Judge says man must pay $30K in child support for kid who is

[amigocabal]

Carnell Alexander says he got a shock during a traffic stop in Detroit in the early 1990s. The officer told him he is a deadbeat dad, and that he was under arrest.

The problem? Carnell didn’t have any kids.

He’d been made dad by default after an ex listed him as father when applying for welfare benefits. According to documents filed with the court, a process server claimed to have given Carnell Alexander, in person, a notice of hearing at a house he once lived at. It is something that wasn’t possible. Carnell wasn’t at that house on the date he was allegedly served. He was incarcerated for a crime he committed as a young man.

“How can you start a case with a lie?” asked Carnell. “The mom lied. The process server lied. Now I have to pay for it."

On Tuesday, he went to the Third Judicial Circuit Court, hoping a judge would fix it.

Instead, his story inspired a different kind of outrage.

“I am outraged that Mr. Alexander for two and a half decades failed to take this matter seriously,” said Judge Kathleen McCarthy.

Continue reading...

[Napoleon the Clown]

Snopes has more info.

Origins: In January 2015, what appeared to be a child support-related horror story began to circulate on the Internet. According to several news articles (mainly of the "[news channel] on your side" variety), Detroit resident Carnell Alexander was
ordered by a court to pay more than $30,000 in support for a child that was provably not his. Moreover, the articles claimed, Alexander's DNA test results had been acknowledged by the court but disregarded in what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.

The claim was substantiated on a few levels: Alexander provided his DNA testing results proving that he did not father the child in question, and many articles offered visual evidence showing the amount ($30,000) owed by the Michigan resident to the state. Alexander's situation has been held up as an example of "paternity fraud," but a number of aspects have been elided from the retellings of his story, aspects that provide context necessary to understanding how what looks to be a clear-cut case of injustice could have come to pass:

The vast majority of articles about the Carnell Alexander case all stem from one local Detroit news report about the issue, creating the false impression that a number of media outlets have verified the facts of the case rather than simply recycling single-source information.

Significant advances in DNA testing have been developed since Alexander was named the father of the now-adult child in 1987. Due to the relative ease of modern DNA testing, a case such as this one would be extremely unlikely to occur today.

An oft-repeated aspect of the case involves the mention of "paternity fraud," leading many readers to believe that the debt owed by Alexander is to the mother of the child and should therefore be forgiven because DNA test results have proved he was not the father. However, the unusual outcome of the case stemmed not from monies owed to the child's (unnamed) mother, but to monies owed to the state as compensation for welfare benefits obtained by the mother.

By all accounts (which link back to an October 2014 news segment and article from Detroit station WXYZ), the child's mother intentionally and wrongly named Alexander as the father of her child in order to obtain state assistance:
[The mother] was struggling to care for the child. When she applied for state assistance, the case worker told her she had to name the father.

"That was the only way I could get assistance," she said.

She said she didn't realize the state would go after the father to pay the support given to the child.

"Everything is my fault, that I put him through," she said.

It was not easy [for him] to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help.

He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.

Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right.

Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his.

The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved.

"Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby," said Alexander.
The case also involved an omission on the part of a process server who claimed to have served Alexander with notice of a pending paternity claim against him early on in the child's life. State records proved that Alexander was incarcerated at the time he was purportedly served notice, and that the individual responsible for serving him mistakenly or intentionally claimed otherwise:
The court focused on a summons tied to the paternity case in the late 1980's. The state sent a process server to Alexander’s dad's house in Highland Park to let him know about the paternity case. The process server turned a document into the court saying Alexander was delivered the summons, but he refused to sign the summons.

"I wasn't there. I couldn't refuse to sign," said Alexander.

Michigan Department of Corrections ... records confirm Alexander's story — he did not receive that order at a home in Highland Park. He was in prison for a crime he committed as a young man.
However, one article about the case referenced a circumstance unmentioned by other reports, that Alexander had initially agreed to "admit" paternity in order to facilitate the mother's approval for welfare services:
But how did Alexander get entangled in a paternity case?

