Not long ago, a mother who wanted child support could simply name a man - any man.  If state authorities couldn't locate him in order to serve him with the lawsuit demanding payment, they would ask the court to "serve him by publication."  That means that notice of the court proceeding would be published in a local newspaper.  That was enough to accomplish "service of process," and a hearing could be held in the guy's absence.  The hearing would result in an order being issued for him to pay child support. 

Once child support officials found him, or someone with his name, he'd be required by court order to pay.  To his protest that he was not the father, had never met the mother, the answer was "You should have raised that at the hearing.  Why didn't you attend?"  All issues were res judicata, i.e. decided by the court.  The fact that he had had no inkling of a hearing and had no reason to believe that a total stranger had named him the father of her child mattered not at all.

I don't know if that particular Dickensian procedure is still used by any state, but this one isn't much better (KDVR, 2/8/10).

Anthony Williams lives in Colorado.  Several months ago, he was informed that he owed past, present and future child support to a woman in Seattle for her five year old child.  But, as Williams describes,

"she got pregnant in Mesa, Arizona, never been to Mesa, Arizona, had the kid in Portland, Oregon, never been to Oregon, now she lives in Seattle, Washington, never been to Seattle, Washington ever."

He called the child support authorities in Washington who couldn't have cared less that he wasn't the father.  They had a court order and as far as they were concerned, that was that.  They turned the matter over to Arapahoe County, CO child support officials who told Williams's employer to begin garnishing his wages.

Finally, Williams contacted a local television station that went to bat for him.  He offered to provide tissue samples for genetic testing, which was completed in short order.  But then a curious thing happened - the mother balked at providing a specimen from the child.  Hmm.  I wonder why that was.  After all, if she's at all certain that the child was his, she'd have had no hesitation.  If testing proves he's not the dad, then she's narrowed the field by one.  So what's the problem, why did she hesitate?  It seems pretty clear that she'd known all along that Williams wasn't the right dad but was perfectly willing to stick him with the bill anyway.

With his own efforts and those of the television station, child support authorities finally relented.  But here's what Williams had gone through: he'd had to tell his wife that someone had named him as her child's father; he spent countless hours trying to clear his name; he's spent countless sleepless nights worrying; he'd had to try to explain the garnishment order to his employer; and the woman who made the fraudulent claim in the first place now has his address and social security number.  She's the one who was happy to perpetrate a fraud in order to get his money.  So I wonder how comfortable Williams is knowing that she's got those important bits of his personal information.

Is there a better way?  You bet there is.  DNA testing of all children at birth for the purpose of establishing paternity is it.  It will save countless hours and considerable money on the part of the state.  More important, every child will know its father and every father his child from Day One.  No more paternity fraud; no more children with two daddies, one who raised them and one who learned years later that the child is actually his.  DNA testing of all children at birth is a stone that kills many birds at once.

Meanwhile, you'd think even the State of Florida could have figured this one out (CFNews13, 2/10/10).  

National Guardsman Rusty Cole is 22 years old, born in 1987.  So you might think it strange that the State of Florida attempted to get child support from him for a child who was born in 1995 when Cole was seven.  Well, you might and I might, but we're not child support officials of the State of Florida.  The fact that the birthdays of the two people in question made it essentially impossible that Cole was the child's father impressed them not in the least. 

Although the article isn't clear, apparently the state Department of Revenue garnished Cole's wages.  He called them and complained, but to no avail.  And the problem was no laughing matter.  Cole's father had become disabled and couldn't earn a living.  The family - Cole, his father and mother - depended on Cole's income, much of which was being taken by the state to support a child who couldn't be his. 

Finally, Cole contacted the governor of the state and that got something done.  The Florida Department of Revenue was persuaded to notice what should have been obvious from the start - Rusty Cole did not father a child when he was seven years old.  They now say a refund is on the way.  Why did it take intervention by the Governor's Office to get that accomplished?

Who can guess?  But notice the casual way in which the article tossed this off in passing:

It appears to be an obvious case of mistaken identity, something that happens quite often...

But it wouldn't if all babies had their paternity established via DNA testing at birth. 

Thanks to Roy for the heads-up on the Cole case.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 11th, 2010 at 10:01 am and is filed under Child Support/Child Support Enforcement.