The debate about father's rights in terms of choose to have or abort an unwanted pregnancy got me thinking and this topic is the result. I choose not to post in that topic because I oppose abortion. If abortion was not an option then that debate would be unnecessary. However, I DO NOT WISH TO DEBATE ABORTION HERE.

There are stories abound about Men in Jail for failure or refusal to pay child support for children that Paternity tests show are not theirs.

The courts reasoning on this, seems to regularly be that it is in the best interest of the child, since the "father" was already paying support before paternity was established.

Paying support before paternity is established may seem like a dumb move, but the departments of family services regularly manipulate the situation to make the father in question feel like they have to start paying support of face jail time until paternity is established or mislead and delayed them until they have passed the 30 day window to file a protest. Furthermore, if you believe you might be the father, and are willing to pay support if the child is yours you might feel that starting right away would be OK because if the child turns out to be someone elses, you' get your money back. You won't, but if you have not read about the abuses of family courts and departments of family services why would you think otherwise?

There are many stories of this. He is just one:

Injustice by Default - Reason Magazine

From the Article:



Another issue with child support is the jailing of fathers behind in their child support. Now I personally can't stand those that abandon their children and I agree with wage garnishment when a father, whose fatherhood has been established through DNA refuses to pay. However, sometimes the judgements for child support are beyond the father's ability to pay. Furthermore, they are frequently applied retroactively, which instantly puts the father in debt. Now, the founding father's clearly opposed Debtor prisons, yet we frequently jail fathers who's only crime is failure to pay support. How they are expected to support the child from prison is beyond me.

Questions:

Is it fair to force a man to pay child support for a child that DNA tests show is not theirs?

Is it fair to force them to do so if they were already paying support because either they believed the mother of they felt they were required to do so to avoid jail time while awaiting a hearing of their case in court or if they simply did not understand how to file a protest in the short window of time they are allowed to do so?

Is it right, To jail a father for failure to pay child support?

Does it make sense to jail someone for failure to pay support considering there is little chance they will be able to support the child from prison.


Personally I think it is ridiculously unfair to force someone to pay for the support of a child that is not theirs. The argument that it is for the good of the child is lazy in my opinion. What is in the best interest of the child is to find the real father and get that man to pay support and be involved in their childs life.

I feel the tactics used by the states in some of these cases border on fraud and are quite possibly an abuse of power.

Furthermore, jailing a dead beat Dad (though I despise them) is wrong. Jailing them makes it impossible for them to support the child and it flys in the face of the Founding father's by effectively creating debtor prisons in America.

A word of advice. If you are accused of paternity. Even if you believe the child could be yours. You must file a protest immediately, to keep from loosing your rights if the child turns out to be the product of someone elses irresponsibility.

No it isn't fair. If the accused has DNA proof that he is not the father, then there is no reason why he should pay for a child that is not his


It doesn't make sense, but of course, that is our justice system in action

If the father is in jail, he certainly can't be able to provide child support

I think jailing should only be used as a last resort - I'd rather not see anybody jailed for non-payment of any kind of debt myself.

But on the wider principle, I think the subject is too complex to have a one-size-fits-all solution. Reading the deabte questions, my first instinct was to think of a scenario where it would be reasonable to pursue a man for child support for a child that was not biologically his own.

I came up with two situation off the top of my head:
1. A man who adopts a child with a partner, then disappears, has as much obligation to that child as he would to one of his bilogical children. Rather more, actually, since there will have been a vetting process more stringent than anything that could result in a biological child. (Ask anyone who has adopted a child, and it is a far more fraught and thorough process than anything that leads up to marriage or cohabitation.)
2. A man who settles with a woman who already has a child fathered by another (and we need not introduce the idea of another man being a deadbeat here - women still get widowed through illness, accident, or crime), or one who commits to raise a child he knows to be another man's with a woman, and then falls out with the woman for the reasons other than his step-fatherhood.

Should the child be left without the step-father's support just because the he has fallen out with the mother? In these two cases, and probably many others, should DNA-established paternity have any bearing at all?

I don't think that this undermines the unfairness of the cases you outlined, overlandsailor but I do think they underline the idea that such paternity/step-paternity issues should be treated on a case-by-case basis, and the underlying principles should be:
1. What is best for the child's welfare, and then
2. What is fairest to the non-biological parents (i.e. the people of any gender who will actually be raising the child) then, and only then
3. What is fairest to the biological progenitors (i.e. the people who contributed the sperm and the egg, if they are not the same people as in 2.)

