Is this FAIR?


Not The Father? You Still Owe Child Support, Says Georgia Law
Posted: 3:10 pm EDT May 13, 2009
Updated: 6:13 pm EDT May 13, 2009

ATLANTA -- Larry Durden, an unemployed mason worker, told Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Regan that he is being threatened with jail time if he doesn’t continue paying child support for a child he says is not his biological son.

Durden, who says he is the victim of paternity fraud --- the act of falsely naming a man as the biological father of a child, said he assumed the boy was his son for 10 1/2 years.

"I mean, he looked like me. I thought he looked like me," said Durden.

But a few months ago, Durden said he started having doubts, and contacted a DNA testing lab. He took a paternity test and the results took him by surprise.

"It said "0"… he's not mine. So you know, that hurt … it grabbed me," said Durden.

Despite genetic evidence that Durden didn't father the boy, the state is forcing him to continue paying $500 a month in child support. And he's far from alone.

One of every three men who take a paternity test discovers a child they believed was theirs is not.

"They say 25 to 30 percent of all men who get tested find out that they're not the father," said family lawyer Randy Kessler. "That's a high number. Married, non-married, divorced ... that's going on a lot."

The state of Georgia can go after the men for child support and if they don't pay, the state can garnish their wages, revoke their driver's licenses and even put them behind bars.

"When you find out he's not your kid, it hurts because you still love him. But you don't want to pay child support for a kid that ain't yours when you got a family of your own to take care of," said Durden.

Kessler told Regan that he often deals with men who spend years raising a child under the false belief that it's their own.

"If a woman is having an affair, the last thing she wants to do as the child is being born is say, 'Uh, by the way, that baby you're holding in your arms may not be yours,'" said Kessler.

Kessler represented Carnell Smith, who became one of the leaders in the war on paternity fraud.

Smith's battle began with a call from an ex-girlfriend who said he was the father of her baby girl.

"I believed the child was mine, she said the child was mine, and it took me 11 years to find out that was absolutely not the truth," said.

Smith challenged the child support decree, and personally took the case all the way to U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court refused to hear it, but his well-publicized crusade led Georgia to reshape its paternity law.

Ex-husbands and out-of-wedlock fathers can petition to end child support through DNA evidence. But there's a catch.

"If you don't file it exactly as it is written, you don't avail yourself to the relief."

"The law makes it a little easier to quote "get off the hook" for the obligation, but you still have to do it right," said Kessler.

One of the rules requires anyone fighting child support to file a challenge within three months of finding out they are not the biological father. Missing that deadline could hurt their case.

"If you don't do it within 90 days, the court is still allowed to give you relief. It is permissive relief, but it's a case-by-case decision and it's up to the judge."

A judge will hear Durden’s case in June. He hopes to get more sympathy in court than what he's received from the county authorities. They threatened to throw him in jail if he doesn't pay them more than $1,000 in back child support -- for a child that isn't his own.

"I'm falling behind on my bills because I got to pay for a kid that's not even mine. It's crazy."

shoot, i need to go hit up my ex-stepfather for some back child support!

If you raise the kid, it's yours. His claim would be valid if he hadn't had a hand in this child;s upbringing and was now being asked for child support, but he did.

What kind of a selfish fuck does a person have to be to deny a child they've known, raised, and hopefully loved its' whole life support? Genetics be damned. Using the logic this winner is using, adoptive parents who split up shouldn't be obligated to pay child support either.

meow85 said:

Adoptive parents voluntary agree to that responsibility. This man didn't. He was tricked into accepting that responsibility.

And now he's being punished for doing something he didn't have to do in the first place... it's not right.

meow85 said:

I dunno where I stand on this. On one hand he should not be forced to pay for a child that is not his, but on the other he should not want to just walk away financially from a child he's been caring for, that he loves and has a relationship with.

"When you find out he's not your kid, it hurts because you still love him. But you don't want to pay child support for a kid that ain't yours when you got a family of your own to take care of," said Durden.

This line is so utterly gross to me.

It just goes to show you that so many people really do not have the best interest of the child at the forefront. It’s always about themselves.

He could take the paternity test to court, that would let him off the hook.

Who knows who the mother was sleeping with.

Some men, even though it's not their child, continue to pay support not because they have to but because they love the child and want to provide for the child.

luv4u said:

Wrong!

Smith challenged the child support decree, and personally took the case all the way to U.S. Supreme Court. The high court refused to hear it.

coolcat said:

So he's crying because he was "tricked" into caring for another human being?

