Damon Stover writes:

Subject: Most deadbeat dads may not be deadbeat dads

Operating under the guise of the “best interest of the child,” our current laws permit women to assign long-term punishment to innocent men and teach children they can get paid for perpetrating fraud and no one in authority will care. It is obvious to any clear thinking person that in current practice paternity related laws defy reason and deliberately violate of the equal protection clause of our Constitution.

In September of 2002, then California Governor Gray Davis vetoed an anti-paternity fraud bill citing the money his state would lose in federal grants and the fear of upsetting women's organizations that opposed the measure.

Even though the proposed change was modest (it would have given men a mere two years after discovering they weren't the father, to produce the DNA evidence as prove), it met fierce opposition by women's groups. Also in 2002, a Florida lawmaker offered up paternity fraud bills that died similar deaths. A package of bills that included anti-paternity fraud measures passed in the Michigan House unanimously (102-0) but died in their Senate like the others.

Sometimes testing of a man is required because of a legal presumption. When the mother identifies the correct biological father, but the child is the product of a marriage [she is (was) married to someone other than the biological father], there is a legal presumption that the husband is the father. The husband is then tested to rebut the legal presumption, even though no one believes that he is the biological father of the child. But news reports and statements from Judges show this isn’t something new and the number of cases isn’t a small percentage.

In the Los Angels Times series “ In 9 of 10 Child Support Cases, D.A. Comes Up Empty-Handed” it is reported that "No one knows how many men are wrongfully pursued for child support, though the district attorney's own records show that on average more than 350 a month are incorrectly named as fathers." There are no indications that the LA County's problem has seen any significant improvement since this series of reports first ran in 1998.

According former Los Angeles County prosecutor Judge Mablean Ephriam, in 2000 79% of paternity judgments were decreed by default. This means the putative father didn't appear for the hearing. Many times this is because they had not been contacted. As told by Judge Ephriam and others, often the only pre-hearing efforts made to locate these men are ads placed in the legal notices section of the newspapers. Most of these men had no idea they were considered fathers until their wages were garnished.

One has to be concerned when someone can allege the paternity of a child but is unable to provide service details of the putative father until after the child support order is entered, which is the case in most of these default judgments. One must also ask: if those seeking the orders know where to send service notices for the attachment of wages, why didn't they know where to send the notice of the hearing?

In her 2002 letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Judge Ephriam says, "There is no doubt that men have important issues that are not addressed enough by society. Fraud is one example. Thousands of men every year are misidentified as the father of a child and never know about it until years later, when it is too late. Then they're locked into financial prison and forced to pay child support when DNA excludes them as the father. Countless men and their families have been victimized and devastated by this very serious social problem. I have met and represented many of them myself."

Given the desperate need for our federal government to claim that welfare reform has been a success, it is doubtful that they will ever question how many paternity fraud cases there really are, or do anything about correcting the errors even if they did find out.

But what about the real “best interest of the child?”

Any person has the right to know who their real parents are. It is important to one’s sense of self and to one’s knowledge of genetic predispositions to illness. These are far more important than letting Mommy wallet shop so she and the state can cash-in.

Since the welfare reform laws were enacted we have seen some horrifying results. Not the least of which is how the national level of child support arrearages has grown from being less than ten billion dollars when welfare reform was first debated in the US Congress in the 1990's to approaching one hundred billion dollars today.

Worse yet, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) shows that currently the average income of an obligator with high child support arrearages is less than ten thousand dollars a year. So despite popular fiction the fact is that the average so called, "dead-beat-dad" isn't driving on the beach in a Porsche with their teenage trophy wife while their children starve with their abandoned ex-wife. They actually meet the financial qualifications to apply for public assistance themselves and are more aptly called, “dead-broke-dads.” The truth is, less than 4% of all child support arrearages in the United States are owed by child support obligators who earn more than twenty thousand dollars a year.

Damon Stover writes:

Subject: Dad Facts

In view of the fact that the states' child support and welfare incentives are largely based on the child support money on their books, they need to figure out how to get the most money per case out of people. A quick overview of the construct of child support guidelines shows us that in every state child support awards are predominately based on three considerations:

1) Income of both parents - and the difference between them 2) Child care costs of both parents - and the difference between them 3) The amount of time each parent has the child - or the difference between them

The parents' income is not something the state can control (or legally change), neither are the care costs the parents have, they are pretty much what they are. So the only thing the state can control and manipulate is the time the parents have with the child. We call this "custody and visitation."

If you search the web you will be able to find online child support calculators for every state. Experiment with some example cases for yourself. What you will find is that the time the parents have with the child has the single greatest impact on a child support obligation of the three main considerations.

At many income levels the difference between 50/50 (equal) parenting time and 70/30 will result in twice the child support being awarded to the custodial parent and can double again if the time the non-custodial parent has with the children drops to 85/15 (or less in some states). You can be assured that this is no accident.

