Non-father must pay past-due child support, Ark. court says
LITTLE ROCK (AP) — Even though a paternity test ruled out Anthony L. Parker as the father of a child in a child-support dispute, he still has to pay support owed the mother before he took the test, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.The court reversed a decision by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary Spencer McGowan and sent the case back to her to determine the amount Parker must pay.
The opinion, written by Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin, said state law and prior court cases make it clear that an “acknowledged father” cannot be relieved of past-due child support.
State law only speaks to a man’s future child-support obligations once that person has been found through testing not to be a child’s father. And Associate Justice Robert L. Brown said in a concurring opinion that the court was “legislating by inference.”
Brown said the opinion reached “a grossly unfair result by saddling a person with a post-due support debt” when that person has not claimed to be the father and is proven not to be. He urged the state Legislature to clarify the law.
In the case, the state Office of Child Support Enforcement filed a paternity complaint against Parker on April 18, 2002, but Parker did not respond. McGowan entered a judgment of paternity June 20, 2002, and ordered Parker to pay $24 a week in child support and $4,446 in past-due support.
Parker did not pay the money, and the state agency filed a contempt motion against him March 7, 2003. But Parker did not appear for a court hearing on the motion, and the judge issued a pick-up order for him.
Before Parker was arrested in March 2005, the state garnished his wages from June 2004 through February 2005. Parker asked for a paternity test and was found not to be the father.
The state agency continued to pursue past-due support, but McGowan denied the request Feb. 28, 2006.
“To force a man to pay the state … payments made to a woman for a child that is not his violates all precepts of common law as to who is responsible for supporting a child,” McGowan wrote.
My first thought was that this was a female judge I’m sorry to say. The few times I’ve heard of “unfair” judgments is been a female judge angry at the father, and overturned in an appeal. But Judge Donald here obviously isn’t female. I don’t want to say the case smells of stupidity… but, what’s going on here? Is he instead having to pay this as fines for ignoring the previous trials? Legally this just doesn’t sound right. And it sounds like it was appealed to the Supreme Court and upheld.
Oh and I want to apologize for the “sexist bashing.” Those that know me, know this isn’t the norm.
Tags: Interesting, Legal, Oddities, Weird
