Pregnant With Opportunity: Mom Still Wins

by Moody Jim Rathbone

In the mainstream media, you’ll read headings that titillate or that simply state “New Jersey Man Ordered to Pay Child Support for 1 Twin After DNA Test Shows 2 Dads.” The truth is that this kind of behavior is a national embarrassment! So potentially embarrassing that the lawsuit represents the plaintiff and defendant only as initials. The ‘mother’ should certainly be embarrassed. The details and headlines for child support continue to get stranger as time wears on. That is what happens in a nation without standards.

In a precedent-setting case, a Superior Court judge ruled that a man who was believed to have fathered twin girls actually only fathered one of them. It’s the sick stuff of legend and a new low for the ‘prostitutes’ of the nation. But this case isn’t a precedent for the reason you might think. It’s the first paternity case in New Jersey – and the third nationwide to showcase two different fathers for a single set of twins.

A man identified only as “A.S.” was off the hook for child support payments to one of the twins after DNA testing determined that he fathered one twin, but could not have been the father of the other.

The mother, identified only as “T.M.” gave birth to twin girls in January of 2013 and named “A.S.” as a romantic partner and the father of both kids when applying for public assistance. Of note is that she admitted that she had sex with another unidentified man ‘within a week’ of having had sex with “A.S.”  Obviously, the woman couldn’t keep her legs together and wisely, social services ordered a DNA test with the “surprising results.”

“A.S.,” obviously poverty stricken, represented himself in court, and has been charged to pay $28 a week in child support payments to his offspring. An academic study published in 1997 found that different fathers occurs in about one out of every 13,000 reported paternity cases involving twins. Either way, the “hoes” and judges of America still have the power. At least, the father hasn’t been taken to the cleaners if he hasn’t been late with the child support. “A.S” likely is late and the Bradley Amendment will apply. What a way to start the life of a child, or children, as the case is here. So now that you’ve heard all this, is the mainstream media telling you what you really need to know? Hardly! The lawsuit is just the beginning. Both parents, especially the father, will continue to experience all kinds of personal invasions and persecutions in the name of taking care of children. These mainstream articles don’t discuss the abuses that non-custodial parents face because of government policy that is nothing less than unconstitutional. Once the lawsuit dies down, good old dad will be without due process, completely at the mercy of government policy that has no mercy. Even worse, all Americans are paying dearly with their privacy and banking information so that big government can quickly snap up cash for kids.

For example, in United States statute, the Bradley Amendment (1986, Public law 99-509, 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c)) requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations. Specifically, the amendment:

• automatically triggers a non-expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.
• overrides any state’s statute of limitations.
• disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges.
• requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to promptly document changed circumstances or regard for his awareness of the need to make the notification.

Justice: Man Pays Support Despite Negative DNA Test

by Moody Jim Rathbone

It’s a cruel injustice. To the State of Texas, this just regular business. So it goes with Federal Law as well, an underlying culprit that denies the Constitution of the United States, like many other laws and statutes in the last fifty years. The Attorney General of Texas is also to blame, spearheading this and other cases like it as one of the most unfriendly states to ‘non-custodial parents.’

“I’ve never seen the child. I never spoke to the child. I don’t know what the child looks like,” says Willie Carson, a resident of Texas. The State of Texas and the woman that bore the child still took the money. The sociopath that is state authority is happy to have its’ needs met, as the real beneficiary behind the scenes. As long as a child is supported, justice means nothing. Mr. Carson’s paycheck has been garnished for almost 13-years and he’s now behind in payments by $21,000.

Mr. Carson has been forced to pay for a child, even when DNA proves the child is not his. The DNA test results indicate a 0.00% probability of paternity. Mr. Carson isn’t the father of the 13-year old girl in question. The whores of state and mother have prevailed for 13 years.

He has paid thousands in child support for the girl, simply because the mother initially named him as her baby’s father, as if a birth certificate and the word of a woman is king. That is because the State has made it so, plus the fraudulent action of someone that has the morality of a whore. What else could explain it? Or you could simply chalk this up to a mistake all around, started by the mother of the child in question.

Carson has battled this case in court for years, and struggles financially because of it. The attorneys and the court system continues to win while an ordinary man struggles and suffers.

“There were days that I didn’t eat. I went without electricity.”

