CA: Who's Your Daddy?

I am the Jim "Jones" this article is about...I just recieved DNA test
results showing that I am not the father of this child... I am just
another victim of Paternity Fraud

Jim Knapp


http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07....nity-0629.html

Who's Your Daddy?
It's not politically correct to say that child support laws are biased
against men. But cases of questionable fatherhood and bizarre
prosecutions
of disproved dads show that, sometimes, it's true.


By Cecily Ruttenberg


Forty-year-old Jim Jones* of Redwood City logs onto myspace.com, a
website
he visits regularly. Each visit, Jones navigates to the same spot, the
photograph of a sandy-haired 11-year-old boy named Ethan. Ethan is
Jones'
son-maybe. The father and son have never met or even spoken on the
phone.
Ethan's picture on myspace.com is their only connection. Oh yeah,
except for
the child support payments automatically deducted from Jones' paychecks
for
the past nine years.


Financial responsibility began when Ethan's mother named Jones as
Ethan's
father on welfare paperwork. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act requires women
to
name their child's fathers in order to receive public assistance-a law
designed to recoup government welfare costs by garnishing the wages of
"deadbeat dads."


Under California law, Jones had six months from the time he learned
about
Ethan to contest paternity. Unaware of this deadline, and unable to
afford
an attorney, Jones missed his chance. To this day, Jones does not have
any
proof that he is Ethan's father. His only hope to find out lies with a
little-known piece of legislation set to expire in five months.
Jones' story is a prime example of the unintended and devastating
consequences of well-intentioned child support laws. Across the
country,
legislators are making headlines by cracking down on these unjust laws.

Florida passed a bill early this month that releases a man from paying
child
support if DNA proves he is not the biological father. A similar bill
is
being considered in Michigan. Colorado passed a law this year
permitting men
to challenge the paternity of alleged children during a divorce,
separation
or child support hearing. Other states, including Ohio, Georgia,
Maryland
and Alabama, have passed similar laws that allow men to disestablish
paternity.


In 2004, the California legislature passed A.B. 252, a short-lived law
that
allows men named as fathers in default judgments two years from the
law's
enactment to contest paternity via a DNA test. A default judgment is a
case
in which the mother claims paternity, and the purported father does not

agree or sign any paperwork. The window for A.B. 252 expires on Jan. 1,

2007. (The law also extends to two years, from six months, the period
during
which a man can contest a paternity judgment.)


Jones learned of A.B. 252 while being interviewed for this article. He
says
he will contest paternity; however, he is battle-weary and
half-inclined to
give up. In the nine years since a back-calculated child support bill
landed
on his doorstep, Jones has had his license to drive and his state
contractor
license suspended, and his wages and tax returns intercepted. He has
visited
Sacramento more than a dozen times in search of his ex-girlfriend,
hired a
private detective, commissioned two attorneys and finally, in
desperation,
given up and gone underground (working, at times, under the table) to
avoid
child support bills of over $100,000.


"I don't know how I'll ever pay it off," Jones says of the debt. "I'm
forced
to be in hiding for the rest of my life."


Default Dad
Jones' story began 12 years ago in Sacramento when he met a pretty
blonde
girl named Michelle at a coffee bar. The couple struck up a
relationship,
hanging out at coffee shops and shopping at the mall. After four
months,
Jones decided Michelle wasn't the one and ended the relationship.


Four months later, Jones learned secondhand that Michelle was
pregnant-and
claiming that he was the father. Jones contacted Michelle, offered to
help
and began preparing for fatherhood. Several months later the couple had
an
argument that escalated to the point where Michelle told Jones that the
baby
was not his. She told him to leave, and he did.


Two and a half years later, living in Santa Cruz, Jones was visited by
a
process server bearing a hefty bill-Jones recalls $20,000-for child
support
in arrears. The bill compelled Jones to begin paying, and ordered his
appearance in court to sign or contest the declaration of paternity.


"I was completely surprised because she told me it wasn't my kid," said

Jones. "I thought I'd just call Michelle and straighten things out."


Jones hunted for Michelle, and did not attend his court hearing-a
decision
he regrets to this day. By not appearing for his hearing, the court
registered Jones, by default judgment, as Ethan's father in the
California
child support services database. A few months later, Jones' six-month
window
to contest paternity closed.


Unaware of the severity of these occurrences, Jones continued to search
on
his own for Michelle and his alleged son. He called old friends and
acquaintances. He took trips to Sacramento to scour old hangouts and
neighborhoods where she had lived. At other times, exacerbated and
angry, he
simply ignored the situation, as it continued to worsen. The government

started to garnish wages from his paychecks. Seven years later, Jones
hired
a private detective who found Michelle. She was living in Carmichael,
Calif., working at a Starbucks. She had married and had another child.