Alexander's ex had a baby and didn't know who was the child's father. She reportedly needed state assistance, so the case worker demanded that she name a father for the child.

Alexander, who only went up to the eighth grade education-wise, decided to help his ex so that she could receive state assistance.

According to the unnamed woman, she did not realize that the state would go after the child's father for monetary support.

The state of Michigan unfortunately does not have paternity fraud laws that protect men.
This last point, if true, could be the crux of the issue: If Alexander in any way agreed to falsely allow the mother to name him as the father on the child's birth certificate, or was aware that she had done so and did not dispute it, it's likely that Michigan viewed him as legally responsible for half the expenses whether his DNA was a match or not. (That aspect of the case cannot be verified because family court proceedings are not a matter of public record.) Ultimately, the case could hinge not on whether Alexander was indeed the biological father of the child, but whether he claimed the child as his own as part of an attempt to facilitate his former partner's receipt of welfare (and thus prevented the state from recouping those funds from the child's true biological father).

Last updated: 29 January 2015

tl;dr - He agreed to pose as the father to help the kid's mother out. At best, he aided in fraud.

[Wing Commander MAD]

You do realize that what you quoted doesn't say that. It says one article claims that and that the claims cannot be verified because the proceedings are not public record. If said claim is true then he would be guilty of fraud.

[Flagg]

Sigh... More fodder for MRA dicksnots to claim how unfair it is that a court or set of laws is stacked against the man. Sure, true in this case (probably, I don't necessarily believe anything this guy is saying) it's obvious that laws need to be changed so that "paternity fraud" can't happen. Why should it be necessary for a mother to know who the father is to get benefits for the child? That's ridiculous.

[Simon_Jester]

If the article Napoleon quoted is correct the laws already have been changed- I would be very surprised if Michigan's laws still required that someone name the father of their child in order to get state assistance in feeding and caring for that child.

[LadyTevar]

The Paternity Laws in my state demand that the father knowingly and willingly sign a paternity affidavit, and they are then added to the birth certificate as the legal (birth) father of that child. The mother cannot just name someone, she has to have him there to sign the Notarized Affidavit.

This also means the man now has all the rights and responsibilites of a parent; visitation, a say in raising the child, etc.

[Flagg]

The Paternity Laws in my state demand that the father knowingly and willingly sign a paternity affidavit, and they are then added to the birth certificate as the legal (birth) father of that child. The mother cannot just name someone, she has to have him there to sign the Notarized Affidavit.

This also means the man now has all the rights and responsibilites of a parent; visitation, a say in raising the child, etc.

The problem with that is if the mother is lying about the paternity to her husband and then she leaves him with the kid, saying it's not really his and then a paternity test proves it. Guess who still has to pay child support even if the mother then shacks up or even marries the "real" father? I think laws have been passed in most states for those situations but I remember a case out of Texas where a poor bastard had 3 kids that he'd been raising for many years as his own only to have his wife leave him for the baby daddy and the husband was not only stuck paying child support, but he was forbidden from even telling the kids he wasn't their biological father. And he was even forbidden from acknowledging the truth if the child asked, which he defied and was found in contempt and sent to jail for a small amount of time. Last I heard he was still paying until they all turned 18.
I mean you always always always err on the side of the best interests of the child/ children, but you should also try to add some amount of fairness for the adults involved when possible.

[LaCroix]

You know, in this day and age, assigning paternity should be a pretty clear cut thing with a DNA test - You match - you are it, you don't, you're not it.

Judges deciding to uphold a paternity despite of proven facts (and not even a contested case - even the mother says he wasn't the father!) is a travesty of justice.

[Jaepheth]

You know, in this day and age, assigning paternity should be a pretty clear cut thing with a DNA test - You match - you are it, you don't, you're not it.

Judges deciding to uphold a paternity despite of proven facts (and not even a contested case - even the mother says he wasn't the father!) is a travesty of justice.

DNA alone can't be the determining factor due to sperm donors/banks.