Good points. In your first case I totally agree. If you commit to adoption that child is your responsiblity, period. In you second, it would depend on how you determine that the man "settled" or "committed" to the woman and children. If he choose to formally adopt the children (which he could do if their own father was gone as in your examples, or he waived his parental rights), or if he committed to the family via marriage then I totally agree that those children, though not biologically his are his responsiblity. But what about the guy who was dating a woman, chooses to move in and live with her and the family as a sort of trial and then decides it was wrong for him? Would the fact that he lived with them suggest any sort of commitment? What if he lived with them for a period of a few years?

I agree that the child's welfare should be paramount in these cases. But I do not feel the child's welfare supersedes the rights of a man or woman that is not their natural or legal parent.

Is it fair to force a man to pay child support for a child that DNA tests show is not theirs?

With the exception noted by Julian, I would concur with most everyone else. It is definitely unfair to force a man to support a woman and her child when he isn't the father. I have heard about such cases and wondered why they don't go after the real father once paternity is determined negative.

Is it fair to force them to do so if they were already paying support because either they believed the mother of they felt they were required to do so to avoid jail time while awaiting a hearing of their case in court or if they simply did not understand how to file a protest in the short window of time they are allowed to do so?

Unless the woman was acting in a fraudulent nature (ie. knowingly seeking support from the wrong person) it is money lost, but further payment should be halted.

Is it right, To jail a father for failure to pay child support?

My immediate answer was yes. Then, I read Julian's answer in which he expressed regret for anyone jailed for failure to pay a debt. Then I reconsidered a second time when I decided a father who fails to pay child support is, in essence, guilty of stealing. He is stealing from the child, the mother, and the community who will most likely have to pick up part of the tab.

Does it make sense to jail someone for failure to pay support considering there is little chance they will be able to support the child from prison.

While there may be little chance to collect while they are in prison, apparently being free wasn't getting the bills paid either. I am guessing it takes more than a missed payment or two in order to earn jail time. So, if it encourages a few men who otherwise would neglect their responsibility to pay the bills they owe, so be it.

Is it fair to force a man to pay child support for a child that DNA tests show is not theirs?

No.

Is it fair to force them to do so if they were already paying support because either they believed the mother of they felt they were required to do so to avoid jail time while awaiting a hearing of their case in court or if they simply did not understand how to file a protest in the short window of time they are allowed to do so?

No.

Is it right, To jail a father for failure to pay child support?

Can you be put in jail for failure to pay a debt?

Does it make sense to jail someone for failure to pay support considering there is little chance they will be able to support the child from prison.

This is the one that irked me....my wife's ex lost his job, and was unemployed for a period of time. They shared one child...when he lost his job, he called my wife and explained the situation, that he was working for cash, and couldn't make the full payment. My wife understood his situation, and subsequently called her child support rep, and requested the temporary reduction....the child support officer actually recommended against it...in fact, encouraged my wife to "stick it to him"....this pretty much made me sick. The guy was lucky to hold a job as long as he did, and he made his payments on time for four years (he's only got an eighth grade education).

My wife insisted, and the child support officer then told her to have him file the paperwork, which of course he has to pay to do (it costs about $200 to file the paperwork for the non-custodial, and it's free for the custodial)....well...anyways, I think you see where I'm going with this.....No....it doesn't make sense to jail someone for failure to pay support...especially when the system tends to work against the non-custodial (this may not be true in all cases)

Not only do I have an outside perspective of the situation, I have an inside one as well....

Great point! Thanks for it. I have to agree, to a point. The deterrent factor, and the benefit of it to society as a whole, not to mention the kids in question may very well justify this action. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. What actions lead up to going to jail and how does the system works to put someone there would be the question.

If the system has exhausted all possibility to get restitution from a dead beat parent and that parent has not consistently attempted to make even a partial payment over say a period of 1-2 years after a judgement has been entered (not to include retroactively applied support) then I can see this as being justified.

I'm just not sure it is constitutional. We do not have debtor prisons in his country for any other form of debt. The founding fathers were clear on their desire not to have them. So why then is it OK to jail these particular debtors? Is it possibly based on the concept of child neglect?

We don't jail people simply for being debtors. It makes no sense to put someone behind bars who doesn't have the money, period. However, we do jail people when it is determined that they have the money, or resources, or the ability to pay, and they willfully refuse not to. In those circumstances, we aren't jailing them for being in debt; instead, they are defying the order of a judge, and are sent to jail for being in contempt of court.

It is the defendant himself in these situations who determines his own confinement. In his hand, he holds the key to his own jail cell - at any time, he can set himself free by simply following the lawful order of the court to pay over the support that he has the ability to pay. Thus, this really isn't a "debtor prison" situation.

If I may give a woman's perspective to this debate

I have a dear friend here in the US who has this situation with the legal and biological father of her child.

First off it is not imprisonment for a debt but for violation of a court order..the court has ordered these men to make these payments...not asked them to consider it.

