Jerk
8/25/2007, 08:26 AM
...is really yours.
(long but if you scroll down to about the middle I put the important part in bold)
By MELVIN CLAXTON
and SHEILA BURKE
Staff Writers
Five years ago, James Ridley was running scared, facing possible jail time after falling seriously behind on his child-support payments.
Ridley, left blind in one eye and permanently brain damaged after a brutal carjacking in 1995, owed $11,635 in support. The Nashville native said the court's solution, garnishing $104 from his weekly wages, left him nearly broke.
"There were many times I was taking home $38 a week after they took out the child-support payments," recalls 36-year-old Ridley, who worked as a kitchen helper and dishwasher in a local restaurant. "I couldn't live on that, but I kept working because the judge said if I didn't make the payment I would go to jail. I didn't want to go to jail."
But there was something Ridley didn't know: The 9-year-old boy and 4-year-old girl he struggled to support were not his biological children. That bombshell would remain a secret until 2006, when DNA tests recommended by his lawyer revealed Ridley hadn't fathered either child by his former girlfriend.
Ridley's case — which ended in a judge terminating his support payments and parental rights — is far from unique. It offers insights into how DNA technology, best known for its use in criminal investigations, is reshaping child-support and custody cases across Tennessee. Thanks to DNA, which has replaced the inexact paternity blood tests used previously, courts can now determine with near irrefutable surety who is and who is not a child's biological father.
The impact is significant and far-reaching.
On a personal level, DNA testing has dragged old infidelities and betrayals to the forefront, tearing apart families and forever altering the lives of children. On a larger scale, this technology — which is increasingly affordable and accessible — has highlighted the failure of state law to provide clear guidelines on the rights of the men who were misled into believing they were biological fathers.
It has been messy and salacious.
Men, armed with concrete evidence of a girlfriend's or spouse's infidelity, have gone to court to stop child-support payments. Many have voluntarily given up all contact with the children they once raised and cared for as their own flesh and blood.
Trapped in the middle are the children, innocent victims who are forced to watch helplessly as their families fall apart.
"They have no voice at all," said Nashville family court judge Carol Soloman. "The children have to suffer because of a parent's wrongdoing."
The fallout from the use of DNA demonstrates the need for updating paternity laws, experts say.
"I think there is a genuine mess because of the conflict between technological advances and the lag in the law," said family law expert Joanna Grossman, professor of law at Hofstra University School of Law in New York. "We are going to have these conflicts because there is no consensus on how important biology is to being declared a legal parent."
27% of claims disproved
There is no way to tell how many wrongly named fathers are paying child support in Middle Tennessee or across the state. But where statistics are available, they give pause.
Last year, the Tennessee Department of Human Services tested more than 7,000 men who had been named as fathers by women seeking child-support or government assistance. Approximately 2,000 of the men — roughly 27 percent — were not the biological father, DHS records show.
The percentage is roughly the same in the Davidson County Juvenile Court, which sometimes orders its own DNA testing. In addition, researchers estimate that in the general population about one in 10 Tennessee men named as biological fathers in specific cases are not.
That number, experts say, is true nationally.
"That is a commonly accepted number and sometimes thought to be higher," said Ellen Clayton, professor of pediatrics and professor of law at Vanderbilt University. "It suggests that the lack of fidelity is higher than what people expected."
Judges are on the spot
The ability of DNA to eliminate as well as confirm men as biological fathers with unprecedented certainty has put increased pressure on judges in paternity cases. They must walk a tightrope, pitting the interests of the aggrieved men against the well-being of the children who depend on them for financial and emotional support.
This legal tug-of-war has led to conflicting court opinions, with some men allowed to end support payments while others are forced to maintain them for years.
These decisions have led to hard feelings and harder words.
When James Ridley, armed with DNA results, thought the judge was moving too slowly to end his support payments, he become vocal in the courtroom and landed in big trouble.
The judge held him in contempt of court and sent him to the very place he had desperately tried to avoid for years — a cell.
"It was horrible," said Ridley, who spent 42 minutes in a juvenile court holding cell. "I just wanted to explain to the judge that I wasn't the father, and that I just didn't have time to keep coming back again and again to court."
To avoid unnecessary angst, some judges are looking to the state legislature for guidance.
Bill did not pass
"While the court is always sympathetic towards men who find themselves in this situation, judges must also take into consideration what is in the best interest of the child," said Juvenile Court Referee Scott Rosenberg, who has presided over paternity and support cases in Nashville for nine years. "I think it is important for the state legislature to step in and clarify the issues of law and lay out a clear public policy on paternity matters."
Attempts by the legislature to alter the paternity law included a bill introduced this past legislative session that would have allowed a man to stop paying support for a child that is not his, no matter when he finds out he's not the father.
"I think it's an injustice to make someone pay for a child that isn't theirs," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville. He said he introduced the bill after hearing from a constituent who was stuck paying child support even though he was proven not to be the biological father.
The bill didn't pass.
Cases can be anguishing
While officials grapple with broader implications of DNA testing, Iraq war veteran Freddie Joyner has seen the consequences upfront and personal. Joyner estimates he has spent nearly $50,000 in child support and gifts for a 7-year-old girl who turned out not to be his daughter.
