Case of Jailed Deadbeat non-dad Shows Need for Overhaul of Child Support Laws
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently ran articles on a case that should outrage any fair-minded person. Georgia man Frank Hatley was in a Cook County jail for over a year for failure to pay child support. However, DNA tests proved that the child in question was not biologically his.
He had never been married to or even cohabiting with the boy’s mother. The two had a brief affair and when the mother had the baby in 1987, she told Hatley that the baby was his.
A couple of years later, the mother applied for and received public assistance. The state demanded reimbursement from Hatley who agreed to make those payments believing the boy was in fact his son. In 2000, DNA tests showed that Hatley was not the biological father. A court ordered that Hatley be relieved of any obligations for future support of the boy. However, this order did not relieve him of the back payments owed when it had been assumed he was the father so Hatley continued making those payments from the money he earned at his job of unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers.
In 2007, Hatley was laid off from his job. Unable to afford housing, he lived out of his car. Nevertheless, he continued to make child support payments to the state out of his unemployment benefits.
However, he fell behind in his payments, was found in contempt of court and jailed. He was recently released because he is indigent. Soon after his release, a judge relieved him from any obligation to pay the support on which he was in arrears – but which he never should have owed in the first place.
It is good that Hatley is free and relieved of any future financial obligations in the case. However, this does not rectify the injustice that he has suffered. It does not return the money he already paid out of his extremely limited funds nor does it make up for the thirteen months he spent in jail.
The Hatley case illustrates a crying need for an overhaul of the child support system. Firstly, there is the fact that poverty is not a defense against the failure to pay child support. Even if the child had been his, the facts are that Hatley was unable to adequately support himself and did not have the money to support the child. However, the law took a jobless, penniless man living out of his car to jail for not making child support payments. This is a modern day version of the old Victorian horror of debtor’s prison.
People should not go to jail in 21st Century America just for being poor – but Frank Hatley did and so have many others.
Of course, the case began because of a misidentification in paternity. Many observers would criticize the mother as a liar and see her as someone who should be prosecuted for what is often called “paternity fraud.” I do not. The mother was there at the time of the conception but it is unlikely that she was taking notes. Human memory is extremely fallible and this fallibility is exacerbated by the emotionality of questions involving sex and reproduction. Given these truths, a DNA test should be routinely taken before paternity is assigned. If the DNA test is negative, a man could still voluntarily agree to assume the role of the father – with the financial responsibilities incurred as a result – but it would be his free and informed choice.
That we need to fix this system is obvious when a man has been treated as a criminal and jailed for failing to provide money he does not have for a child who is not his.
| More from Denise Noe
Stumble It!
September 29th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Why shouldn’t the mother be held accountable? She signed an official statement “under penalty of perjury” which initiated this nightmare for the non-father. Even if she honestly believed him to be the father, he was NOT, and should be ordered to pay him back with instructions on going after the real dad. Unfortunate for her? Too bad…she was either a liar and/or promiscuous. How often do men get burned because they couldn’t keep their pants on?
Above all, this man is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Tis a good article Denise.
But do you really think the mother was OK for what she did? I kinda think it is a big deal that she was with another man at conception.
This is OT but interesting. (below)
http://tinyurl.com/ydlnt45
September 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“Of course, the case began because of a misidentification in paternity. Many observers would criticize the mother as a liar and see her as someone who should be prosecuted for what is often called “paternity fraud.” I do not. The mother was there at the time of the conception but it is unlikely that she was taking notes.”
That’s bull. She should’ve took notes then. All that sounds like making excuses for a promiscuous woman. There’s a big enough problem in american culture about women not being responsible for anything.
If a woman has had sexual intercourse with ANY man other than the one she’s alleging paternity at or near the time of conception, then there’s no possible way she can be 100% sure of paternity and should make note of that or be held accountable. Simple, right?
September 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Forgot to add, I agree with everything else.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
This is why you should be very careful of who you sleep with.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“Jen Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
This is why you should be very careful of who you sleep with.”
God I hate that response. I know it’s a “be careful” to men…but seriously I hope that isn’t the first and only thing that popped into your head just there…
It’s, as stated in the article, blatant evidence of massive need, NEED mind you…, to scrap the system as it exists, and if necessary at all, a child support system based on actual need, WITHOUT the “profit incentive” (be it the ex, private enterprise OR the state) be installed.
