"Child Custody and Support - As introduced, authorizes man who has paid child support for a child who is not his biological child to recover such child support from the biological father. - Amends TCA Section 24-7-112; Title 36, Chapter 2 and Title 36, Chapter 5."

cynwrig · 2012-01-09T16:53:39+00:00

But if the biological father makes a good bit less than the man who was stuck with the payments, the man may not ever get his money back.

And what if the mother doesn't know who the biological father is? Would he be forced to continue to pay out child support with the state saying he will get the money back 'when they find the daddy?' And what if the father is dead? Would the man be out of luck, even if the mother had the money sitting in an account?

In short, I don't see how this measure discourages fraud by the mother or the state, nor encourages the state to quickly correct errors when it misappropriates funds.

RockinRoland · 2012-01-09T16:09:53+00:00

Shouldn't it come from the woman who was taking the money instead?

Clever_Ploy · 2012-01-09T16:28:41+00:00

Lets you and him fight!

antihostile · 2012-01-09T18:04:39+00:00

Why is this even necessary? Wouldn't a paternity test at the time support is ordered at least avoid this problem?

Bobsutan · 2012-01-09T18:07:27+00:00

If paternity tests were done at birth to legally document financial liability, I see no problem with this.

aetheralloy · 2012-01-09T19:49:12+00:00

This is a bandaid (and a bad one) - to avoid addressing the real issue that paternity tests should be mandatory before a woman can legally claim a man is the father unless he grants "enthusiastic agreement"

Unconfidence · 2012-01-10T01:52:15+00:00

I don't think this is fair to the biological father, as in many cases, they will have no idea that the child is theirs. If the biological father is not given the option to terminate parenthood, he can't be held liable for child support as though he'd foregone his right to do so.

Clever_Ploy · 2012-01-09T19:23:15+00:00

SELF EDIT: Removed a paragraph that didn't actually promote equal rights. Can't have those floating around.

Forcing a previously unknown biological father to pay not only new child support, but also pay back old child support is like... double slavery, and again the woman is completely free of accountability, which makes me want to go out and egg a courthouse.

Just because the legal system will take a woman gently by the hand and politely encourage her to screw over whoever she likes, doesn't mean that men demanding the same coddling would solve anything. We have a right to demand a paternity test, and a responsibility to practice that right, much in the same way a woman has a right over her own body, and is supposed to have a responsibility to protect it from unwanted pregnancy.

TOGTFO · 2012-01-10T01:29:32+00:00

The government should pay the money back and then use their process to go after the real father. They are the ones who forced him to pay money in the first place so they should reimburse the father. This would help make judicial reform as the government would want to make sure they get the right father to begin with.

Realisitically if the state tells someone they have to do something, then discovers that the order was wrong, the onus should be on them to rectify the situation. It's a deplorable situation when they make mistakes and then tell the victim of their blunder to sort it out themselves.

They should make provisions that the support a woman receives from the state is less if she cannot identify the father. This would lead to a situation where a parent actually has to behave as an adult. I really cannot understand how a person can have a child and not know who the father is (outside of getting it from a sperm bank that is). Morality aside, it's just plain selfish and irresponsible to have a child and be unaware of the fathers identity and everything that comes with that. There could be medical information needed, possible inheritances, just giving the kid an identity to who/is was their father.

2012-01-10T01:56:50+00:00

This is stupid. If anyone should have to pay, its the biological mother. I don't know why the father should have to pay w/o even knowing it's his kid. And the mother would be the one falsely charging the non biological father anyway.

EveryOneOfThem · 2012-01-10T04:00:02+00:00

I see this representative is making us do it the Hardaway...

Scott2508 · 2012-01-10T17:53:23+00:00

Ok on the flip side this creates a president stating that men wrongly named can get out of paying for a child that isnt their own. its baby steps , but like the changes in the laws on rape its a starting point and evidence that we are at least starting to see people understanding our issues.

2012-01-10T22:44:12+00:00

This is a whole can of worms. This bill appears to leave more fundamental problems in place and make more beaurocracy with less certainty about how the system can run, even if it favors some dads.

