 |
Preserving Paternity Fraud
The Orange County Register, U.S.A. by Dianna Thompson
and Glenn Sacks, October 3, 2002
California Governor Gray Davis had the chance to free thousands
of falsely condemned men last week. He chose federal funds
instead.
Davis vetoed the California Paternity Justice Act (AB 2240),
which would have helped thousands of California men who
were wrongly assigned paternity in default judgments, and
who have been compelled by the state to pay years of child
support for children whom DNA tests have shown are not theirs.
In Los Angeles County in 2000, for example, 79 percent of
paternity judgments were decreed by default. Most of these
men had no idea they were "fathers" until their wages were
garnished.
Technical instructor Bert Riddick of Carson is one of the
men AB 2240 would have helped. Ten years ago, Riddick was
erroneously named by an ex-girlfriend as the father of her
child. By the time Riddick realized what had occurred, the
statute of limitations for challenging paternity had passed.
Riddick, his wife and their three children have fallen from
the middle class to homelessness because he is forced to
pay $1,400 a month in child support and arrearages. Like
many paternity fraud victims, Riddick has never even met
the child he is supporting.
Similarly, Darin Reeves of Rancho Santa Margarita has paid
over $50,000 in child support and welfare reimbursements
to support a child he did not father. In June 2000, California's
4th District Court of Appeals ruled that Reeves, who has
a child of his own to support, would have to continue paying.
Since 1995, Reeves has spent $11,000 in legal fees fighting
the erroneous paternity finding.
Davis could have freed thousands of these innocent men and
their families by signing AB 2240. The bill would have helped
men assigned paternity in default judgments by extending
to three years from the date of discovery the period during
which such judgments may be challenged through DNA testing.
The bill would have allowed courts to vacate default paternity
judgments which are shown to be erroneous, thus relieving
falsely identified fathers of further child support.
Instead of justice, Davis chose money.
Under federal guidelines, states must identify the fathers
of children whose mothers are receiving benefits or risk
losing federal incentive money. In addition, states receive
federal funding on child-support orders. Because federal
rules do not require DNA testing to prove paternity, states
have no incentive to demand accuracy in establishing paternity.
In explaining his veto, Davis said that if AB 2240 became
law the state might not meet federal requirements on collecting
child-support payments, putting California at risk of losing
$40 million in federal funds.
Opponents of the bill included NOW, the National Center
for Youth Law and the San Diego-based Children's Advocacy
Institute. An institute official praised the veto, saying
"we're glad that the governor put children first."
These critics overlook the fact that when a father is forced
to pay support for a child who is not his, his own biological
children suffer greatly. If Davis had signed AB 2240, children
of falsely identified fathers would not have been deprived
of support. Mothers in these cases would do what they should
have done all along: disclose the true identity of their
children's fathers so the state can then approach them to
establish paternity and pay child support.
Riddick was devastated by Davis' veto.
"Davis and his supporters say they did this for the children.
Let him come to my house and explain to my children why
this is good for them.
"The system lies to children about their own parentage and
Gov. Davis thinks that's OK. The system defrauds thousands
of innocent men and wounds their families and Gov. Davis
thinks that's OK. The system puts money ahead of truth and
justice and Davis thinks that's OK. What kind of message
is this sending to our children?"
|
