Abuses in Establishing Paternity
Abuses in Establishing PaternityReproduced under the Fair Use exception of 17 USC § 107 for noncommercial, nonprofit, and educational use.
| EJF Home | Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter |
| Families And Marriage Book | Abstract | Family site map | Family index |
| Chapter 7 — Paternity Fraud Epidemic |
| Next — Condoning Slavery Under Color Of Law by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. |
| Back — Paternity Determinations by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. |
To maximize child support collections, the federal government requires each state to have paternity establishment procedures. The federal government also provides penalties and incentives to the states related to their performance in paternity establishment. Eligibility for receipt of federal funds under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and under the incentive formula depends on tagging the largest number of men, and there is no review or requirement that it be the right men. With the enormous sums of federal funds at stake, the result is not difficult to predict. W APF believes that the eligibility for receipt of federal funds given to states under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) must change. Kevin Harrison, Deputy Director in Orange County, California — Department of Child Support Services was quoted as saying, “...The bottom line in the drive to find some man, any man, to drive up paternity establishments rate is that 'fairness was not a high concern'...”
Abusive practices in the false paternity establishments occur in many ways, however, there are three major pathways to false paternity establishments that are the direct result of poorly designed state systems:
(2) Lack of legal representation
(3) Defective in-hospital paternity acknowledgements
Mothers who are applying for child support or welfare benefits must disclose who the father of their child is so that paternity can be established and benefits approved. And yet, there is no requirement for mothers to make a truthful disclosure to the alleged father, government officials, and the courts as to who the “true” father is and if another man could be the father. In many paternity fraud cases the mother willingly and knowingly conceals who the true father is (or may not know).
Applicants applying for child support and welfare benefits must also give the “last known address” of the proposed father. In many cases, the addresses are not correct and therefore the summons for paternity establishment goes to the wrong address and the proposed father never receives it. When he doesn't appear in court because he did not receive the summons — a default judgment — will be issued and he will turn into an instant dad.
In Los Angeles County alone, 80% of paternity establishments are entered by default judgment, and the state as a whole the number is sixty-eight percent. However, California is not alone. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of Inspector General (HHS/IG report) reported that in “seven states' child support agencies report half or more of paternities established in their states occur through defaults.” T he inspector general further reported that “[twenty-four percent of local offices in focus states report half of more of paternities in their caseloads are established by default.” Some default judgments are expected but with such a high rate of default judgments nationwide clearly there is something terribly wrong with the system.
There are very few environments in which one is more at the mercy of others than to be an unrepresented litigant in an American court. Paternity fraud victims who cannot afford appellate counsel are no more likely to be able to afford trial counsel. Imagine the defendant enters a government building intended to be intimidating; addresses a judge in a robe on a raised platform, surrounded by a bailiff, clerk, and court reporter; and is opposed by a government-paid lawyer representing the welfare department. How can anybody think that this is a fair situation for a poorly educated, low-income minority who walks into a courtroom alone? Anybody who has been in a child support court knows that most are run like a factory assembly line.
The proposed father (who in most cases hasn't even taken a DNA test) is hustled through the formality, often in less than five minutes, and may not even realize what has happened until his paycheck is garnished for child support for a child that may not be his.
The state's direct financial incentive is to establish paternity regardless of actual paternity facts. In welfare cases, there is almost always only one attorney in the courtroom and that attorney is not representing the paternity target.
In-hospital paternity acknowledgments are a cornerstone of government policy and a requirement for any state seeking TANF funds. This is an example of good intentions gone bad. If the program was well-designed and DNA testing was done prior to asking a man to sign a “paternity acknowledgment” then this program might work. However, a program that fails to screen out false paternity establishments scores a temporary statistical victory but causes enormous enforcement burdens and emotional costs to the victims of false establishments.
Hospitals do a good job in making sure that mothers are connected to the right baby. Footprints are taken, identity bands are placed on both mom and baby, nurseries are staffed and guarded by twenty-four-hour security.
Just as technology exists to protect mothers, DNA testing exists to protect men. But no in-hospital paternity acknowledgment program is geared toward providing protection for men. Anyone familiar with in-hospital paternity establishment programs knows that the programs are not geared toward verifying that the right man is identified as the biological father.
Instead, the programs are openly geared toward exploiting the emotional vulnerability of a man who has come the hospital solely because he believes that the baby who is there...is his. The man's presence in the hospital to be with “his” baby is called the “magic moment” and the child support bureaucracy openly exploits it as the best opportunity to get a paternity acknowledgment with no questions asked.
As explained by the United States Department of Health and Human Services:
• The Experience of States indicates a father of a child born to an unmarried mother is more likely to be present and to admit paternity during the time surrounding the birth than later on...
• We are not requiring genetic testing for all births as a means of preventing fraudulent acknowledgments...
• Furthermore, we are not requiring hospital-based programs to offer the option of genetic testing as part of hospital-based programs.
Men come to the hospital solely because they are led to believe that the baby is theirs. They are proud, excited, trusting, and will sign the paternity acknowledgment form without first demanding a confirmation DNA test. From that moment on...actual paternity becomes irrelevant, and the paternity fraud victim is trapped.
| EJF Home | Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter |
| Families And Marriage Book | Abstract | Family site map | Family index |
| Chapter 7 — Paternity Fraud Epidemic |
| Next — Condoning Slavery Under Color Of Law by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. |
| Back — Paternity Determinations by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. |