I recall one instance where a lesbian couple had the "unofficial" (Craigslist, if memory serves) sperm donor change his mind about wanting to be involved with raising the child. (They wanted to raise the kid alone, and the guy had originally agreed to that).

Hell, if DNA technology keeps progressing by leaps and bounds (and it will) you could conceivably (heh) see a case/scam in the not too distant future where the con artist steals some skin flakes from a billionaire's mansion/car/office and has someone in a garage genetics lab fertilize herself or an accomplice with the DNA replicated from that dust.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, in this day and age, assigning paternity should be a pretty clear cut thing with a DNA test - You match - you are it, you don't, you're not it.

Judges deciding to uphold a paternity despite of proven facts (and not even a contested case - even the mother says he wasn't the father!) is a travesty of justice.

Part of the issue

This breaks down into two cases.

One is if the man who claims to be the biological father knew he wasn't the father at the time he made the claim. In that case, well, he has essentially made himself an accessory to fraud. I'd argue that, having to pay child support for a child you know isn't yours, because you said they were when you knew otherwise, is a fitting punishment for that.

The other is if the man who claims to be the biological father was misled as to the child's paternity (i.e. did not know his wife was having an affair). In that case, at the time the true paternity of the child is revealed, the not-father has a right to say "okay, I am not this child's father."

In cases where someone is on record as the father of a step-child, adopted child, a child with genes from a surrogate, and so on... I think you'd have to settle it on a case by case basis. If a married couple raises an adopted child from toddler-age to age ten and then separate, for example, it might be reasonable to ask for child support. Likewise, if a man marries and later divorces a widow who had children by her first marriage... he's the only person the state can go to for child support, so if he spent sufficient time in a de facto role of fatherhood to the children, some degree of child support might be in order.

[Purple]

Honestly I think you are close but I'd not look at it exactly that way. Simply put the notion of child support dates back from the era when on parent was the provider (as in had a job) and the other stayed at home to care for the children. And it is at least as far as I understand it about the fact that that the second party would be at a severe disadvantage in case of separation due to sacrificing time that would otherwise be devoted to having a carrier to care for the children and thus lass a worse position in the job market. So you take money away from the provider to give to the other one to correct that unfair advantage. So from that perspective biological fatherhood really should not be an issue so much as who (if anyone) was in the role of the provider. It's all part of the social contract of marriage.

[Simon_Jester]

That's... a pretty out-of-touch-with-modern-reality thing to say.

See, raising a child is still a major investment of time and effort, and it still puts you in a worse position in the job market. It is much harder work to be a single person with a child than to be a single person with no children.

So when two people make a child together, and then separate, the one who keeps the child is now at a disadvantage because they're going to have to do twice as much of the labor of childrearing, on half the total family income. Child support still makes sense in that context- because you still have a responsibility to contribute resources to the raising of this child who is yours, even if you no longer have custody of that child for whatever reason.

[Purple]

See, raising a child is still a major investment of time and effort, and it still puts you in a worse position in the job market. It is much harder work to be a single person with a child than to be a single person with no children.

Absolutely. I newer said otherwise. In fact, I said that historically that was the most likely the reason these laws were invented. As in, not only do you have to pay for and raise the child on your own but you are doing so from a perspective of having lost years of time as well.

So when two people make a child together, and then separate, the one who keeps the child is now at a disadvantage because they're going to have to do twice as much of the labor of childrearing, on half the total family income.

Yes, that is a good point. But that sort of situation is outside the scope of what I was saying. I was only addressing the paternity factor. And expressing that it matters less who fathered it genetically and more what the family situation was.

Child support still makes sense in that context- because you still have a responsibility to contribute resources to the raising of this child who is yours, even if you no longer have custody of that child for whatever reason.

Say I father a child and not know about it. The woman, also not knowing leaves me before she finds out and gets another boyfriend. She leaves him as well and so on. 9 months and say 5 people down the line she starts counting back to see who she was dating. Does she get to sue me for money? And if so why?

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's... a pretty out-of-touch-with-modern-reality thing to say.

