Lary Holland: Official Blog, Links, and Resources (Entries tagged as paternity)

Wisconsin Tribal Courts May See Boost in Federal Funding/Transfer of Cases

laryholland@sbcglobal.net (Lary Holland) — Mon, 11 May 2009 19:53:30 -0400

In Wisconsin, the State Supreme Court made minor changes that may expedite the transfer of cases from Wisconsin Courts to Tribal Courts. This opens the door for more transfers of Native American cases to be handled in their own courts. Unfortunately, the main change that seems to be driving the move for cases from State Court to Tribal Court is that Tribal Courts are now permitted to receive Federal Title IV-D for Paternity Establishment and their operation of a child support enforcement program.

Naturally, since the Tribal courts now will be receiving funding for pursuing certain types of cases, they would naturally want to retain jurisdiction or take jurisdiction over matters that they can be paid for under US Federal Grant and Incentive Programs.

According to the Wisconsin Law Journal the following changes have been made:

First, the circuit court would have to make an explicit finding that the state court and the tribal court have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.
Second, the court would have to send a detailed notice to the parties, explaining the consequences of failure to object to transfer.
Third, it adds a provision that, absent any objection from the parties, transfer will occur unless good cause exists not to transfer the case.

Since there are always a number of cases where one party is not known in these cases, you can expect most will transfer very quickly. The key again though is that the Native/Tribal Courts are now basically getting federal kickbacks for establishing paternity, establishing child support orders, and otherwise enforcing state created obligations against parents.

Additional Information About Title IV-D Can Be Found:

The Child Support Enforcement program continues to be plagued over the past several years of documented fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, bribery schemes, and more. Just take a look at the snapshot below, and know that this is hardly a comprehensive look at the problems that exist throughout the nation with this "free for all welfare program."

Fort Bend Woman Guilty in Child Support Fraud Ring ~ "Fort Bend County jury has found 42-year-old Debra Hodge guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity for her part in bilking over $40,000 in fraudulent child support from the Texas Attorney General's Office."

Child Support Worker Arrested in Bribery Scheme ~ "ORLANDO, Fla. -- A former employee of the Department of Revenue's Child Support Enforcement program was arrested Thursday on bribery charges." (Local6.Com "Child Support Worker Arrested In Bribery Scheme" March 8, 2007)

Title IV-D Employee Embezzles Quarter of Million in Child Support Enforcement Money ~ "A Natomas woman stands accused of bilking the state Department of Child Support Services of more than $250,000, turning her procurement job into a means of buying a Lexus, hot tub and big-screen television, among other things."

The Weekly Standard Indicts CSE Title IV-D Welfare Program ~ "There is mounting evidence that the system now encourages marital breakup and exacerbates fatherlessness by creating a winner-take-all game, where the losing parent--commonly a father wanting to save the marriage--is unfairly penalized by the loss of his children and by a federally enforced child support obligation."

Federal Child Support Enforcement Program Makes Little "Cents" to the Taxpayer ~ "So the man, named Michael Eugene Lamb, is going into prison at the age of 49, sitting there on a federal conviction, and coming out sometime when he is almost 51 years old. The federal system will charge the taxpayers for his 1.5 year confinement at a cost between $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 depending on the facility and not including any health issues of the confined."

Child Support Clerk Charged With Embezzlement: More Government Corruption ~ "Another County employee, this one in Lauderdale County, has been indicted by a grand jury on felony embezzlement charges for allegedly stealing more than $216,000.00 of program money, paid for by taxpayers, by writing unauthorized checks to herself from January 2002 through April of 2007. This employee was released on a $10,000.00 bond, which no doubt was probably a drop in the bucket considering she has already been sitting on the $216,000.00 plus her lush salary."

Two Main Media Outlets Reprot More Thieving Title IV-D/CSE Employees ~ "Two separate reports have come out about a Maine Child Support Enforcement Worker (Title IV-D Employee) that has been stealing money orders from children the agency touts to protect. This most recent employee, who is now on administrative leave pending investigation, was reported as intercepting money orders and depositing them in her personal bank account."

Mounting Accountability Problems With Child Support Programs: Data Stolen ~ "Yuba
County scrambled this week to contact 70,000 people whose names and personal information were on a laptop computer stolen from the new
Child Support Services office in Linda. County officials said the stolen laptop contained Social Security numbers, birth dates, driver’s
license numbers and other private information on 70,000 people+."