The girl’s mom reportedly sent a letter to the court specifying that he isn’t her daughter’s dad and shouldn’t be required to pay. That hasn’t stopped her from accepting the money, nor the state from extracting it.

Recently Carson received a letter stating his 401k funds are no longer frozen, and that he no longer is required to pay child support. Carson is due back in court, where he’s hoping this 13 year fight will finally be over.

This struggle happens so often that the issue is among the Texas Attorney General’s office ‘frequently asked questions.’ According to the attorney general, even after dismissing a mistaken dad’s duty to pay child support, he is ‘still responsible for arrears,’ or any back money owed. That’s the insanity of the Bradley Amendment. Even when the whores finally get it right, the situation created by the Feds is all wrong.

The Bradley Amendment, sponsored by Bill Bradley to garner some votes, must be repealed. You can’t free a nation from whoredom, but you can free a nation from tyranny.

The Kangaroo Court Says…

by Moody Jim Rathbone

So many children, so many fathers.

‘In a situation wherein a child is not acknowledged by the father, a mother can still claim child support. If oral and written demands to provide support fail, the mother, for and in behalf of her child, may file a case in court.’ – Maria Dee A. Seares-Del Rosario

Or, she can keep her legs closed. Or, she can prove that the child actually belongs to ‘dad.’ In more kangaroo courts across the US, proof of paternity is being required, regardless of marital status. That should be a minimum standard.

Many women are only too happy to set up a man for life if they can. Even during marriage, paternity is hardly assured, unless you live in a state like Texas. (Don’t make that mistake.) Corporate states are not interested in truth, but in collecting child support so that they can be paid again by the Feds. That is the current reality for most.

The kangaroo court says that a case for ‘compulsory recognition’ with support may be filed in court with the executive administrator, often mistaken for a ‘judge.’  It is often said that ‘it must first be proven that the child is the father’s illegitimate child. Once the relationship is established, then child support can be demanded from the father’ with rights of inheritance. This assumes, of course, that there is anything left after the kangaroo court gets hold of the ‘father.’

Working against the wronged man is the Bradley Amendment, a federal law that prohibits a kangaroo court from retroactively modifying child support orders for any purpose.

Father, do not claim a child until or unless a paternity test is done. Oh, and learn to keep your pants zipped up. Do not adopt a child that is not yours unless you want to support that child forever. Do not accept a child as yours without a test, even during marriage. Keep in mind that you can never trust a woman where a child is concerned. Many men have been taken down by a system where a prostitute is considered in the ‘moral light’ of a virgin. Morals and ethics are merely studies by lawmakers. Don’t confuse them with religion or ‘God.’ Refuse to consent to slavery. You may have civil or human rights, but you won’t when you give them away.

Child Support Law Requires Man To Pay For Another Man’s Child

from the Huffington Post

Joseph Chmelar, a divorced father of two, was in for a big surprise when his young sons informed him that his ex — whom he had only recently separated from — had a child with another man. But shortly after, he had an even ruder awakening when he received a letter stating that he owed $8,500 in back child support for the kid — on Father’s Day weekend, no less.

“I thought, ‘My God, this is hilarious.’ It’s Father’s Day weekend and here’s the biggest joke that I think I’ve ever had played on me transpiring right now,” he told Michigan’s Wood TV last week.

Chmelar asked Wood TV’s investigative unit, Target 8, to look into his case; after all, how could he be legally obligated to pay child support for a kid that isn’t his?

It turns out that it’s legal, thanks to a Michigan law drafted in 1956 called the Paternity Act that was recently called “outrageous” by a lawmaker. Watch the video above for more on the law and to find out how Chmelar’s case was resolved.

Bias Against Fathers in U.S. Custody & Child Support

Government Exploitation: Dads Are Dead Broke

by Aaron Mueller

Tom Watson doesn’t like the term “deadbeat” to describe parents who are behind on child support. He prefers “dead-broke.”

Watson, director of the Berrien County Friend of the Court, said Berrien County has been struggling with collections of child support cases with arrearages. In fiscal year 2011, the county could only collect at least one payment on 56 percent of those cases, Watson told county commissioners Thursday.

Economic toll

Watson blames much of the problem on unemployment and the lagging economy, although he admits there are some who intentionally dodge making payments. Improving that statistic would mean more money for Friend of the Court (FOC). County FOCs receive funding from the state via the federal government based on performance in five areas.

