You Should Talk

The 13^th Amendment of the US Constitution says that involuntary servitude is abolished. The the institutions of government of Missouri seem to be unaware of that fact in relation to victims of paternity fraud. They deny relief to men who have DNA proof that they did not father the child so they can continue to fail to make the real dad pay child support. The courts seem to be in denial, since the Thirteenth Amendment does not allow involuntary servitude. It does not say it’s allowable when it’s in the best interest of a child or when a time limit has run out.

It’s never acceptable, but demanding child support from a man who has no biological connection to a child, and possibly no relationship with the child, is exactly what the State of Missouri is has done.

Using the force of law to indenture a man to pay child support for a child that is not his is involuntary servitude. The Supreme Court stated that “involuntary servitude necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant…by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process”.

the Missouri State Government is pressing some of its very citizens into involuntary servitude by ignoring the constitutional rights of its citizens. Sometimes Initiated by the State itself. The courts have the power to grant relief, but over and over again they stick to the Missouri Statues rather than ruling in favor of truth and justice. The Missouri Legislature has failed to change paternity laws in order to protect the children and families of defrauded men by allowing relief of judgements when they are found by DNA Testing to not be the father. Now is the time for the allowance of relief of child support judgements when DNA testing can establish the truth once and for all.

In the last two legislative sessions, bills that would grant relief to victims of child support fraud gathered dust in committees. The continued failure of good legislation will never allow the protection of men who are the victims of child support fraud until the citizens stand up and force the issue. The 2009 Legislative Session of the Missouri Legislature has no prefiled bills pertaining to child support fraud. Get ahold of your State Legislators and demand that they do their job and fix this now. Until this injustice is addressed all men are at risk along with their families.

The harm caused by paternity fraud is not in doubt.  Consider this…  A poll in Women’s Day discovered that 56% of surveyed women admitted that they would lie about paternity in order to get child support.  Women who named potential fathers in the US result (via DNA Tests) in over 30% of these men not being the real dad.. were determined to not be the biological father of the child.  But the State has decided that they want the victims of paternity fraud to have no recourse.  That if your husband, son, father, or you are found to be “the dad” then they will be forced to pay… forever.  And the damage inflicted on marriages, families, the health of the victim, his family, and the deceived children themselves is preventable and unnecessary.

And it looks like your all alone with nowhere to go.  Pleading to Legislatures to put truth and justice into the system falls on deaf ears.    You see, States collect big money in Federal funds every time they can say “we’re collecting child support“.  As long as they can name anyone and make them pay the State government gets the benefit of Federal largess.  There arn’t support groups, financial assistance, counseling, or any other help available to the families who are paying for children they had no part in bringing in to this world.  “But what about these children?” is a common rebuke we hear.  Well, let’s look at it?  Because their mother made the decision to lie about who the real dad is these children are endangered by the hiding of their family medical history.  They are damaged emotionally because their own mother lied to them about who their real dad is.  Money collected on their behalf cannot fix this.    Only honest and open truth can.

The only person benefiting from this fraud are these mothers that either chose to lie, or simply doesn’t know, who the real dad is.  This is not in the childs best interest.  By attempting to force parental relationships where they do not exist is considered by many States to be the right thing to do.  We’ve looked at many cases and in most of them there has never been any contact with the children, the mother has prevented contact, or there is a large geographic seperation between them.    Sometimes this is the man’s choice.     However there are hundreds of thousands of cases where all these mothers really want for their child is money. They do not believe that having a father in their child’s life is important and even if they do they are ignoring the real father of the child.  When these children learn that the man they thought was their father, isn’t… a wound that can never heal is inflicted upon them.    Then they also have the stress of wondering who is their father and where do they really come from.  All since their mother either doesn’t know who fathered her children or has chosen to lie about it.

Looking at the real children of this same man….  They have to live with a father who is stressed out, financially burdened and demoralized by an unfair justice system.  These children will have to live with emotional and financial suffering for their lifetime. Many times these children are in an environment filled with stress, hardship, and marital difficulty caused solely by paternity fraud.    They should not have to endure these hardships.  They see that committing fraud and lying pays.  What message is being received by our kids because of this?    Allowing paternity fraud is definitely not in their best interest.

We need to think of our children and stop this injustice.  We need to force Missouri to make the read dad pay. To let the legislators know that anything less than full truth and justice is unacceptable.  We need to put a stop to paternity fraud in Missouri and the whole country.  Our children cannot afford less.

An unfortunate aspect of the family law system in Florida is parents are sometimes unlawfully threatened with jail time for failure to pay child support when they actually can’t afford to pay.  While some parents simply refuse to honor their child support obligations, others would like to pay but can’t afford to.  They may have lost a job.  They may have other children with special needs that affects their ability to pay.  They may have medical or other problems that hamper their financial circumstances.  Often they lack the ability to hire an attorney, and free legal services, such as Legal Aid, refuse to help them.  Fortunately, Florida’s appellate courts offer some relief to the parent who legitimately cannot afford to pay his or her child support. As an expert in labor & employment litigation, Attorney Peter Mavrick has significant experience in cases such as this.

The Florida Department of Revenue generally files civil contempt proceedings against non-paying or financially delinquent parents.  The objective of the Department of Revenue is to force the non-paying parent to make a payment.  However, as explained by a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, Larsen v. Larsen, 949 So.2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), and its predecessor Larsen v. Larsen, 901 So.2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), civil contempt is not applicable against a parent who lacks the ability to pay a “purge” amount.  A purge amount means a figure a court says will be needed to avoid a penalty, such as incarceration.  The important question is, does the financially delinquent parent have the ability to pay the court ordered purge?  If the evidence, not hunch or guess-work, shows that he or she cannot pay the purge, then there can be no civil contempt or penalty against that delinquent parent.

Get more information from Attorney Peter Mavrick.

In the 2007 Larsen decision, the appellate court reversed a trial judge who held a father in civil contempt for failing to pay his full child support, which had been previously calculated before his financial circumstances had changed.  The father tendered evidence that he lacked the income to pay child support, because he had to pay rent of $560/month, $200/month to the Internal Revenue Service, and paid his ex-wife $500/month; the ex-husband stipulated his monthly income was $1,700.  In other words, the ex-husband had only $440/month to somehow make ends meet, such as buying food to eat, paying for any needed transportation to and from work, and paying for other necessities such as medical care.  The former wife “admitted she did not know the former husband’s salary or if he had the ability to satisfy his financial obligations.”  The appellate court concluded that there was “no substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the former husband had the ability to pay the full amount of the previously ordered support and willfully refused to pay the same.”  The appellate court concluded that the trial court was not justified in holding the father in contempt and couldn’t require him to pay additional funds to the ex-wife; the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision.

The Larsen case illustrates the general principle that child support obligations must be reasonable and cannot be used as a weapon to force payment a parent does not have.  As economic situations get worse, this case will become an important defense for parents whose finances do not legitimately allow them to meet their previously calculated child support obligations.

Attorney Peter Mavrick practices in the field of business and labor/employment litigation in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The research in this article comes from a pro bono case in which Mr. Mavrick represented an individual in need.  Information contained in this article is accurate as of December 2008.  This article is for general information use only, and does not substitute for specifically tailored legal advice.