Just when I'm worried that everything judges do is stupid along comes a good decision, and from California no less. Men who women claim are the fathers of their children, but who really aren't and can prove it with a DNA test, will no longer be forced to pay child support for their non-kids. Despite protests from the National Organization of Women. Here's just a snippet of what was going on, and if the injustice doesn't make you angry just wait for the final paragraph.
A March, 2003 study prepared at the request of DCSS, "Examining Child Support Arrears in California," found that most complaints in California are delivered by substitute service, "which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served."Screw you, NOW. Children don't lose support payments, their lying mothers do, and they aren't entitled to support payments from a man who isn't the father. It's unbelievable to me that anyone could think differently. Then again, leftists love arbitrary wealth redistribution in other forms...."In Los Angeles County in 2000 ... 79 percent of paternity judgments were decreed by default," father's-rights advocate Glenn Sacks explains. "Most of these men had no idea they were 'fathers' until their wages were garnished."
In an article entitled "Injustice by Default: How the effort to catch 'deadbeat dads' ruins innocent men's lives," journalist Matt Welch asked California DCSS Assistant Director Leora Gerhenzon what would happen if a woman had named "Matt Welch" — a white guy between 30 and 40 years old, who maybe lives in the Los Angeles area, as the father of her child.
Gerhenzon answered, "We run our search on him; if we come back with one Matt Welch who lives in L.A., whose birthday fits that 10-year range, and we have nobody else, we presume in general we have the person."
The argument could be made that current laws encourage false-paternity claims. To receive federal funds on child-support orders, states must name the fathers of the children on assistance. Since there is no federal requirement for DNA testing for paternity, there is no state requirement.
Indeed, father's-rights advocates argue that there is an incentive for states to bypass costly testing which might rule out fatherhood. In 2002, former California Gov. Gray Davis admitted that $40 million in federal funds could be jeopardized by widespread paternity challenges.
For this reason, among others, in 2002 Davis vetoed the California Paternity Justice Act, (AB 2240), which would have extended the challenge period and vacated judgments against falsely named "fathers." Women who knowingly signed false declarations of paternity would have been liable for criminal prosecution.
(Another factor in Davis' veto was the political pressure of groups like the National Organization of Women, who successfully argued that passing the act would harm children who might lose support payments.)
In hearing Navarro's appeal, the Second District Court acknowledged that "by strict application of the law, appellant should be denied relief ... Sometimes even more important policies than the finality of judgments are at stake, however."Good. It's about time. I can't even believe how much evil is done in the world by leftists "for the sake of the children".The appeals court explained, "the County ... should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature's clear directive that child-support agencies not pursue mistaken child-support actions, the County persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse."
I'm reasonably certain I fall into the category of people you describe as "leftists", but I would never support the forcing of a proven non-father to pay child-support for his non-child. I bet if I were to poll 10 randomly-selected friends who share the views of mine that lead you to file me in the leftist category, all 10 of them would be similarly disinclined to support such an act.
I think the real issue here might revolve around your definition of "proven". Since you're apparently willing to lump me, and lots of other people, into the category of "well-intentioned but idiotic stooges" merely by virtue of our disagreement with you, broadly speaking, on the question of left-right political orientation, I think your standard of proof might need a little attention.
DNA is pretty solid proof.
JC: Well, most of the nutsos who work in Child Protective Services are "well meaning" leftist idiots. Same goes for most civil servants. They line themselves up with you, I don't have to do anything.
Although I agree with the end result (proven non-fathers not being liable for child support), I can't help but note that this is a clear example of the kind of judicial activism that conservatives normally decry. If some judge ("robed tyrant") wrote an opinion explicitly acknowledging that the law required him to rule one way, but then proceeded to rule another way based on a left-wing value, conservatives would be outraged. Why is it OK for a judge to do this when it leads to a result we like?
KH: You're wrong in that the legislature made its intentions clear, and the civil servants were ignoring them. So says (and links) the article, anyway. I'm not sure how that squares with the language of the decision.
That's a fair question, Kyle. I can see how they could seem similar, but they're really quite different.
In Navarro, the judge struck down procedural barriers to achieve what is obviously the correct result. No one except NOW zealots would say that a man should pay child support for a child that clearly isn't his. The question is merely one of balancing our procedural interest in finality against our desire to see the correct resolution. There was no question of the correct result; the only question was whether he should suffer for not having jumped through the legal hoops fast enough.
Judges are not supposed to be robots. We have judges---we need judges---in the legal system because every set of rules will create ambiguities and injustices around the edges. The judges in Navarro did it just right: They saw that the system had not worked properly in that one case. The legislature had specifically instructed enforcement agencies to recognize and correct mistakes. The County of Los Angeles had failed to do so. So the court upheld the legislature's stated intent over the technical outcome of the statute. That's what judges are supposed to do in appropriate cases: carry out the legislature's intent when the rules produce the wrong result.
That's very different from what liberal activist judges do. They wade directly into the middle of hotly contested substantive issues and produce a result that no legislature or majority of voters ever intended. Those who voted for the US Constitution and it amendments never intended it to mandate legalized abortion. Those who voted for the Massachusetts ERA never intended it to mandate SSM. The Goodridge court and the Roe v. Wade court imposed their own will in direct opposition to the people’s will. The Navarro court did the opposite: It followed the people’s will, as expressed through their legislature and imperfectly embodied in procedural rules.