See, raising a child is still a major investment of time and effort, and it still puts you in a worse position in the job market. It is much harder work to be a single person with a child than to be a single person with no children.

So when two people make a child together, and then separate, the one who keeps the child is now at a disadvantage because they're going to have to do twice as much of the labor of childrearing, on half the total family income. Child support still makes sense in that context- because you still have a responsibility to contribute resources to the raising of this child who is yours, even if you no longer have custody of that child for whatever reason.

And usually that means the father figure paying child support to the mother. But not for the reasons one might suspect, either.

Most fathers do not actually seek primary custody. For whatever reason. When they do, they are disproportionately likely to win primary or sole custody.

[Simon_Jester]

Addressing Purple's last question, yes, she does get to sue for child support, although a paternity test would certainly be in order given that the plaintiff has had multiple sexual partners within a short span of time.

As to the reason why she gets to do it... because the alternative provides a disproportionate reward to males who father children and then bail out of their mate's lives. Because said males get to father all the children they want, while not having to pay any of the costs of raising those children.

Conversely, it hurts the children themselves, because they are now being raised by single mothers who have no additional resources to compensate for the costs of raising the child.

Relationships come and go; paternity is (more or less) forever. So is maternity, for that matter.

[amigocabal]

You know, in this day and age, assigning paternity should be a pretty clear cut thing with a DNA test - You match - you are it, you don't, you're not it.

Judges deciding to uphold a paternity despite of proven facts (and not even a contested case - even the mother says he wasn't the father!) is a travesty of justice.

Part of the issue

This breaks down into two cases.

One is if the man who claims to be the biological father knew he wasn't the father at the time he made the claim. In that case, well, he has essentially made himself an accessory to fraud. I'd argue that, having to pay child support for a child you know isn't yours, because you said they were when you knew otherwise, is a fitting punishment for that.

I believe that is called the principle of equitable estoppel. Generally, if you represent yourself as something you know that you are not, and create reliance on that misrepresentation, you would be estopped from trying to get our of that reliance by telling the truth.

This principle of course has applications outside this context. See e.g. Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989)

[LaCroix]

You know, in this day and age, assigning paternity should be a pretty clear cut thing with a DNA test - You match - you are it, you don't, you're not it.

Judges deciding to uphold a paternity despite of proven facts (and not even a contested case - even the mother says he wasn't the father!) is a travesty of justice.

Part of the issue

This breaks down into two cases.

One is if the man who claims to be the biological father knew he wasn't the father at the time he made the claim. In that case, well, he has essentially made himself an accessory to fraud. I'd argue that, having to pay child support for a child you know isn't yours, because you said they were when you knew otherwise, is a fitting punishment for that.

I believe that is called the principle of equitable estoppel. Generally, if you represent yourself as something you know that you are not, and create reliance on that misrepresentation, you would be estopped from trying to get our of that reliance by telling the truth.

This principle of course has applications outside this context. See e.g. Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989)

I see where you are coming from, but to my understanding, in this case, he still should not be the father or pay child support, but then gets hit with the book for fraud, acessory to fraud, or whatever charge the "helping her to get more money from the state" would qualify for. Saying he is the father even though he can prove he isn't is not correct.

You see - it doesn't really feel like a fraud case to me. The state paid more money because this named father couldn't support the child. Why wouldn't the state pay the same money if the father was unknown? To me, she should have received that money, anyway, even if she couldn't name a father. The kid is there, so there has to be a father, but he's not present, and thus not supporting the child - which gets us into the same situation as if the father was known but destitute.

This reeks like "punish the sinful girl" to me, and rubs me all the wrong way.

If he were fined those 30k as in, say, reparations due to what was paid out above of what she did deserve, because of the scam, it's just as wrong - she got the money, not him. He was just a guy doing a friend a seemingly harmless, but actually stupid favor, not the one benefitting. If the fine someone, it should be her.

[Simon_Jester]

I see where you are coming from, but to my understanding, in this case, he still should not be the father or pay child support, but then gets hit with the book for fraud, acessory to fraud, or whatever charge the "helping her to get more money from the state" would qualify for. Saying he is the father even though he can prove he isn't is not correct.

