There are times when our Judicial system makes no sense....DNA test proved child wasn't Hatley's, but court still ordered back [child support] payment

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 7:38 AM GMT
    Childless man freed after serving time for child support violations

    Story Highlights

    Frank Hatley was jailed last year for falling behind on child support payments

    Hatley had paid for 13 years until he learned boy might not have been his

    DNA test proved child wasn't Hatley's, but court still ordered back payment

    The south Georgia man was released from jail Wednesday

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/15/georgia.child.support/index.html

    Back payments????.....the man should be getting all his money back! ... icon_evil.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 9:37 AM GMT
    Not necessarily. There are some states that have in place for the sake of the child, whether the parent is biological or presumed. I have seen many cases on tv where a man wanted the money back after the dna test proved he wasn't the father, but the judge would rule that he was the presumed father and therefore as the presumed father, he had monetary obligations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 2:45 PM GMT
    He can sue the mother in civil court. He has no standing with the state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 2:46 PM GMT
    It's only cuz he doesnt have the money to get a good lawyer and fight this. With a decent lawyer, he would take that slut before a jury and get his money back.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jul 16, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
    Actually, even with a good lawyer, I think it's very unlikely he'll get the money back that he already paid in child support. I'm not a lawyer by any means, so I'd take anything I say here with a grain of salt, but...Family law is set up to protect the interests of the child, not of the parent. The laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally there's only a specified window after birth in which a man can challenge paternity claims, and my impression is that it's often only around 2 years after birth. If the man finds out later on that he's not the father, in many jurisdictions he can still be held liable for continued payment because the state feels it is in the interest of the child to be supported, and that trumps the fact that this man is not the one who sired him. The only way I see it happening is the specifics of this case--that he wasn't paying the money to mother directly, but paying to the state because the state was looking to recoup the cost of the assistance it provided to the child. It is nice to see that he has no future obligations to pay for the state's care of his former girlfriend's kid, and the media attention this case will garner will certainly help his plight, but he may still be stuck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2009 4:03 PM GMT



    Interesting article, and it points out that the money he's to pay is for back payments for during the time when he thought he was the father and had reneged payments.