Identity Theft: Opt Out of Family Court Services Before it Happens to YOU! ~ "...customers in at least three states have already experienced serious breaches in their personal information, including social security numbers being compromised and potentially handed over to hackers that might want to steal identities in the last few months alone."

Let's just hope that the Child Support programs in the Native/Tribal courts don't become nearly as damaging as they have become in US/State Family Courts. The recent rule changes in Wisconsin will likely have several issues when it comes to spousal support cases and other cases that have child support as an ancillary action, which would otherwise result in only part of the case being transferred to the Native/Tribal Courts. In the end, it is certainly all about the money and there still needs to be drastic overhauls to the family court system to better focus on the needs of children rather than on the financial performance within government controlled bureaucracies.

-------------------------------

“Tribal Child Support Programs. The circuit court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, after notice to the parties of their right to object, transfer a post-judgment child support, custody or placement provision of an action in which the state is a real party in interest pursuant to s. 767.205(2) to a tribal court located in Wisconsin that is receiving funding from the federal government to operate a child support program under Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654 et al.). The circuit court must first make a threshold determination that concurrent jurisdictions exists. If concurrent jurisdiction is found to exist, the transfer will occur unless a party objects in a timely manner or it is proven that there is good cause to prevent the transfer. Upon the filing of a timely objection to the transfer, the circuit court shall conduct a hearing on the record, considering all the relevant factors set forth in sub. (2).”

Man Forced to Support Someone Else's Child.

laryholland@sbcglobal.net (Lary Holland) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:31:01 -0500

While perusing Yahoo News in the U.S. section today I couldn't help but
notice the headline "Paper: Man forced to support someone else's child." More problems in the child support enforcement industry. Overzealous system focuses on collections and revenue generation for the state rather than what is right. (Orig. Article: Yahoo News! December 6, 2008)

"HARRISBURG, Pa. – A Philadelphia man was forced to pay more than $12,000 in child support for another man's daughter and spent two years in jail for falling behind on payments."
"He served four six-month jail terms for not keeping up with support
payments between 2001 and 2005, then lost his job. Petitions he filed
for DNA testing were opposed by the court's domestic relations officials and denied by the judge."

This is another fine example of how the system currently encourages "Paternity Fraud" because it is not common practice to require repayment of child support payments that are being received as a result of fraud, deceit, or mistaken identity. By enacting laws that require repayment of monies received, it will naturally reduce the number of paternity fraud cases and protect actual parents and their parental-rights, especially when a parent names another person knowing they are not the real payment.

EJFI: Dr. Charles Corry: Paternity Fraud - Reform, or it?

laryholland@sbcglobal.net (Lary Holland) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:45:00 -0400

Reform, or is it?

On May 29, 2008, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 08-183 Concerning the Effect of DNA Evidence On Child-Related Orders. The act will take effect on August 15, 2008. Under prior Colorado law once a paternity judgement or final orders in a divorce had been entered regarding child support a man was required to continue paying regardless of what later genetic evidence revealed.

Getting some relief for paternity fraud victims in Colorado has been a six-year struggle and has resulted in twelve EJF newsletters on the topic of Condoning Slavery Under Color of Law.

State Senator Shawn Mitchell deserves much credit for sponsoring this bill and getting it through the Colorado Senate. We have been harshly critical of Senator Mitchell in the past on this issue but he has demonstrated both the intelligence and integrity to learn from his mistakes and try and help correct the problem.

Why is paternity fraud a problem?

Since testing for paternity using genetic, or DNA evidence became widely available the laboratories doing such testing have consistently reported that ~30% of the men tested were not the fathers of the children in question. As of 2008 there are roughly 400,000 DNA tests done by laboratories yearly in the United States .

Currently some 38% of children are borne out-of-wedlock nationally. Reportedly, two thirds of the children in California are now born to unwed mothers. Commonly in such cases the father is not present, is unknown (she was drunk or on drugs), or the mother had several sexual partners during her fertile period when the child was conceived.

Evidence continues to mount that at least one third of married women have extramarital affairs ,making it impossible to assume a woman's husband is the father of her children.