Jones approached Michelle's new husband. "I told him, 'I just want to
talk
to Michelle over the phone and resolve this out of court.' I gave him
my
phone number. I never heard from her," Jones said.


The bills continued to arrive in the mail, and money continued to
disappear
from Jones' paychecks. As understanding of the gravity of his situation

became clearer, Jones retained legal help. After a frustrating year in
which
his first attorney failed to get results, Jones hired attorney David
Brown
of Sacramento.


Brown told Jones his chances of getting a court to order a DNA test so
long
after the six-month period had ended were not good. Unless he had not
been
served, or had been physically incapable of attending his hearing, the
judge
would likely deny the request. Neither exception applied to Jones. He
did
not fight.


World's Greatest Dad Attorney
Santa Ana family law attorney Linda Ferrer is no stranger to stories
like
Jones'. Somewhat of a hero within paternity rights circles; she has
become
the go-to attorney in California for men seeking to disestablish
paternity.


In 1994, Ferrer won a landmark paternity fraud case for Manuel Navarro
of
Los Angeles, relieving him of financial responsibility for two children
whom
DNA proved were not his own. She took Navarro's case to court more than
five
years after the six-month window to contest paternity had closed-and
she
won.


Like Jones, Navarro had never met the children. Furthermore, he had not
been
properly served.


In 1996, a woman named "Manuel Nava" as the father of her twin boys. A
process service delivered a summons via "substitute service" with
someone
identified as Navarro's sister. When he didn't respond within 30 days,
the
court named him father by default and established a $247-a-month child
support order.


In 2001, armed with DNA proof that he was not the father, Ferrer sued
on
behalf of Navarro to terminate his child support order. A lower court,
following the law, denied Navarro, arguing that too much time had
elapsed.
Ferrer won Navarro's case on appeal.


"The argument that won the case was that the DA already knew that he
was not
the father, they had DNA evidence to prove it and they were still going

after him," said Ferrer.


The California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District said in its June
30,
2004, decision that the county "should not enforce child support
judgments
it knows to be unfounded. [W]hen a mistake occurs in a child support
action,
the County must correct it, not exploit it," it added.


If Navarro's ruling was considered a victory, it was only partially so.

Navarro must make peace with money paid out in the years before
paternity
was disestablished. Offering reimbursement on money paid would violate
the
"Bradley Amendment," a federal law that prevents the retroactive
modification of child support orders. States must adhere to the Bradley

Amendment, or lose federal welfare and child support funding.


Astonishingly, some states have taken this risk, utilizing a compromise

clause in the amendment. Alaska has given its administrative agency the

authority to forgive child support debt when it disestablishes
paternity.
Georgia requires the court to address the issue of back debt, and Iowa
requires courts to declare unpaid support satisfied. Other states,
including
Michigan, are including such legislation.


California's A.B. 252, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2005, includes
language that promises debt relief, but not reimbursement, if paternity
is
disestablished.


This holds the greatest promise for men like Jones, who have
accumulated
massive debt and have just a few months left to take advantage of A.B.
252's
grandfather clause. While the law extends to two years the time during
which
men can contest paternity, men named in default judgments before than
two
years ago can contest only until Jan. 1, 2007.


Guilty Even After Proven Innocent
Taron James first discovered that the state considered him a father in
1996
when the DMV notified him they would be suspending his driver's license
for
failure to pay child support.


By this point, the six-month window to contest paternity had passed.
James
could not locate his ex-girlfriend to request a DNA test directly, and
the
courts offered no alternative recourse. For the next four years, James
watched money leak out of his paychecks, while the state intercepted
his
income taxes. In 1999, with his checks cut almost in half, James
declared
bankruptcy.


In 2000, James finally made contact with his ex-girlfriend. "I
approached
her ...

read more »

Jim Jones wrote:
I am the Jim "Jones" this article is about...I just recieved DNA test
results showing that I am not the father of this child... I am just
another victim of Paternity Fraud

Jim Knapp


First, off, let me say that I am sorry about the situation you are in.
It's not fair, and it damn sure ain't right, but because they hide
behind the kids, they can do anything they want (when they did that in
Iraq, we called them "human shields" and made sure that war crimes were
charged).
If you want to think of yourself as a victim, do so, you have the right.
But what I think is important is to be a fighter. You can do nothing
lying on your back. And if you don't get any sort of justice? I don't
know if this is any sort of consolation, but maybe you'll save some guy
who gets duped by his girlfriend and her slick lawyer into paying
something he has no need to pay.