The mechanics of these abuses by the states of CSPIA funding are well documented. One example is the report prepared for the US Congress by True Equality Network, which you can download from our web site.

If any doubts remain that family law is based on dollars and not on justice, equal protection under the law, or the best interest of the child, ask North Dakota's Governor, John Hoeven.

Among the typical items on the ballet in 2006, North Dakota had ballet item for "Presumptive Equal Parenting." Governor Hoeven himself spoke out against this ballet initiative. Not for the welfare or well-being of his state's children.

Rather than defending the wellbeing of his state's children, Governor Hoeven's stated reason for opposing this initiative was due to the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant money such a law would cost his state. That, by the way is a significant portion of the state's expected annual revenue and revenue that is considered greatly in the state's budget requests.

The Governor did this even though he was informed numerous times that scientific studies clearly show children in equal parenting arrangements after a family breakup excel at almost the same levels as those in intact, healthy families with both their biological parents present.

He was also made aware that the large majority of teens in juvenile detention, who become pregnant, smoke, run away, do drugs, and other social problems are in primary custody arrangements.

Governor Hoeven was also aware that in their biennial report "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support" (1999, 2001 , and 2003 ) the US Census Bureau reports that parents with equal parenting arrangements are far more likely to pay their child support, in full and on time without any enforcement actions then any other parenting arrangement. Where parents who have limited, disrupted, or no visitation with their children are likely not to pay a cent.

Based on Governor Hoeven's own commentaries, it is clear that his decision was not based on the best interest of the child or family values; it was all about the money.

Damon Stover writes:

Subject: Dad Facts cont

Moreover, it should be no surprise that no one will stand up against a false allegation of domestic violence, except its victim. Even when everyone knows for a fact the putative victim's claim is completely fabricated, or they openly admit to the court that it is a false claim, the orders are often issued anyway. It is no wonder divorce attorneys are eager to tell their clients in divorce cases to file claims of domestic violence and include the children in the claim.

Let's take look at some actual cases. One very well publicized case is that of Bennett J. Vondehiede. His video and document supported story is published on www.daddyjustice.com. Ben was doing his custody exchanges in the lobby of his Pennsylvania city's main police station to make sure nothing went wrong. After one drop off Ben's ex-wife filed a domestic violence complaint against him. She claimed she was attacked in the lobby of the police station.

Even though the police department's own video surveillance system clearly shows that police officers were present at the reception desk when the parents met and nothing happened to constitute domestic violence that evening, a restraining order that included his son was issued against Ben anyway. Ben's case regarding this blatant false claim being supported by the family court is still ongoing.

In another case, reported to several members of the US Congress the victim is Dave B. Dave's now ex-wife suffers from a serious mental illness. Although when she is on her medication all who knew her will profess that she is a delight to be with and was highly regarded by friends and neighbors. However, she chooses to go off her medication regularly.

During these periods without her medication she would act-out very violently towards her husband and child. Following several involuntary committals to in patient mental health hospitals she again decided to stop taking her medications. In this, the last of such events for the family, she beat Dave and their son with a baseball bat. Most of Dave's injuries were the result of him shielding their son from the blows directed at the child.

Dave was then advised to file criminal charges. Since repeated efforts to keep his wife on medication had failed, he had to think solely of protecting his son. So he did file complaints of criminal spousal abuse and also charges of child abuse on behalf of their son.

The day before the hearing Dave's wife filed a civil complaint of domestic violence on behalf of herself and their son against Dave in family court. He was arrested entering the courthouse for the hearing for the criminal charges. Having missed the hearing the criminal charges against his wife were dropped.

Later, Dave was in court again, this time as the defendant in a civil domestic violence case. Without going into great detail, the restraining order, sole custody of the son, and a temporary child support order were granted to the mother. However, review of the court documents showed that all of this was allegedly granted three weeks before Dave's wife filed her complaint.

An investigation revealed that the court was so predisposed to granting domestic violence restraining orders, with custody and child support that they would preprint the court orders, leaving only the personal information of parties of the case to be added. In this case, someone neglected to dispose of the old forms and Dave's information was added to a form over three weeks old.

Moreover, during Dave's incarceration he was subjected to physical torture for refusing to acquiesce to the false claims of domestic violence. The torture has left him permanently physically disabled and suffering from pronounce Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. A man who was once a healthy and productive, loving parent now struggles to live a normal life.

Damon Stover writes:

Subject: Dad Facts cont

Then we have the story of Rob Z., which is his real name. Although Rob is a Certified Master Social Worker, he found himself unemployed for over seven years. This was because Rob was the stay-at-home-dad for his son. When his wife decided it was time for a change she filed a claim of domestic violence against Rob to help the process along.

Despite several witnesses, including neighbors and their own child testifying that the mother was the violent partner of the marriage, a restraining order was placed against Rob anyway. The order also granted temporary sole custody of their son to the mother and ordered Rob to pay child support.

