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:18 am
As the article states:
"the office's unwillingness to acknowledge that some of its practices may railroad poor, uneducated men into financial hardship is evidence of more sinister motives. The office receives federal funds based in part on the amount of child support that it collects and distributes, giving the Child Support Division a budgetary incentive to close as many cases as it can, no matter whose rights it might trample."
This is like paying judges based on how many guilty verdicts they issue.
Equal justice under law? Please.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:42 am
"They also don't explain how tagging the wrong man for support while letting the actual father off the hook encourages men to be responsible for the children they father."
This is a no-brainer to anyone who doesn't stand to gain financially by current practices. As long as there exists a chance that someone else can be placed on the hook for financially supporting children, laws and practices such as those described in your article will only serve to encourage "truly irresponsible" fathers to do the wrong thing.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I wrote this article on the same topic last night: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5845-Single-Parenting-Examiner~y2009m5d25-Whistleblower-claims-Texas-unfairly-targeted-judges-who-defend-fathers-rights
I can see the logic behind encouraging a man who has been "Dad" to a child to continue his relationship with that child regardless of DNA, and I would certainly respect any man who CHOOSES to support that financially regardless of DNA, but I don't think he should be FORCED to support another man's child financially.
The Time Magazine article I linked to is several years old, but it talks about a case where the "duped dad" wound up paying child support to the biological father after the mother disappeared.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Justin Says: "This is like paying judges based on how many guilty verdicts they issue."
I couldn't have said it better! The massive conflict of interest between justice and the family court division financial windfall is just unbelievable.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Robert,
A suggestion - when you are linking to a story it would be helpful if you can highlight the link by probably Underlining it. It will be helpful for the readers..
Ex - This
Thanks
May 25th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Sorry,
Ex - This
Thanks
May 25th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
3
Barbara Says:
May 25th, 2009 at 1:17 p"but I don't think he should be FORCED to support another man's child financially. '
do you get flack from your female friends for this position or is it not a subject you would care to discuss with them? i am curious because men, as a general rule, have no problem disagreeing and discussing those topics. yes men are more confrontational but are there social problems and topics that women will talk about and argue their point with enthusiasm with each other such as mens issues, not just the color of wall paper, and i mean that with all due respect. it seems that the one thing women due is stick together on gender based issues.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Good morning,
Just read the article and it sure conveys that the AG officer is the one that thinks it is above the law, it goes against many parts of the constitution.
Here is Canada, a person that pays child support and is proven not to be the father and has surpassed the statute of limitations is still forced to pay child support but looses all parental rights.
I base this from the experience of a few of my friends, one he was proven not to be the father of children with his ex wife, but still had to pay child support but had no parental rights, she did not allow visitation with the children and when he tried to fight in court, the family court would say you are not the father so you have no visitation rights.
The other was a supposed child he fathered when he was younger with a woman he dated for a few months. He only found out about the paternity 8 years after the relationship ended. He was ordered by family court to pay child support and arrears for the 7 and a half years. About a year later he found out that he was not the father and contested the order in family court, but lost his case when it was stated that the statute for paternity where expired. Once again the mother decided to move to another province and he had no right to stop the relocation as the family court stated that he was not really the father and had no parental rights but had to continue to pay child support for that child.
I see that Texas seems to have the same ideas as Canada family courts have as it relates to the supposed father's responsibilities but has no parental rights what so ever.
Seems fair to me "NOT" Guess there is still lots of things that need to be changed and fought for. Keep up the good fight everyone and let us not give up hope.
My 2 cents,
Luc
May 25th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I found this part of the first article the most despicable piece of work from Antonio's ex.
"During a recent visit with his son, Antonio called his estranged wife to say he would be late dropping the boy off, and she told him the girl had been crying all day. Her mother put her on the phone."