The father of my friend's child is asked to pay a pathetic 50 dollars a week..that is absolutely NOTHING. What that lends to the financial burden of raising this child is so terribly insignificant..that his actual continuous lack of contribution which has been yrs and yrs worth is not all that much missed. Yet what he is given in return for the courts recognition of his parental rights and need to financially support this child is far greater than 50 bux a wk. He gets the opportunity to always come about messing with this poor child's life. I can tell you my friend would wish to never ever have taken this money so she would instead be able to refuse his visits and his phone calls. He is not considered safe enough (because of a drug addiction and many other things) to have the child alone..thank god! So my friend must supervise all visits and they must occur in a public place..he most often calls, makes ridiculous promises to the child..then never shows or reschedules, only to reschedule again. He sends all these bizarre drawings and letters from jail which my friend hides or throws away because she does not want to explain to her little girl that her father is in jail for raping a woman

My friend made a terrible horrible mistake ever lying down with this man..she was 19 when they first started dating...girls can be so dumb. She is married now and her child calls this other man her father too and without question he has been emotionally for this child her only father and he does care for her financially ..as that 50 dollars a wk only ever comes when the bio father is in fact in jail or on parole. That is another thing I wanted to clarify..if these men are in jail because of their refusal to pay..they most often are allowed to be in a work release program of some kind and all the money is sent to Child Services. They also must keep the payments up in order to stay true to their parole.

So in the case of my friend's situation...and I am sure many others..the father seems to be getting a very good deal in regards to his agreement in court... he rarely pays and yet my friend must always open her schedule and private life to him when he calls and asks to see the child or else she is in violation of her own court orders. The man can not pay for yrs and yrs..lend absolutely no financial support or even emotional support and yet the woman and ultimately the child must always bear the greatest burden...emotionally and financially.

Julian, I think it is this very reasoning that creates the situation we are facing (where the man has to pay support for the child that isn't his). It is done precisely because that is in the child's best interest. You never get to #2 or #3.

However, I'm not really sure what the alternative would be. In this situation, it really seems like the court is being forced to decide what is worse: no one paying to support the child, or someone being forced to unfairly. It's a lose-lose situation (I hate those :-( ).

As to the exceptions you note--I would agree most definitely with the adopted case. I'm not so sure about the other one--but I think it quickly boils down to the dilemma noted above.

Creeping into the discussion several times has been that scariest and most overplayed of all phrases, "for the children." What's best for the child is to have two loving parents in a stable home. We are not coming even close to that. The question, is whether it is fair to force one man to pay child support for another man's child. Unless that man, with full knowledge of the child's origin, accepts responsibilty for that child, no court should be allowed to force his obligation. Jail time should only be a tool used to reprimand fathers who knowingly dodge their responsibilties in terms of child support. This isn't about what's best for the child though.

No, unless he has legally adopted the child.

No. Their due process rights been violated as the legal claims have not been tested to any evidentiary standard other than "she said." This is glaringly obvious to anybody with a shred of common sense in the instances where the mother knowingly lied about paternity (i.e., committed fraud and perury), yet judges will still uphold support orders under these circumstances, "in the interests of the children." Adulterous women are the most reprehensible abusers of this doctrine. Cheat on your husband, lie about it, force him to pay for the resulting child, and get off scot free.

No. The Constitution prohibits both debtors prison and involuntary servitude. Oh, and it also requires a trial in matters exceeding X dollars, a threshold that every child support order exceeds.

No. It is counterproductive from a practical perspective, as is revoking professional licenses and most of the other punitive measures taken.

Hobbes points out that Julian's formulation of "underlying principles" is exactly the problem, but I'd like to examine why. Specifically, here in America, our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. Julian's principles are fundamentally at odds with that guarantee, as it privileges first the interests of the children, then of step-parents, and finally considers the interests of parents. Furthermore, child support privileges the interests of the custodial parent over the non-custodial parent.

Azure-Citizen makes two mistakes: First, he attempts to distinguish between the contempt charge and being thrown into jail for not paying a debt. The only foundation for the contempt charge lies in the debt itself, so attempt to distinguish between the order and the debt is sophistry. TTBOMK, an individual cannot be imprisoned for a refusal to pay a judgement from a civil lawsuit proceeding out of tort, so why can they be imprisoned for refusal to pay a judgement from a civil lawsuit, er, child support order? As a result of this discordance in the system as it operates today, non-custodial parents are not treated in the same fashion as other civil defendants subject to judgements. Violation of the equal treatment clause.

His second mistake is the assertion that only those who "refuse" to pay are imprisoned. Having seen homeless guys imprisoned (all, btw, without benefit of counsel), I can attest that AC's formulation of the standard used for imprisonment does not conform to the practice. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that Constitutionally it makes any difference why a person doesn't pay a debt, they cannot be imprisoned for the failure to pay the debt.