This case was a blatant one of the state extorting money from one of it’s citizens…the legalities employed to achieve this criminal act are simply rewriting the rules to allow themselves to break the law (Constitution).
The only “difference” between this and what normally happens, is that this child was not his.
Think about that for a second….
Why is it OK to do this to ANYBODY?
I’ll suggest one thing….feminists have been slagging men for 4 decades now for a reason….
September 29th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Of course, the case began because of a misidentification in paternity. Many observers would criticize the mother as a liar and see her as someone who should be prosecuted for what is often called “paternity fraud.” I do not.
One of the talk shows often tests men to see if they are the “daddy” for someone’s baby. One man was being scolded by this host for not owing up to being the father of a baby as were the THIRTEEN men before him. The woman was never talked down to nor was she verbally abused as were all of the potential fathers. If a woman has to go through 13 men to try to find the father, there is a word that would come to mind….it got Imus in trouble but I think it applies.
“Paternity fraud is the only crime for which the criminal is rewarded while the victim of the crime is penalized. Would this not be like a car salesman getting you to pay for a car that he would not deliver but then the courts telling you to keep making the car payments while the salesman kept the car?
Why is it that no one questions women who report a man as being the father while making sure he is notified long after the time to question such paternity? Often it is after finding out which of possibly many potential fathers make the most money. He is often then forced to pay for a child that is not his while the real dead beat dad is still shacking up with the mother.
I have no doubt that a lot of this paternity fraud would stop quickly if the one who has to pay would automatically get equal custody of the child he is paying for! I also contend it would stop the moment women who willfully accuse a man of being the father of a child starts going to prison for paternity fraud.
One of the best ways to avoid being a victim of this crime is to have intimate relations with your own wife but that does not automatically assure you that you will not be paying for someone else’s child….a third of the children tested were not the offspring of the husbands of the women.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:20 am
The whole government has gone crazy. If the mother decides to abort, the father has no rights at all, but if the mother decides to have the baby then the dad has to pay and the mom gets to keep the baby and maybe the f ather will get to see the baby every other weekend. Why is it the states business to get involved? Also there was another case of a man who had 3 kids by his wife, who cheated, and the kids were not his but after he divorced her, he still had to pay child support for all 3. He went to court and they still made him pay. Where is the Justice?? Government never seems to care about justice, government just likes to oppress its citizens.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
DNA should never be used to force paternity on any man, biological father or not. It should be used to make sure the *right man* is making informed decision in whether to parent the child in question or give it up for adoption.
Women cannot be forced into parenthood under *any circumstances imaginable* therefore men must be afforded equal protection.
This isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law.
This *MAN* went to jail because he’s the victim of a modern day slave trade that operates under the pretence of the “best interests of children”.
Compensation for the victim is not enough. The criminals running this extortion racket need to pay for their crimes if we ever hope to stop this from happening to others in the future.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when it’s your job to administer justice.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
@ Denise Noe,
Very illuminative article how the child/spousal support systmehas gone from bad to worse. If the husband has been evicted from his home he has fifficulty keeping a job. While the papers in our area didn’t report exact cause, but within about a year one family of 5 another of 4 were killed in murder/suicide. Possibly it was economy but in many cases it’s the desperation of men who are about to lose everything. It soesn/t make it right, but for years we have indocrianted the “constitutional rights” . But the US Supreme Court has the final say.
@ julie,
Interesting link from New Zeeland. In 2002 the US Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe that retroactive registration of sex offenders didn’t violate the Constitution since it was non-punitive.While there are some degrees of variance, the wife challenged that she could not keep her job properly since her husband has to register as sex offenders. While Roman Polanski’s offence was against a child he should pay his dues, but possibly fears repercussions having to register as sex offender.
But when a drunken priest grapped a female police officer’s breast during the arrest, he was charged with sex offence. If men and women are equal, then the erogenous zones should be the same.
Link: Wikipedia Smith v. Doe (2002)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe
October 1st, 2009 at 2:34 am
Paternity fraud is a severe form of child abuse.
Excusing women for paternity fraud is like saying women are too retarded to be held accountable for their actions, including severe child abuse.
If the duped dad was a billionaire, would that make fraud, perjury, and child abuse ok? If so, should every crime be excused depending on who the perpetrator blames when she gets caught and lies about it?