Somehow, I find it hard to feel sympathy for guys like this.

meow85 said:

Exactly.

JustErin said:

I agree. That kid IS part of his family is he's been in the child's life and has been caring for the kid. Period. At this point IMO it doesn't matter if it's genetically his offspring or not.

I could understand and probably even agree with his assertion that he shouldn't have to support a child that isn't his if we were talking about a newborn or a yuong child he'd never been involved with, but that's not the case. Balking at being asked to support a child that he's already been involved with is sick and selfish.

meow85 said:

If the man were u, would u feel the same way?

Graycap23 said:

Being female, chances are if I had a kid I'd know it was mine.

But yes, I would. I'd probably argue against having to pay support if it was a young child I'd never been involved with that wasn't my blood. But a 10 year old that I'd been raising? I would definitely consider that child mine, even if I wasn't the father. Though God if I wouldn't be pissed off at the mother for lying to my ass all those years. But that should be an issue between the adults. No need to punish the kid for something he had nothing to do with. He didn't ask for mama to cheat.

coolcat said:

uPtoWnNY said:

The guy is being asked to support a child he's already been supporting and raising, and the selfish fuck wants to cry about it. Boo fucking hoo. If you raise a child, it is yours. Period.

meow85 said:

I do not understand why he should be obligated to pay child support any more than anyone who had absolutely no involement with the child.

It is trickery, and he has every right to be upset... Wouldn't you mind if the state arbitrarily just picked you to take care of someone else's child?

coolcat said:

That would be different, but this isn't arbitrary at all. This is a child he has known and helped raise for years.

meow85 said:

I don't see why that makes him responsible for child support.

coolcat said:

I have no words for that.

This kid is as good as his own, even if it's not biologically his offspring. He spent years looking after the child, supporting the kid and presumably loving it. But now he can back out just because it's not his genetic material?

I am so so SO glad not everyone thinks like you.
[Edited 5/14/09 14:55pm]

Why am I thinking that when first the courts decide to make a guy pay child support,
that they should take a DNA test before carrying out the action of the court to have him pay child support.
They have technology now, so why not use it?

That would prevent him from paying for someone else's child, it's not easy to have to support the family,
and then support another family.

This is wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Men are held hostage by the law and it's not right.

wildgoldenhoney said:

If he's been caring for that child for 10 years, that kid IS his family.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

If more men could be responsible parents, this wouldn't even be an issue...

meow85 said:

How about responsibly sleeping ONLY with your boyfriend/husband? This is legal entrapment and I bat for team guy 1 billion percent on this issue.

meow85 said:

That's why he said he's torn, because he loves the child,
but he has another family to take care of too, his flesh and blood.

If he gets thrown in jail then the kid suffers coz there won't be any child support at all. So the kid loses.

Hmmmmm this could be the next Maury Povich show

wildgoldenhoney said:

Assuming he started another family during the time he believed that to be his blood child, he is a stupid ass.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Like I said, if we were talking about a newborn that wasn't his, or a kid he'd had no hand in raising that wasn't his and he was being asked for child support I'd agree with you fully. But we're not. We're talking about a 10 year that he has already been raising and supporting, even with his earlier suspicions about the kid's paternity.

It's not legal entrapment. What it is is asking a person not to let down a kid they've already been responsible for. The adults need to put aside their stupidity and drama and think about what's really best for the kid. Is it having the father figure he's known his whole life involved in supporting him, at least financially, or is it leaving the mother to raise him herself? Assuming neither adult was abusive and is fit to parent, IMO the first option is clearly what's best for the kid.

This shit is not about the adults involved, and never is. The man needs to suck it up, quit crying, and accept the responsibility he has already taken on.

wildgoldenhoney said:

So, blood trumps all?

meow85 said:

remove the 10 year old. It's only relevant to this article. If a woman is woman enough to perpetrate a lie on an innocent man, she should be fully responsible for that decision that only she made. it's legalized racqueteering.
[Edited 5/14/09 15:21pm]

Allow me to throw out a personal anecdote that may explain my feelings on the matter a little better, using a movie:

You guys remember Hook, the flick starring Robin Williams about what would happen if the boy who never grew up, grew up? Much as I love the movie, the ending has always bothered me. I mean, sure, Peter Pan has a responsibility to Jack and Maggie, his biological "real world" kids. He has to go back home and take care of them and be their father. But what about The Lost Boys? After finally returning after years of outright abandonment and re-accepting his role as the Pan, he leaves them. Again. But they're his kids too, aren't they?