Child support enforcement (CSE) agencies have a widespread practice of arbitrarily selecting a man on flimsy or no evidence and imposing a default paternity judgement on him with little or no notice or proof. There are far too many cases of Manuel Nava becoming Manuel Navarro in the doltish hands of CSE bureaucrats eager to earn federal bonuses for making a man a "father" by judicial fiat.

Only about 12 out of 100 children are born today to a couple who are legally married and remain so until their children reach majority.

Thus the potential for paternity fraud is huge and there is no penalty for a woman who commits it.

As a result there is a roughly one-in-three chance in a paternity case where the woman is asking for child support that the man named, either by the mother or CSE, is not the biological father of the child.

We also encounter far too many cases of married women using false allegations of domestic violence and restraining orders to keep their husbands away from the children when seeking child support in a divorce, often because she knows or suspects her husband is not the father. Again, our experience is that in contested cases where false allegations are used against the husband that there is about a one-in-three chance one or more of the kids aren't his.

Paternity fraud equals slavery

Slavery is defined as the state of a person who is a chattel of another and is a social-economic system under which certain persons - known as slaves - are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work. Slaves are held against their will and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor.

Clearly any man compelled by force to support a child that demonstrably is not seed of his loins, and imprisoned when he refuses, is a slave. Reasonable estimates suggest there are approximately 1.4-1.6 million men so enslaved in the United States today. This is an outrage that begs for redress, but dating back to 1857 in Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson (1896), Korematsu v United States (1944), and continuing to the present day by forcing a man to pay child support to the biological father of his wife's child, the courts have historically supported slavery

As there is no punishment for a woman who commits paternity fraud, it is the perfect crime.

Remedies provided by SB08-183

As originally introduced, SB08-183 provided that if a man was able to find the mother and somehow get DNA testing done on the children that conformed to the requirements for genetic testing spelled out in Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) § 13-25-126 showing that he was not the biological father, that an existing order for child support "shall be set aside or modified." No provision was made in the original bill for dismissing arrearages that might have accumulated, although no support was required from the date the motion for modification was filed if the modification was granted.

Provisions were included in the bill to exempt cases where the man knowingly accepted responsibility even though he wasn't the biological father, where he had adopted the child(ren), or the woman used artificial insemination to conceive.

That bill made it through the Colorado Senate intact but ran into problems in the House despite the able support of its sponsor in that chamber, Rep. Nancy Todd. The most egregious of the problems was an amendment introduced by Rep. Bob Gardner that leaves the determination of continuing a man's slavery to the discretion of the court. To wit, the child support order will only be modified or dismissed if, and only if "the court determines that it is just and proper under the circumstances and in the best interests of the child." As noted above, the courts have a long, sordid history of supporting slavery, and there can be little doubt that they will continue to do so today.

The "best interest of the child" has long been a feminist mantra as to why paternity fraud should be condoned and continued. However, other than emotional rhetoric, these sob sisters have never advanced an argument as to how enslaving a man will result in, or maintain a bond with a child he probably has never known, or whom he is prohibited from seeing by restraining orders or distance. I have addressed my outrage with this amendment previously and at a public meeting on June 3, 2008, I pointed out to Rep. Gardner that during his first term he had endorsed slavery, promoted adultery, and driven another nail in the coffin of marriage. I then asked him what he planned to do if he won a second term? To his credit he recognized the problem and pledged to address the issue of paternity fraud if reelected.

The final bill, as passed by the Colorado House, and reconciled in committee, does contain a provision that the court "...may vacate or deem as satisfied, in whole or in part, unpaid child support obligations arising from or based on the order determining parentage." But, again that is left to the kindness of the judge's discretion and it isn't at all clear whether that provision will conflict with the federal Bradley Amendment that does not allow judicial discretion in dismissal of child support obligations and arrearages.

While no assistance is offered a man to locate mother and child, whom he often has never heard of before CSE began garnishing his wages, he is only given two years from the entry of the original child support order in which to challenge it. It is not uncommon for CSE to take more than two years to find a man after a default paternity order is entered and this bill will give CSE an incentive to delay notification in some cases for two years and a day.

However, as SB08-183 was introduced in large measure at the behest of current victims of paternity fraud in Colorado, if their child support order was, or is entered prior to August 15, 2008, they have until August 15, 2010, to file a motion to modify or set aside their obligations if they can find the mother and chid(ren) and get a DNA paternity test done that satisfies the requirements of CRS § 13-25-126 (and lots of luck, slave).

