November 22, 2009
What's Inside:
On child support: Let’s make sure we’ve got the right guy
It may be rare in the state of Missouri, but it does happen.
Every payday, some guy has a few hundred dollars deducted from his wages and that money goes to support a child that’s not his. If you’re that guy, you pay because the courts have so ordered. You keep paying because if you fall behind, you will be charged with criminal nonsupport and might do some jail time. At this point, your future is dim. And, there’s nothing you can do about your situation.
The Missouri General Assembly moved to remedy these situations this past session. One of the bills it passed would allow men to challenge paternity with a DNA test. If they’re not the father, they would be excused from all past-due child support and any future support. They also would have their names removed from a birth certificate and have past criminal convictions for nonsupport expunged from their record.
The bill is lying on Gov. Jay Nixon’s desk. His office says he wants to study the issue before signing it.
So guys, if Mr. Nixon signs the legislation and if you believe you’re wrongly paying child support, you have until Dec. 31, 2011, to file a petition contesting your paternity.
I’m not sure exactly what part of the bill the governor is studying, but the legislation would go a long way to square up some unfair situations a few men have found themselves in. It’s a good step toward assuring that men are given a fair shake in our family courts.
Still, the legislation has problems.
First of all, the man bears all the costs of determining paternity — even if his name was picked out of a phone book and listed on a birth certificate. If you’re named a father, you’re presumed guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.
What’s wrong with having whoever loses the decision bear all the costs?
If a woman falsely asserts that a man is the father of her child and is proven wrong, she should pay. If a guy contests paternity and he actually is the father, he should pay.
But as usual, the man pays. So save your nickels and dimes, guys. You’ll need some cash to pay for the DNA test, hire a lawyer and file your petition.
The second flaw in this legislation is that, even if you can prove that you’re not the father, that doesn’t automatically release you from child support. The judge makes the final decision, and he can decide to rule against the DNA verdict.
The legislation reads: “The court shall grant relief, unless the court makes written findings of fact and conclusions of law that it is not in the best interest of the parties to do so ... ”
The bill doesn’t spell out what those “findings of fact” are or what “conclusions” a judge may make. On occasion, judges have made some inexplicable rulings.
The bill also doesn’t address what happens to money already paid in child support. Let’s say a man spends thousands of dollars paying child support, then finds out he’s not the father. Sorry, but he’s not getting any of that money back — even if the child’s true father is discovered. Theoretically, the first man should be repaid at least some of the money he spent supporting some other guy’s kid.
Of course, there is one way to avoid all (or at least most) of these situations.
Let’s make DNA paternity tests mandatory every time a judge issues a child support order.
It only makes sense that, if judges are going to tag a guy with thousands of dollars in child support over two decades, we should make sure we get the right guy.
Steve Booher’s column runs on Mondays. He can be reached at steveb@npgco.com.
This story has 16 comments. Click here to join in on the discussion.
Story Tools
Hyperlink Legend
E-mail story
Print friendly version
iPod friendly version
Today's Top Headlines
Characters set the stage for children’s programming
Kids choice of favorite shows varies
Health care bill clears Senate
It’s official: Santa’s here
Task force report stirs health debate
JOB SEARCH
RECENTLY DISCUSSED
Coleman, Intel join forces
(90 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(80 comments)
It's your call, Nov. 19, 2009
(55 comments)
Health care bill clears Senate
(2 comments)
More Popular Discussions
(90 comments)
City wants grant to battle smoking
(80 comments)
It's your call, Nov. 19, 2009
(55 comments)
Health care bill clears Senate
(2 comments)
Very good article, as Mr. Booher says everyone take a look but I think it needs to go even further and take more of the power away from the courts. Common sense, which the courts these days have none, should tell us that if a man didn't father a child he can't be held responsible unless he adopted the child. Also the child support laws need to be overhauled and be made more fair, it's no big secret that the child support laws favor the women at least in this state. So state legislators get off your under worked over paid butts and let's over haul the system to benefit whom it is intended in the 1st place the kids.
This article is good but doesn't begin to address all of the flaws in the non support laws. It isn't so much the state of Missouri that is so unfair to non costodial parents, it is Buchanan county....The statisics show no other county in the state where the percentage of felony non support cases are even close to the number filed in Buchanan County. Our prosecuting attorney's office seems to think this is a befit for children. The truth is it robs them of a father whose only crime is poverty and often times their extened family as well. They will argue the amount of support is based on the income of both parents then figured with some formula but it doesn't take into account that at the time it is figured the non custodial parent may be employed at a great job, but as our economy shows, that doesn't mean much if that job is lost. I could go on and on concerning this topic but will just say it would make a great story for the news press if they would take the time to really investigate the way things are handled here in Buchanan county.
what about the dead beat mothers that don't pay. men get put in jail for missing one payment,while most women can get far enough behind that its a felony. at most get a court summons. who runs this department and why is it so one sided?