As it stands, a man can get screwed over in many ways. But there is a system to guarantee support for children (nominally- although it's corrupted and often not much better than income supplement for mothers). At least there is supposed effort for kids. If there was no child support system, should we return to the Dickensian times of abandoned orphans at church-run poorhouses begging for "more swill please?" (This would be the outcome for some extremists who want no government.) No, I don't think so. That's more barbaric than this. Kids are better off in 2012 than in the olden days.

"Encouraging divorce" and putting the government in as "substitute-husband" is some problem, but then, divorce isn't necessarily bad. People should be free to leave a relationship, and kids can do just as badly in a house of 2-party conflict as with a single parent.

Taking problems for granted, focus on kids. Moms and dads can bear responsibility, and kids shouldn't be sacrificed for adult's rights. It sucks, but kids deserve some kind of support. A good compromise to respect the adults rights more, would be reforming problems we're well aware of here to make a better system.

You don't help kids by taking away support. You can't force a parent to be a good parent by taking away support. You can support both parents as much as possible, and let the bad ones be supported with the good (only up to the point that the bad ones get their kids get taken away), in hopes they will improve. Net result is nothing perfect, but at least better than the Dickensian times.

The impression I get, is up until Clinton-era welfare reform, the government itself was the source of support with less harsh debt for dads. Thanks to liberal and conservative politics, the burden was shifted onto individuals. It created a generation of debtor-prison "deadbeat dads" who couldn't afford to pay. They reformed the system so people can't complain so much about government waste and welfare cheating. But instead of cheating the government, now individual dads get the shaft, and the system floats on a bubble of unpaid debt.

At least they know there is one place the support comes from. What a worse beaurocratic nightmare it would be, to have a system that pays out for known kids, but takes in from no source they can easily determine.

This bill is a case of (as another comment says) "lets you and him fight."

It's a little better than nothing for the dad who got defrauded, but a little worse than if fraud wasn't allowed in the first place. It leaves problems in place of paternity fraud and income-support for selfish moms, and adds a new layer of complication. This actually appears to be a "big government" problem. Who is going to administer the claims between payer and debtor if this bill becomes a rule?

No, what they should do is get paternity testing from the start so fraud can't happen.

But how to get compliance? They have to test both kid and dad, right? Another beaurocratic problem.

But at least it's a specific solution. I guess that it would involve putting out a warrant on the father named. (Is there a constitutional right to avoid DNA testing? Perhaps they could weight the decision with loss of drivers privilege, like, you can deny a breathalyzer but lose your license on the spot. This is after all, what they do do non-payers. But a willful DNA test refusal is a much different thing than inability to pay.)

You couldn't just say "no name no support". That screws kids. We know that "deadbeat dad" is a mythologized concept but there are actually shitty dads out there who would purposefully avoid this at the kid's expense. They shouldn't get get enabled either.

So, institute mandatory paternity testing. In the cases where proof is pending until they can get compliance from fathers, support should be considered an entitlement for kids from the government, paid by taxes. Take many more steps to involve fathers from the start and inform them of their rights so they don;'t avoid.

Apart from what might be assessed from the father, should he be locatable, let the system be as good as the socialized ones of Europe where the government just pays for free daycare. (Note: a lot of European nations have sub-replacement birthrates, so support isn't exactly encouraging lots of kids.)

Support given directly should be more tightly regulated, to reduce the problem of moms spending it as income support for themselves. They should have to prove expenses for kids. The levels should be capped to make it realistic for what it costs to support a kid, not a lotto payout amount.

Give dads access to public defenders in court for these cases. Give them fairer hearings and ability to modify payments. Make it more flexible to count payments or other forms of support given directly to moms not done through the court.

Rebuttable presumption of shared parenting would reduce the imbalance of who gets custody. Stop favoring moms. Start assessing more child support from moms. Stop discriminating against dads.

Giving birth is a road block for working, at least temporarily. It's natural that dads would be somewhat more able to work outside and have more income and owe more support. Accept some imbalance in assessment, but support dads a lot more to stay at home.

Put more penalties on moms misusing the system and doing obvious fraud. Penalize blocking access to kids as much as they penalize missing payment.

Less odds against dads = less encouragement for avoidance of marriage in the first place, alleviating some of the supposed "government as substitute husband" problem.

These are not radical demands for reform, and have reason on their side, while feminist opponents are relying on stereotypes, myths and hysteria to block them.

Comments