Motions to modify child support in Colorado for children who are not yours can be filed anytime after August 15, 2008, when SB08-183 goes into effect.

Paternity determinations in the modern world

SB08-183 is at most a stopgap measure that provides some relief primarily for current victims. But paternity fraud is a crime that should not be allowed to happen, and the law should certainly not encourage it as it presently does.

What then would be desirable to prevent the continuation of these destructive practices that pit men against children to the detriment of all?

At present we have the worst of all worlds:

Many mothers don't get the child support they need.

Many women and children are placed in dire circumstances when their husband is hit with a bogus child support order.

Many men are ordered to pay support for children that are not theirs and jailed when they don't.

Many children are cut off from contact with their biological fathers, which often has dramatic negative effects on their mental and physical health.

And CSE has built itself a massive and corrupt empire based on falsehoods from every side and frequently keeps child support money it collects for its own use.

The problem is to find a balance that ensures biological fathers will support their children while putting an end to the widespread practice of naming the man with the deepest pockets as "father," or enslaving cuckolded husbands to support their wife's adultery.

Standing

First, and foremost, in conformance with ancient principle paternity should be unchallenged by the courts or any other government agency for any reason. Today paternity usually goes unchallenged unless, and until the mother seeks child support. To preserve the principle is to say that only the mother of the child(ren) shall have standing to bring action for child support or to challenge paternity for any reason.

Experience with CSE makes it all too clear that those fumbling bureaucrats are all too willing to name any man as a father in order to reap incentives and bonuses from federal and state programs. Cases where a man sterile from birth is given a default judgement of child support, military men who are saddled with child support despite the fact they were deployed during the time conception occurred, cases where the child doesn't even exist, has died, or has been placed in foster care or adopted, but CSE still demands support payments are daily stories.

Thus, CSE should be limited to collections where a woman has won a court case for child support against a man and a DNA paternity test has conclusively demonstrated that he is the biological father.

Presumption of innocence

As noted above there is roughly a one-in-three chance that a man in a paternity case, or a contested divorce where custody is an issue, is not the biological father of one or more of the woman's children (if they exist).

Therefore, the law should require that no child support for any child be ordered unless and until genetic evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the man is the biological father, unless the man has formally adopted the child.

SB08-183 makes an exception for children conceived "by means of assisted reproduction." I would not make that exception in the law for the reason that "assisted reproduction" covers a multitude of methods that a woman may undertake with or without her partner's knowledge or consent. Thus, limits should be placed on support for children conceived by artificial insemination or other methods of "assisted reproduction." Before child support can be ordered in such cases it must be established in court that the man had prior knowledge and had given written, notarized consent to accept legal responsibility for any child(ren) resulting from such procedures. Using semen obtained from a friend, neighbor, or other donor should not entitle a woman to child support from her husband or lover without his knowledge and prior consent.

Note that this leaves unsettled the issue of whether a semen donor should later be liable for child support. I suggest such donors should be specifically excluded by statute from child support obligations unless they adopt the child(ren). And current terminology for "assisted reproduction" might easily include adultery with the wife banging a friend or neighbor to deliberately get pregnant.

Proof of existence

A number of cases have come to the attention of the EJF where the mother is collecting support for a child that never existed, has died, been placed in foster care, adopted, or given to other relatives. Also, cases where the woman is not the mother of the child for whom she is claiming support are known.

Therefore, when a woman files a claim for child support the first step should involve the court (a) determining the child(ren) exist and are in the custody and care of the mother, and (b) obtaining genetic evidence from the mother and the children under the conditions of CRS § 13-25-126 to establish their relationship. Once those conditions are satisfied the court would then order the man named in the case to submit to a genetic test, again under CRS § 13-25-126, to prove his relationship, or lack thereof with the child(ren). That leaves the question of paternity undisturbed unless, and until a mother brings action in court on her own behalf and of her own volition.

That would also bring to an end the default paternity judgements that range from a minimum of 30% to 70-80% of all such orders, and that are so beloved and useful to the CSE agents of tyranny in collecting their incentives and bonuses. Currently all CSE need do in many cases is name a man, any man, in any state, get a default judgement, and that man wins "fatherhood" with little or no recourse. And his wages are automatically garnished, which is often the first time he is aware that he is a "father."