The problem is that in a case like this justice is not really served by throwing both the mother and the pseudo-father in jail for fraud. Then nobody wins.

You see - it doesn't really feel like a fraud case to me. The state paid more money because this named father couldn't support the child. Why wouldn't the state pay the same money if the father was unknown? To me, she should have received that money, anyway, even if she couldn't name a father. The kid is there, so there has to be a father, but he's not present, and thus not supporting the child - which gets us into the same situation as if the father was known but destitute.

This reeks like "punish the sinful girl" to me, and rubs me all the wrong way.

Well yes, but that's referring to legal policies that were in place back in the 1980s and 1990s. You're right that such policies are wrong- but it is irrelevant to the question of whether a named father should have to pay child support assuming they are able to do so.

If he were fined those 30k as in, say, reparations due to what was paid out above of what she did deserve, because of the scam, it's just as wrong - she got the money, not him. He was just a guy doing a friend a seemingly harmless, but actually stupid favor, not the one benefitting. If the fine someone, it should be her.

Again, the problem here is that he fraudulently took on what is (more or less) a contractual obligation. Granted that he did it as a favor to someone else- but citizens are supposed to be responsible for keeping track of their own affairs and not knowingly falsifying a legal document.

[LaCroix]

I agree with the fact that he made a stupid move. He should have the book thrown at him, but in a "just" way.

but it is irrelevant to the question of whether a named father should have to pay child support assuming they are able to do so

Well, to state a counter-question: If you have someone who had to pay child support for a child he has never seen, but finds out that this child isn't theirs but someone else's shouldn't that mean that this person shouldn't be paying anymore and have a title to demand their expenses restituted by the true parent, who should pay from that moment on?

I do not support the notion that it's ok to throw an 'innocent' (he did something wrong, but he is proven to not be the father) party under the bus because it's not the one having custody of the child. This "think of the children" theme is bullshit when somebody get's shafted because of it.

Now you will reply "why should the mother and child be the one having to take the financial hit, instead of that one guy" - if the state/society thinks that particular child should be "saved", it's the state's duty to continue these payments.
As in, "society helps the kid, by each of us paying $0.000000x per year to support it".
Society taking care of the ones in need.
Welfare.
Or socialism, if you want to call it so.

Or find the actual father and make him pay. (And continue to pay if that guy is destitute, as well...)

But they have no right to force an unrelated person to pay child support for a "random" child, just because it's convenient to have him continue doing so. Or even worse - as a punishment.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree with the fact that he made a stupid move. He should have the book thrown at him, but in a "just" way.

but it is irrelevant to the question of whether a named father should have to pay child support assuming they are able to do so

Well, to state a counter-question: If you have someone who had to pay child support for a child he has never seen, but finds out that this child isn't theirs but someone else's shouldn't that mean that this person shouldn't be paying anymore and have a title to demand their expenses restituted by the true parent, who should pay from that moment on?

If they were led to believe they were they were the parent, but never saw the child, and later it was revealed that this was not their child... no, they are no longer under any obligation, and might well have grounds to sue.

As to who should pay? The real parent, or the state.

I do not support the notion that it's ok to throw an 'innocent' (he did something wrong, but he is proven to not be the father) party under the bus because it's not the one having custody of the child. This "think of the children" theme is bullshit when somebody get's shafted because of it.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.

Could you explain it again, using more words?

Now you will reply "why should the mother and child be the one having to take the financial hit, instead of that one guy" - if the state/society thinks that particular child should be "saved", it's the state's duty to continue these payments.
As in, "society helps the kid, by each of us paying $0.000000x per year to support it".
Society taking care of the ones in need.
Welfare.
Or socialism, if you want to call it so.

Or find the actual father and make him pay. (And continue to pay if that guy is destitute, as well...)

But they have no right to force an unrelated person to pay child support for a "random" child, just because it's convenient to have him continue doing so. Or even worse - as a punishment.