One of those factors is arrearage collection. In order to qualify for 100 percent of available funding, counties must collect payments on 80 percent of cases with arrearages. Berrien County is lagging behind.

“This is an area we really need to target and do a better job,” Watson said. The FOC has tried a variety of programs to encourage payment, including booting vehicles and seizing property of offenders. So far there have been six vehicles booted — a number Watson wants to see increase — and 15 seized items auctioned.

“We are thinking about what button can we push for individuals who have not obeyed a court order? We need to remind them they have a child,” he said. On the positive side, the Berrien County FOC has a high “efficiency ratio,” which measures the number of dollars collected in child support for each dollar of program expense. Berrien’s efficiency ratio is $8.85, in comparison to the state average of $6.18.

“We collect a lot of money with less staff,” Watson said of his 37-employee team.

Increasing case load

Statewide the number of child support cases is on the rise. The number of cases has increased from 934,000 in 2008 to 1.2 million in 2011, a 9.2 percent increase. Watson again says he believes the economy is partially to blame with financial problems leading to marital stress and divorce. In 2011 the office also rated higher than the state average in collecting child support by court order and establishing paternity in cases.

 

 

Texas: After 9/1/2012 Paternity Won't Matter

Paternity Case Expert Dennis Fuller Discusses New Texas Statute for DNA Testing

September 1, 2012 is the deadline for men paying child support for children that are not theirs to take advantage of a new Texas statute, reports paternity case expert Dennis A. Fuller.

Dallas, Texas (PRWEB) January 12, 2012

“We hear a lot about “deadbeat dads.” A whole industry has grown up around forcing dads to pay child support. But if a woman lies and says you are the dad when you’re not, the same institutional machinery that grinds up and spits out deadbeat dads can steamroll right over the wrong guy and his entire real family,” says Dennis A. Fuller, who specializes in paternity case law.

2011 was a year of monumental changes in Texas Family Law. One of the most significant changes in a hundred years is the new statute allowing men to request paternity testing (DNA testing) even long after their divorce or paternity suit has been finalized. If the DNA test results show the child is not theirs, they can now force the courts to terminate their child support – even if they continue to see and have a relationship with the child.

“For decades now, Texas courts and judges have forced men who were not the biological father to pay child support; even to the point of denying their real children food and shelter. The misery this has caused some families has been unbearable. Good husbands and fathers have been thrown in jail for not paying child support for children that everyone involved acknowledged were not their children,” continues Fuller.

This year, the Texas legislature finally acknowledged that this was just wrong, and passed a statute to right this injustice, but there is a very narrow window to take advantage of this change. Section 161.005 of the Texas Family Code was amended effective May 12, 2011 to allow men previously adjudicated to be “fathers” to petition the court for DNA testing. Under the amended wording of the statute, if DNA testing shows they are not the biological father of the child, the court must terminate the parent child relationship – and along with it – the child support order.

However, there is a catch. “Texas courts have demonstrated for decades a bias against terminating parent child relationships and child support obligations,” states Fuller.

Repeatedly courts have held that it was not in the best interest of the child to do so, and therefore decline to do so, even when a diligent lawyer has presented a paternity case that gives them the opportunity to do it.

Fuller continues, “The catch is that if you found out you weren’t the father years ago, you only have until September 1, 2012 to file your petition. After September 1, 2012, you will be barred from using the new statute. After September 1, 2012 if the court finds that you knew or decides you should have known you weren’t the father before September 1, 2011, then you will not qualify to terminate your parent child relationship or your child support – ever.”

“For the next eight months, it doesn’t matter when you found out you weren’t the father. For the next eight months, it doesn’t matter what she says (truthfully or other wise), but after September 1, 2012, if she says she told you years ago that you weren’t really the child’s father, the same court that really doesn’t want to terminate your child support, will have a way to deny your termination request forever.”

Fuller encourages anyone that knows someone paying child support and thinks they may not be the child’s real father, to tell them to contact an attorney immediately to pursue a paternity case. “Many courts will continue to have a bias against terminating child support. After September 1, 2012, those courts will have a way to avoid terminating child support that they won’t have for the next eight months.”

Paternity Fraud and the Law

It’s a sad sight in society when a man must ask if a child is his. This reflects on both the plight of men and women. Yet, more and more, that is exactly the question that must be asked because of rampant infidelity and the outright moral collapse of the nation and perhaps the modern world.  This sad morality has become the norm.