Another necessary requirement is for CSE to periodically, e.g., once a year, verify the mother still has the child(ren) in her care and custody. When and where that cannot be confirmed child support payments should automatically stop. Too often mom fobs the kids off on some relative, usually a grandmother, and keeps the child support to support her drug and alcohol problems. Child support payments used to pay for meth don't benefit anyone. And since more than one woman has claimed child support in multiple states , and from different men, for the same child(ren), CSE should be charged with comparing claims with other states as well as internally.

Father/child(ren) bonding

Consistently the feminist presentation for keeping men enslaved and paying support for children proven not to be theirs, and too often the result of the man's wife's adultery, is that relieving him of child support would destroy the father/child bond. That claim is fallacious on many levels but if the bond between a man and a child is so important then, at a minimum, shared parenting between a biological father and his child(ren) must be enshrined in the law with penalties comparable to non-payment of child support for interference with visitation.

Also, it is the experience of the Equal Justice Foundation that many men bond very closely with children they have not sired. The problem here is with the legal and moral issue of enslaving men to pay for their wife's adultery or for children of women they often don't even know.

If the bonds of slavery were not an issue it is much more likely that men who have regarded children as their own would continue to love and support them as best they could. That is especially true if they had regular contact with them rather than the flurry of DV charges, restraining orders, and false abuse claims so commonly used now by wives and lovers to keep men away from children so that DNA paternity testing cannot be done.

What have we missed or forgotten

The tabulation above of what the law should be revised to include and remove is certainly incomplete. We need to hear from others how best to deal with paternity fraud and child support issues.

This is not a gender issue as paternity fraud as often impacts women and their children as it does men from what we've seen.

So we need fairly simple, but relatively foolproof and just methods of ensuring that men support children they sire but makes it virtually impossible for women to commit paternity fraud.

Send us your ideas! The Equal Justice Foundation will keep fighting but don't expect a miraculous, overnight cure for all these issues. Besides, the Colorado legislature isn't even in session until next January.

Conclusions

Current law does nothing to deter or punish paternity fraud, nor does it offer any assistance to victims of this travesty. Some relief is offered by the current legislation, SB08-183, to those enslaved by this crime if, and only if they can locate the woman committing the fraud and somehow get DNA paternity tests done under the strict standards of the law within a two year period. And that presumes no restraining order against him exists. But no assistance in obtaining their freedom is offered to these slaves, who number about 1.5 million in the United States , and over 20,000 in Colorado.

Current law thus endorses slavery and rewards adultery, and the only escape far too many find from this injustice is suicide. Nor does the law provide any inducement for men to marry and sire children, to the great detriment and ultimate destruction of our society.

Clearly much remains to be done and we can only hope that Colorado State Senator Shawn Mitchell and Rep. Nancy Todd will renew their efforts in the coming year, and that Rep. Bob Gardner will live up to his pledge if reelected. We also call on the other sponsors of SB08-183, state Senators Cadman, Gibbs, Gordon, Schultheis, Ward, and Wiens, and Representatives Labuda, Mitchell V., Roberts, and Stafford to join together again to overcome the injustices inherent in current law.

Many shibboleths must fall if the pyramid of paternity fraud is to tumble. But the institution of marriage depends on honesty and integrity and will not continue under laws that encourage fraud and reward adultery. And history clearly demonstrates that we cannot count on judges to do anything but sustain the extant slavery, now in the name of "the best interest of the child."

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.

Judge Orders Man to Get His Child Support Payments Back

laryholland@sbcglobal.net (Lary Holland) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:30:59 -0500

In yet another recent case of Paternity Fraud, there is a clear message being presented. Commit Paternity Fraud or cause cases of Mistaken Paternity and face paying back all the child support money. In an Augusta, Georgia child support case a judgment was levied against a biological mom and a biological dad, from a falsely accused putative father.

Judge David Roper said he felt badly for Kenneth Samuels when he learned the child he had fathered for 11 years wasn't his.

Justice was also shortchanged, the judge said, because Mr. Samuels had been paying child support all of those years.

Last month, Judge Roper ruled that Jamie Hope, the child's mother,
and Oba Wallace, the child's biological father, would have to repay Mr.
Samuels $14,460 in child support he had paid since 1997.

Such an order is unusual, but not unique.

The judge also made sure that the biological father was truly on the hook for the repayment to Mr. Samuels. Once the biological father established paternity, the Judge ruled that it could establish an order back to birth, in this case resulting in repayment back to the alleged father.