I agree it is time they stop charging men to support a child that is not theres. I also agree the men should be paid back, by the woman who lied about who the father was. It is her fault not the other guy who turns out to be the real father. As far as a man getting thrown in jail for missing one payment, I only wish it worked like that. My ex is over 4000.00 behind and nothing is happening to him, they are not even taking his taxes so, I think it depends on the people involved. Oh by the way he makes very good money and is only ordered to pay 75.00 a week so as you can see it has been a lot of payments he has not made. Buchanan County needs to take another look at some of the cases. Go after the ones who are really behind and not the ones missing a few payments.
“The court shall grant relief, unless the court makes written findings of fact and conclusions of law that it is not in the best interest of the parties to do so ... ”
About the only time it would be in the "best interest of the parties" would be if the real baby daddy was identified and he makes more money than the alleged baby daddy.
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually gave some thought to who they produced chidren with instead of just going with the flow?
Just because it's the law, doesn't always make it right.
Steve said "Of course, there is one way to avoid all (or at least most) of these situations"...
Well, I know another way... don't let it happen in the first place. Practicing safe sex prevents more than disease!
Another great article!
Paternity laws make me scratch my head sometimes - remember David Salazar? (following copied and pasted from another website)
David Salazar ("David") and Shannon McClure ("Shannon") were married on June 17, 2000, in Grundy County, Missouri. They separated in September 2000, but remained married at the time of trial. Shannon gave birth to a daughter, A.S., on November 29, 2001. David and Shannon both claim they did not have sexual relations with each other in the fourteen months preceding A.S.’s birth. David is named as A.S.’s father on her birth certificate because, according to Shannon, a clerk at the hospital where A.S. was born insisted that the name of Shannon’s husband be placed on the birth certificate.
The Division of Child Support Enforcement ("DCSE") served a "Notice and Finding of Financial Responsibility" on David alleging he had a duty to support A.S. David and Shannon contacted DCSE and denied David’s paternity. David requested a hearing to contest the finding. After David failed to appear at the hearing, the Director of DCSE, pursuant to section 454.490, entered a default decision and order on April 1, 2003, declaring David to be A.S.’s father and requiring him to pay child support to Shannon for A.S. in the amount of $278 per month, beginning December 15, 2002. Shannon subsequently filed for public assistance in Buchanan County, and the Buchanan County prosecutor’s office charged David with nonsupport, a class A misdemeanor, on January 2, 2004.
David waived a jury and a trial was held on November 29, 2004. David testified that he was aware of the administrative order declaring him to be A.S.’s father and requiring him to support A.S., and he admitted that he provided no support for A.S. during October and November 2003. The judge found David guilty and sentenced him on February 7, 2005, to twenty-eight days in the Buchanan County jail.
how much does a paternity test cost?
this would be a step in the right direction.
several times in this wonderfull city the DCSE have made mistakes and most of the time they didn't fix it for years!! that office needs a serious overhauling and the people need to be held accountable for their mistakes.
I hope this bill is passed and soon.
I believe the law in MO is still such that a male can not be listed on the birth certificate unless he is married to the female giving birth, or signs an affidavit that he is the father. If a later DNA test proves paternity for a male, then the birth certificate is automatically amended by the state to show the father's name.
I don't think that the statements "First of all, the man bears all the costs of determining paternity — even if his name was picked out of a phone book and listed on a birth certificate. If you’re named a father, you’re presumed guilty until you can prove yourself innocent." can actually happen in Missouri - or Buchanan county anyway, as that is where I have friends who have been through this situation. I am sure that sometimes the wrong man is listed on a birth certificate - and by all means, he should not have to pay child support if it is proven that he is not the biological father of the child, but I don't think the situation is running rampant as this article makes it sound.
"It may be rare in the state of Missouri, but it does happen."
I believe that, if mama is married, her lucky husband is legally the father and financially responsible, whether he had anything to do with the blessed event or not. .
The tragic and unnecessary consequences of paternity fraud fall first and foremost on children. Not only do children learn that the man they thought was their biological father is not, but they also learn that their mother lied to them and had sex with a man other than the one they believed was their biological father. Both consequences can be devastating to a child.
The tragic consequences of paternity fraud fall next upon the presumed (through marriage) or named man who is in fact not the biological father because the mother had sex with another man.
In the absence of mandatory DNA testing at birth, the married (and subsequently divorced) or named man is obliged by the state to pay child support.
The only parties who would lose under laws requiring DNA testing at birth are wives who commit adultery or unmarried women who, for whatever reason, name an innocent man.
In no other area of the law do we punish the victim for the conduct of two other people.
"of course we can" is ridiculous! If mama is married, husband should pay, even if he is not the father!
I certainly agree this should be treated as any other civil suit, loser pays (or shares) costs (or real father), and judge should be given NO leeway!
Isn't the whole idea for the FATHER to bear his SHARE of child-raising. Definitive dna tests are well under $200 (to establish paternity only).
Just look at the judge's ruling in the case cited above, where BOTH parties SWORE UNDER OATH they had not had relations for 14 months, but the judge made an award AND put the man in jail! That judge should be removed!
We have the technology to find paternity, it should be used in any case. It could be contracted out for a negotiated rate in bulk and added to the costs in court. No man should be forced to pay for another mans child.