Naturally, when confronted by the reality of feminine moral ownership, the little woman typically takes the easy way out.  How would some women know anyway in many cases? The man believes her, often because of his lack of moral ownership or naivety.  He pays to support the child, often taking the child as his own and later finds out the child isn’t his seed, sometimes after years of marriage and a bitter divorce that just as often involves maternal infidelity. To make matters worse, children are commonly stripped from their real or provisional fathers to satisfy the maternal lust for power and control. In many  states, after two years, the man is stuck with paternity whether true or false. The Bradley Amendment guarantees that legal corruption of reality. As a result, a man is often legally obligated to support the child of another man without recourse of any kind.

What is worse, Americans have come to accept the fact that this nation no longer operates by the Constitutional Law that the nation was founded on in favor of the ‘myth of legal precedence’. ‘Who cares as long as life is good for me?’ is the chief attitude across the board, extending into the realm of politics.

UNICEF and liberal interpretation has further muddied the waters as politicians seek to work compassion in their personal favor. Federal legislation in family law commonly tramples on the rights of Americans and prevents correction of law that flies in the face of Constitutional Rights of now civilly-impaired citizens. As a result, America has a new subclass of adult Americans in the name of mock moral outrage.

While this legal situation in America might make a great case for abstinence, in the married realm and in a perfect world, such legislation should be unnecessary. I don’t need to tell you that we don’t live in a perfect world: far from it. The American Association of Blood Banks notes a 30% false paternity rate.

Paternity fraud is one example where laws must change for the better where balance is concerned.  As it stands, in many states, a man named as the father must contest paternity within a statutory period of time whether he has any reason to doubt his paternity or not.  Every man involved in a divorce and every single man that may have fathered a child needs to have DNA testing for each child.  As I said, this is a great case for abstinence and certainly a better case for decent and fair law that complies with Constitutional Rights since a man cannot trust the woman he loves in modern America.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government is empowered by single women, the welfare state, support collection and family tax law through social engineering and architecture. It is time to get serious. Petition your representatives and state legislatures to enact laws allowing men to file suit to establish paternity when they come to know or discover that a child is not theirs. Currently, the federal Bradley Amendment abolishes this possibility, thus violating the states’ rights as well as civil and human rights across the board: all in the name of money and political power. Congress won’t even correct the blight against the nation’s military men in service to the country. You can change that. Do you care or does the nation face moral oblivion?

~ E. Manning

Hillary Clinton: the federal Bradley Amendment

This video features closing video from the Democratic debate on CNN from 2/20/2008. The federal Bradley Amendment violates the Constitution of the United States. Bill and Hillary Clinton were and are chief promoters and enforcers of this legislation. They don’t get it. As politicians, they have violated the trust of Americans, as well as the human and civil rights of millions of Americans without apology in the name of children. Repeal the Bradley Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: the federal Bradley Amendment by repealbradley

Who's Your Daddy?

“It’s not politically correct to say that child-support laws are biased against men. But cases of questionable fatherhood and bizarre prosecutions of disproved dads show that sometimes it’s true.”

MetroActive Article 7/25/06

Who’s Your Daddy?

It’s not politically correct to say that child-support laws are biased against men. But cases of questionable fatherhood and bizarre prosecutions of disproved dads show that sometimes it’s true

By Cecily Ruttenberg

Forty-year-old John Jones of Redwood City logs on to MySpace.com, a website he visits regularly. Each visit, Jones navigates to the same spot, the photograph of a sandy-haired 11-year-old boy named Ethan. Ethan is Jones’ son–maybe. The father and son have never met or even spoken on the phone. Ethan’s picture on MySpace.com is their only connection–their only connection, that is, other than the child-support payments for Ethan that have been automatically deducted from Jones’ paychecks for the past nine years.

Financial responsibility began when Ethan’s mother named Jones–whose name has been altered here at his request–as the boy’s father on welfare paperwork. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act requires women to name their child’s father in order to receive public assistance, a law designed to recoup government welfare costs by garnishing the wages of “deadbeat dads.”

Under former California law, Jones had six months from the time he learned about Ethan to contest paternity. (That timeline has since been extended to two years.) Unaware of the deadline and unable to afford an attorney, Jones missed his chance. To this day, Jones does not have any proof that he is Ethan’s father. His only hope to find out lies with a little known piece of legislation set to expire in five months.