"You swore that he was the father when you took out a child support action," Judge Roper told Ms. Hope. He said he considered that action fraudulent and ordered Ms. Hope to repay Mr. Samuels the $14,460 he had paid in child support payments.

In February, Judge Roper ruled Mr. Wallace was liable to Mr. Samuels for the back child support, too. Judge Roper said in explaining his ruling that once paternity is established, a father can be required to
pay back support to the time of birth. Since Mr. Wallace's paternity was established, he was responsible for the child support since the birth in 1997, and responsible for repaying Mr. Samuels.

Be sure to look this judge up and send him a thank you for ensuring that biological parents are the ones that are responsible for their own children not innocent third-parties. In a time where women are having multiple sexual relationships at the same time, they should strongly be encouraged that if you name the wrong man a child's father, that it will cost them!

Cases of mistaken paternity or paternity fraud should be treated as equally important topics, so a child has the opportunity to have a strong relationship with both fit, caring, and willing parents.

You can read the entire article in Georgia's Augusta Chronicle at: http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/030208/met_189488.shtml

Man to get child support back

Parents owe $14,460 in case of mistaken paternity, judge says

By Sandy Hodson| Staff Writer

Tonight on Get Off The Bench: GET YOUR JUSTICE LIVE: PATERNITY FRAUD

laryholland@sbcglobal.net (Lary Holland) — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:42:59 -0500

Tonight's Get Your Justice Live (Get Your Justice Live) at http://www.getyourjusticelive.com will be discussing Paternity Fraud with Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. You can call in at 8:00pm EST at 724-444-74444 Talkcast ID: 43507 and then enter 1#. You can also stream live at our website address http://www.getyourjusticelive.com.

UPDATE! LISTEN TO THE EPISODE:

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. is the spokesperson of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition. He has been practicing family law and has been a member of the Massachusetts bar since 1996.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. is the spokesperson of the Berkshire
Fatherhood Coalition. He has been practicing family law attorney and has been a
member of the Massachusetts bar since 1996. Mr. Del Gallo has handled a wide
variety of family law cases including issues of child custody, child visitation,
child support, restraining orders, grandparent visitation, contempt of family
court, access to academic records, guardianship, allegations of abuse, criminal
allegations related to domestic violence, disputes over the care of a child, and
care and protection proceedings before the Department of Social Services. For
years, he has hosted bi-monthly free legal seminars for people of any gender
having problems in family court. On behalf of non-custodial parents, he has had
made numerous media appearances in printed news, radio, and television. He has
authored numerous family law related articles and columns. He has performed
extensive pro bono work for fathers.

Attorney Del Gallo also has extensive experience as a civil rights attorney,
working in the areas of free speech rights and ballot access. He was
instrumental in protecting the City of Pittsfield from a zoning ordinance that
would have allowed time-shares in any residential neighborhood, with a 15-page
legal opinion that rebutted the assertion that time-shares was an impermissible
regulation of ownership, not use, and thus was proscribed by law. This work was
performed pro bono.

Bob Norton from http://www.fathersunited.org will be hosting the show tonight. Get Your Justice Live is hosted live every Sunday Night with Bob Norton at 8:00pm EST and Wednesday Night with Lary Holland at 8:30pm.

For more information about Get Your Justice Live, Lary Holland, or Bob Norton, you can contact Lary Holland at 800-319-4955 x3 or via email at laryholland@sbcglobal.net.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Judge Rules To Increase His Budget

laryholland@sbcglobal.net (Lary Holland) — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:44:36 -0500

In this NewsDay.Com article the Court says that a sperm donor is liable for child support without giving the father any opportunity to even prove whether or not he is the father.

Nassau County Family Court Judge Ellen Greenberg ruled on Nov. 16 that despite
the mother's willingness to have the child's DNA tested, the man was barred
from seeking a paternity test to determine if he is truly the father because
the results could have a "traumatic effect" upon the child, who is
now 18 years old and lives in Oregon with the mother. The next step is a
meeting with a support magistrate to determine the amount of child support
payments - if any - the man would have to pay until the teen turns 21, Kelly
said

Just another example of how the child support enforcement industry wants to increase the numbers and collection rates to justify their own existence. Read the complete story below.

newsday.com/news/local/crime/ny-lifath015484074dec01,0,1707390.story