It's horrible that he's had to cut ties with the girls whom he believed to be his daughters. But if this woman wanted her girls to have a father, she should have involved their biological father from day 1 instead of lying about it.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Given more and more of these cases I cannot help but wonder if we shouldn't be discouraging our sons from marrying, at least in the legal sense. The deck is stacked against them time after time and it views them as Daddy Morebucks, the perpetual ATM machine. To be sure, not all women out there are cheating on their husbands AND children in this way, but when they do the court seems willing to bend over backwards to let the fraud continue.
And Sonja I read that part as well. That's basically turning the child into a human sword and shield when neither the child nor the father did anything wrong.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Donnie - I'm not sure what you're asking and whether you're being serious or tongue-in-cheek but I have discussed my opinions about fatherhood, responsibility (as it applies to mothers and fathers), child support, etc. with female friends in several different venues. Actually, since I've been hanging out on this site, a lot of the issues y'all discuss have come up with my single mom friends. For the most part, they agree with me (I think I'm pretty middle-of-the-road). I know quite a few single moms who believe even more strongly than I do that the system is completely biased against men and are even more extreme (I can't think of the right word) than I am in the changes they would recommend to overhaul "the system".
SOME commenters on this site seem to think that all (or at least most) women are like the ones that screwed them over. That's just not the case. The majority of women out there are decent, responsible, respectable, law-abiding, fair-minded human beings. Just like the majority of men are. It's the few conniving, manipulative bitches that give us all a bad name.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Barbara said “It's the few conniving, manipulative bitches that give us all a bad name.” I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Once upon a time I would have been insulted if my husband had requested a DNA test, but that is because I can’t conceive of lying at all let alone about something so important. I am not that devious. However, age is the best teacher of all. If that were to happen now (not that I would have another child at my age!) I would insist on a DNA test myself just so there is no doubt in anyone’s mind what-so-ever. I’ve seen too much and it is a sad state when we have to test to make sure the “father” really IS the father.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Barbara said “It's the few conniving, manipulative b*&%#$@ that give us all a bad name.” I couldn’t have said it better myself! (had to edit one word, tried to post and after several minutes it didn’t show, this is second attempt so if both suddenly show up y’all know why)
Once upon a time I would have been insulted if my husband had requested a DNA test, but that is because I can’t conceive of lying at all let alone about something so important. I am not that devious. However, age is the best teacher of all. If that were to happen now (not that I would have another child at my age!) I would insist on a DNA test myself just so there is no doubt in anyone’s mind what-so-ever. I’ve seen too much and it is a sad state when we have to test to make sure the “father” really IS the father.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Yet another piece of news for those outside of Texas to understand how ridiculous the Texas OAG really is. It actually all began with Abbott's predecessor (and now US Senator) John Cornyn. Both ran on the platform of "helping" women and children while "rounding up" all the deadbeat dads in Texas. What better platform to guarantee a victory? If the debacle last year regarding the west Texas cult didn't convince anyone that Abbott will go above the law to do it his way, then this certainly should convince people.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:14 am
The "black booted thugs" at the AG's offiice are at it again. They don't care if the wrong man is paying child support, all they care about is collecting their federal incentives. This time they are trying to railroad an honest judge trying to reform a broken system. And to boot they are trying to railroad and ruin an honest attorney for not lying for "black booted government thugs'.
I wish Attorney Weatherspoon luck and hope she wins her suit against Abbots army of bureaucrats. I also thank Judge Hanschen for standing up for what is right and defying the worst " black booted thugs" , Greg Abbott.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I find it highly disturbing that the Attorney General's office can undermine a sitting judge in such a fashion. The courts are supposed to be a check on the abuses of the prosecutor and the executive.
I have less and less respect for Greg Abbot on a daily basis. I'll be happy to vote this 'tard out of office.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am
As someone who has faced the State of Texas in court I can tell you that this story doesnt surprise me. I notice that in one sentance the Dallas Office was concerned that the court was "biased against the OAG and child support". I read that as they saw thru the misconduct and tactics used by the AG and were refusing to play ball.