In this case, it is a punishment for committing fraud against the state. The alternative would be to fine him a comparable or larger sum of money (to defray the state's expenses). Or to throw him in jail.

Neither of these options are better than the alternative of ordering him to continue paying to support the child he has asserted is his, when he (apparently) knew that was not true.

[Jub]

Pure and simple best practices should see that the state pays any and all child support and recoups reasonable expenses from the parent that would normally have paid said support. Just like taxes people earning under a certain amount would be exempt from paying anything to the state and then you'd have a sliding scale up to some live expenses adjusted cap. Then again I'd also ideally like to see everybody make a minimum stipend set at living wage for their area anyway and that system would already render such things as child support unnecessary anyway.

[Purple]

Addressing Purple's last question, yes, she does get to sue for child support, although a paternity test would certainly be in order given that the plaintiff has had multiple sexual partners within a short span of time.

As to the reason why she gets to do it... because the alternative provides a disproportionate reward to males who father children and then bail out of their mate's lives. Because said males get to father all the children they want, while not having to pay any of the costs of raising those children.

And does your system not disproportionately reward women who do the same? Go on an one night stand, get pregnant, sue the guy for money. Instant wealth. I am not saying many women would do this. But the fact that I can construct such a scenario shows that the system is flawed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Addressing Purple's last question, yes, she does get to sue for child support, although a paternity test would certainly be in order given that the plaintiff has had multiple sexual partners within a short span of time.

As to the reason why she gets to do it... because the alternative provides a disproportionate reward to males who father children and then bail out of their mate's lives. Because said males get to father all the children they want, while not having to pay any of the costs of raising those children.

And does your system not disproportionately reward women who do the same? Go on an one night stand, get pregnant, sue the guy for money. Instant wealth. I am not saying many women would do this. But the fact that I can construct such a scenario shows that the system is flawed.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to raise a kid?

[Purple]

Do you have any idea how much it costs to raise a kid?

So? If I don't want a child and have done my share of the deal not to get it but it still happens because she failed at her part or indeed wanted it against my wishes that should be taken into account before turning me into a wage slave for her or that child.

[Broomstick]

You know, in this day and age, assigning paternity should be a pretty clear cut thing with a DNA test - You match - you are it, you don't, you're not it.

Judges deciding to uphold a paternity despite of proven facts (and not even a contested case - even the mother says he wasn't the father!) is a travesty of justice.

DNA alone can't be the determining factor due to sperm donors/banks.

I recall one instance where a lesbian couple had the "unofficial" (Craigslist, if memory serves) sperm donor change his mind about wanting to be involved with raising the child. (They wanted to raise the kid alone, and the guy had originally agreed to that).

There is also the issue of chimerism, which is apparently more common than once believed. There are people walking around with two different genomes in their body. In 2002 a woman lost custody of her own children because a test intended to show paternity "proved" she was not the mother of her own children. Nor is she the only proven human chimera.

There are also issues with identical twins - if you have two different people with the same DNA you might determine that one of the two of them was the father, but could you prove which of the two?

Yes, in most cases DNA is pretty conclusive but there are sufficient exceptions to add up to large numbers of real people.

Honestly I think you are close but I'd not look at it exactly that way. Simply put the notion of child support dates back from the era when on parent was the provider (as in had a job) and the other stayed at home to care for the children. And it is at least as far as I understand it about the fact that that the second party would be at a severe disadvantage in case of separation due to sacrificing time that would otherwise be devoted to having a carrier to care for the children and thus lass a worse position in the job market. So you take money away from the provider to give to the other one to correct that unfair advantage. So from that perspective biological fatherhood really should not be an issue so much as who (if anyone) was in the role of the provider. It's all part of the social contract of marriage.

You are correct.

And, in fact, I have known men who received alimony and/or child support because the woman was the primary wage earner in the family. The law certainly does recognize and allow for that situation. Heck, for the past 20 years that's been MY situation (minus the children).

Nonetheless, it is still the case that usually the woman is the caretaker/stay-at-home half of the partnership and usually the man is the higher paid partner. It's OK to acknowledge such a statistical reality.