Rob was removed from his home and was forbidden to have any contact with his son. However, after several months Rob's wife changed her mind. She wanted a completely clean beginning, free of any prior obligations. So she called Rob and told him to come and pick his son. Rob agreed.

While en route Rob's wife called him and asked how long it would be until he arrived. He gave her his estimated time and continued to go pick up his son. Upon arrival Rob found his son in the street with his belongings packed in plastic trash bags. As Rob loaded the belongings into the car, a Sheriff's Deputy arrived.

Unknown to Rob, his wife have called in a violation of the restraining order after asking him how long it would be until he arrived at his former home. Rob was arrested for the restraining order violation and the boy was placed in temporary foster care. Once freed from jail, Rob was able to get his son from state custody.

Being that he was unemployed for so long Rob was having a hard time finding full time work. He had the credentials, but no current experience. Rob and his son ended up living in a tent in a North Carolina State Park for the summer. During this time Rob tried to get the child support order dropped. The courts not only refused to drop the support order, but decided to enforce the no contact with his son provision of the existing domestic violence restraining order they also refused to drop and Rob was arrested again.

Rob says, "That sure kept me from asking again." Events like the above went on for the balance of the two years the domestic violence restraining order remained in effect. Rob moved on trying to support himself and his son, while paying a child support order to a parent who refused to have any contact with their own child. Once the restraining order expired the courts finally dropped the child support order against Rob and granted him sole custody of his child.

Damon Stover writes:

Subject: Dad Facts cont

But not all cases end in disaster, like Bill R's case; once again that is his real name. Bill wanted the military to be his career. Early on he married, the couple had a son and all looked wonderful. That is until his wife developed a serious substance abuse problem. An intervention hosted by family and friends resulted in Bill's wife leaving one night without any notice to Bill or anyone he knew and not returning.

Given Bill's entry level pay scale he was having a hard time financially. So Bill tried to go about what we all know every reasonable single parent does and filed for child support. After two years without receiving a cent he went to the court house for help enforcing the child support order.

To his absolute shock he was told right to his face that, "We don't enforce against women." Bill chuckled and replied, "So much for equal protection under the law." The case worker scolded him and then informed him that if he didn't watch his mouth she would call children's services on him and make sure they take his son so he would have no reason to return to her office and give her anymore lip service. Bill never received so much as one cent in child support.

Despite the bad experience Bill had with the family court and having to give up his dream of military service to earn more money, he made the choice to do what was in the best interest of everyone concerned, especially his son.

Bill worked tirelessly to inspire his son to love and respect his mother. Although nearly a decade passed before Bill’s wife got help for her substance abuse issues, she did reestablish contact with her son and today they enjoy a happy and healthy relationship. No matter what goes wrong in a family law case, that should be how it ends.

Dana Monroe writes:

Subject: Parenting Dereliction

Am I the only one seeing a child abandonment theme being totally neglected? As a primary caretaker if my child was brought to the drop off by the school bus and no one came to pick them up, the instructions are to take my child to the precinct- and duly so since I, at the time, had not presented any apparent evidence of having made arrangements for their retrieval. Then of course ACS is called and the term "abandonment" starts the heading of the report. That being said, where is the legislation that applies to a deadbeat dad that just walks out of a child's life willingly, show capability of parenting someone else's children and continuing to make other babies, take care of them and not the priors? Did I mention there's a historical pattern n tow? I'm not talking about an incarcerated, drugged out, declared mentally insane, homicidal maniac (at this point I'll take any relief!!). I am talking about an individual who is a functional member of society, employed, visible, capable of acquiring a carnote even if only for a brief interlude. There is more than enough evidence on the not so favourable outcomes of children lacking both parents in their lives.This does not mean the parents have o be in a relationship either. No discredit to single parents but let's not stray from the original abandonment topic. My kids father crossed the border to Virginia of his own choosing and without any concern for two children whose lives for the first two years were involved in his everyday. Are there any politicians of the conservative sort willing to take up this mantle? I hope you didn't hear me express any sympathy for the incarcerated either. The parent who chooses a life of crime over taking care of their children ought to be in jail for the very same plus whatever other charges they may have accrued. I am not my children's mother and father. I am their mother and have no intentions of trying to figure out what exactly it is that men bring to the table and then take some stab at recreating that. As incomprehensible as men are to me, I know they are an integral part to our development as a society and a humanity- especially children.

Jan O writes:

Subject: Deadbeat moms?

Why is there no mention of deadbeat moms? Is there not such a thing? You bet there is! The father pays child support and the mother has specific items (in the court decree) that child support is to be paid for. Who is there to help when the child does not receive these items? Oh, that's right, nobody! The father now has to pay for things that the child support was supposed to pay for. Why isn't there a database for deadbeat moms!