An earlier poster talked about Judges getting paid for the number of convictions they hand down well it is similar to what happens here. Texas child support courts have Court masters that are attorneys hired by the OAG to hear these cases and are paid by the State. It is one of the clearest examples to me of conflict on interest that no one seems to want to protest because many in this State are scared of Abbott.
I agree with offended dad. I too will be voting this 'tard out of office. And it cant happen to soon.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Abbot was last elected in the 2006 general election for a 4 year term.
I'm not partisan on this issue, but I wasn't happy with the long chain of Democrats leading up to the last two Republicans to hold this office, either. Everyone has used this office to bully people, pad their political resume, and as a partisan party hack, regardless of their party.
This guy is an ambulance chaser, writ large. He has no problem using the public's money and resources to go up against people who can't defend themselves, with a few highly publicised exceptions (e.g. the Sony rootkit case), but still, the end result is that the state's coffers and his resume are taken care of, while the people he's supposed to be supporting are stuck cleaning up the mess.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
TOMD - I fired off a letter to the Texas Republican party about how this guy does not represent the party's stated goals for smaller government, personal responsibility, and integrity, and the hopes that someone else would be running on the next election cycle.
Unfortunately, the Democrats and Libertarians have only had goof-balls to go up against him.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I worked in the Texas AG's office (in Child Support Enforcement) back in the mid 90's, and I can tell you that the corruption we read about today was occurring back then, as well. The bottom line is this: The AG's office is concerned solely with obtaining child support orders for the maximum amount allowed under the law (this is how each branch office is measured against the others), and determining whether or not the man is actually the child's father is irrelevant.
Here's just one example of what I witnessed: I was processing a case in which a child support order had been obtained, requiring a man (I'll call him, "Mr.X") to provide support for three children (A,B & C). Reading through the case history, I learned that he wasn't certain that he was the father of all three children. In these cases, the alleged father can request paternity testing, BUT...if it turns out that he is the father, then he's required to pay for the test. Mr. X was poor, working at just above minimum wage, so he only requested a paternity test for Child C (the one he thought least likely to be his). As it turned out, Child C was his, so Mr. X agreed to a child support order for all three children.
When filling out her application for the AG's services, however, the mother had named (in addition to Mr.X) a different man as the possible father of Child B! I asked the attorney who obtained the order if Mr.X had been notified of this, and watched her tap dance. She said she was "...sure that he'd been notified," and had no idea why, given that information, he would've requested paternity testing for Child C, rather than B.
Maybe Mr.X was, in fact, the father of all three children...but maybe not. The bottom line is that the Texas AG's office doesn't care - they just want money.
I could say much more about the AG's treatment of fathers who file requests for child support ON THEMSELVES, so that they might obtain visitation rights with their children, as well as how AG's office "computer system errors" can allow them to collect child support payments from fathers and hold the payments for months (while earning interest) before distributing the payments (but not the interest) to waiting mothers. I'll save that for another time, though.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:04 am
The TX OAG, like ALL government organizations, only considers the money they can get and the women involved. If any of them cared about the children they'd change their abusive tactics toward the fathers, so it's possible for more fathersto remain in their child's life.
Fathers should not have to pay child suppot for children that are not theirs, OR chldren that they are not allowd contact with because the CP and the system refuse to allow or enforce the fathers' parental rights. When a mother moves the chldren to another state the TX OAG won't even help with their location. They'll continue to take money from the father regardless of whether his visitation orders are violated and regardless of whether he ever knows where his child lives or who he lives with.
The TX judges work along the same lines and do not enforce their own worthless visitation orders.
Fathers in TX are SCREWED in every way the system can do it. It's horrible that they also care so little for the children here, as the huge number of TX children battered and murdered in single mother homes attests to.
They seem not to care at all.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
how can someone change the Texas law? This is so wrong and these women should not be allowed to keep the children in the first place. If they are using their children as bait for greed they can do anything to get more than just child support. False accusations, insurance scam - its sad.