October 1st, 2009 at 3:18 am
To Mr.K
Thanks for commenting on the link and thanks for the court case.
That was a shocking High Court decision. I think the sex offenders list definitely is punitive. How can you possibly explain men being cast outside of society and placed in the bush.
Here is one of our stories.
http://www.peterellis.org.nz/MoralPanic/Drivers/index.htm
October 1st, 2009 at 6:36 am
@ julie,
That’s stunning link you provided. I’m not aware that USA has any state of federal law similar to it. But once the feminist find out about it here, they may try it.
“Thirty-four years ago, when I was 16, I had a girlfriend I had been seeing for about a year,” he said. “We slept together two days before her 16th birthday but when her parents found out, I was charged with and convicted of carnal knowledge.
That’s why parents should warn their children with raging homrmones how they can ruin their lives. Similar situation was posted earlier on MND, but the law and facts were different.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
To Mr K #13,
Oh, I like you!
That site I posted is stunning in my eyes too. Thank-you for acknowledging it.
I wrote a piece about it. You don’t have to say anything. I just want to share it with you.
http://menz.org.nz/2008/peter-ellis-commission-of-enquiry/
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Jen said: “This is why you should be very careful of who you sleep with.”
I’d feel better knowing if that comment came from someone who hadn’t had any abortions.
Men need to be held accountable for their actions to the same degree that women are held accountable for theirs. It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.
What’s good for the gander, is good for the goose.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Uh, Kevin….don’t you have some housework to do? If your gander gets home and finds out you were on the computer, she might give you a black eye, and the cops will take you away.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Some women have the audacity to say that men should be held accountable for their sexual conduct while they have several options to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or child in any stage of development.
I suspect Joe P. is such a female, either that or some boot-licking punk I’ve offended because he pays “child support” to avoid being a responsible man.
If you have any balls Joe, spit-em-out cause they ain’t yours. This is what this coward “Joe” supports and defends.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort29.jpg
October 4th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Jen said: “This is why you should be very careful of who you sleep with.”
Please have mercy on the human race and go get FIXED!
It’s women like you that make the rest of us look bad!
Why is always the blame on the man!?
It takes TWO to make a baby, last time I checked!
I love how women moan about equal rights, yet when it comes down to things like this it’s a lynch mob out after men.
It’s always dead beat dad’s.
Yet it’s ok for women to pop out children and sit on the tax payers bill!
October 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Please join the petition to reform the current child support system. We need your help!
http://petitionchildsupportreform.com/
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 am
The Child Support System needs to be done away with and rebuilt under a different name and under different laws. First, Dad’s do get a bad rap, I’m eating a little crow here. I thought my ex wasn’t paying child support per the child support system. He said he was the Child Support Office said other wise. I had a court order, but it was never enforced and I didn’t really care. I get sick ( to the point of near death and become crippled), I loose everything to medical bills but I pay them all off. However I have to go onto disability because I can’t work, doctors refuse to sign off and no one will hire you without a medical clearance. Also you can loose medical benefits without a medical clearance if you go to work. My children went on TANF and they went after my ex in a heartbeat. Now, I believe that women should pay back monies they get, but there should be a system of repayment set up, and it should be on a case by case basis. My ex loss his good credit report and was furious with me, but I had nothing to do with it. The Child Support Office filed his payments somewhere else and it took him over 7 years to get it fixed. He wasn’t in the wrong, they were, did they clear his credit report, no! So we set up a system so I could know when he paid, he paid on time, but the state said he wasn’t, I had proof that he was. They were holding onto the money collecting interest. Making him seem like a bad guy when in fact, they were the ones not doing what is their job. There is no accountablity for this office. It doesn’t benefit the children, only the government. I hear about the free ride people on Welfare get, well, it’s not a free ride, someone like myself has paid back every cent I ever received. The state made a profit on the backs of my children, we received $598 a month and they colllect $1750 a month. They say they hold back a month before forwarding the money onto custodial parent. A bank, or other institution couldn’t hold onto your money for six weeks without paying interest, who gave these people such power, and it’s gone to their heads, while families suffer. Reform is so needed, or better yet, do away with this office all together, put it under and umbrella of another program because it doesn’t support families and children it benefits government only.