Joyner's experience demonstrates the complexity of emotions and financial concerns these cases generate. Joyner is now willing to end his relationship with the little girl, born to his former girlfriend, although he said he carried the girl's picture on his helmet during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and still loves her dearly.
"She kept me going," he said, recalling his days in the combat zone. "I knew I had to make it back home to her."
When Joyner left the Army this year, he returned to Nashville — passing up a better paying job in another state — to be close to the little girl, he said.
But nagging doubts about the child's paternity prompted him to take a DNA test. The results, which he received a week after Father's Day, were devastating.
"I cried," he recalls. "I knew right then that I wasn't going to see her grow up or be a part of her life."
Joyner is trying to permanently end his monthly child-support payments of $732. While a judge temporarily suspended the payments earlier this month, Joyner still faces a significant hurdle.
Because he voluntarily acknowledged he was the girl's father and had his name placed on the birth certificate, it may not be easy for him to end his payments. State law gives him five years to challenge his voluntary acknowledgment, and that time has expired.
The primary exception to that law involves proving the mother of the child knowingly lied when she told him he was the father. But proving fraud on the part of the mother in such situations is difficult, experts agree.
Joyner now faces a crucial court hearing in August to determine if his support payments should end. He is hoping the court rules in his favor.
"I love (the child) to death," Joyner said. "But any law that says a man must support a child that is not his is wrong."
(long but if you scroll down to about the middle I put the important part in bold)
By MELVIN CLAXTON
and SHEILA BURKE
Staff Writers
Five years ago, James Ridley was running scared, facing possible jail time after falling seriously behind on his child-support payments.
Ridley, left blind in one eye and permanently brain damaged after a brutal carjacking in 1995, owed $11,635 in support. The Nashville native said the court's solution, garnishing $104 from his weekly wages, left him nearly broke.
"There were many times I was taking home $38 a week after they took out the child-support payments," recalls 36-year-old Ridley, who worked as a kitchen helper and dishwasher in a local restaurant. "I couldn't live on that, but I kept working because the judge said if I didn't make the payment I would go to jail. I didn't want to go to jail."
But there was something Ridley didn't know: The 9-year-old boy and 4-year-old girl he struggled to support were not his biological children. That bombshell would remain a secret until 2006, when DNA tests recommended by his lawyer revealed Ridley hadn't fathered either child by his former girlfriend.
Ridley's case — which ended in a judge terminating his support payments and parental rights — is far from unique. It offers insights into how DNA technology, best known for its use in criminal investigations, is reshaping child-support and custody cases across Tennessee. Thanks to DNA, which has replaced the inexact paternity blood tests used previously, courts can now determine with near irrefutable surety who is and who is not a child's biological father.
The impact is significant and far-reaching.
On a personal level, DNA testing has dragged old infidelities and betrayals to the forefront, tearing apart families and forever altering the lives of children. On a larger scale, this technology — which is increasingly affordable and accessible — has highlighted the failure of state law to provide clear guidelines on the rights of the men who were misled into believing they were biological fathers.
It has been messy and salacious.
Men, armed with concrete evidence of a girlfriend's or spouse's infidelity, have gone to court to stop child-support payments. Many have voluntarily given up all contact with the children they once raised and cared for as their own flesh and blood.
Trapped in the middle are the children, innocent victims who are forced to watch helplessly as their families fall apart.
"They have no voice at all," said Nashville family court judge Carol Soloman. "The children have to suffer because of a parent's wrongdoing."
The fallout from the use of DNA demonstrates the need for updating paternity laws, experts say.
"I think there is a genuine mess because of the conflict between technological advances and the lag in the law," said family law expert Joanna Grossman, professor of law at Hofstra University School of Law in New York. "We are going to have these conflicts because there is no consensus on how important biology is to being declared a legal parent."
27% of claims disproved
There is no way to tell how many wrongly named fathers are paying child support in Middle Tennessee or across the state. But where statistics are available, they give pause.
Last year, the Tennessee Department of Human Services tested more than 7,000 men who had been named as fathers by women seeking child-support or government assistance. Approximately 2,000 of the men — roughly 27 percent — were not the biological father, DHS records show.
The percentage is roughly the same in the Davidson County Juvenile Court, which sometimes orders its own DNA testing. In addition, researchers estimate that in the general population about one in 10 Tennessee men named as biological fathers in specific cases are not.
That number, experts say, is true nationally.
"That is a commonly accepted number and sometimes thought to be higher," said Ellen Clayton, professor of pediatrics and professor of law at Vanderbilt University. "It suggests that the lack of fidelity is higher than what people expected."
Judges are on the spot
The ability of DNA to eliminate as well as confirm men as biological fathers with unprecedented certainty has put increased pressure on judges in paternity cases. They must walk a tightrope, pitting the interests of the aggrieved men against the well-being of the children who depend on them for financial and emotional support.
This legal tug-of-war has led to conflicting court opinions, with some men allowed to end support payments while others are forced to maintain them for years.
These decisions have led to hard feelings and harder words.
When James Ridley, armed with DNA results, thought the judge was moving too slowly to end his support payments, he become vocal in the courtroom and landed in big trouble.
The judge held him in contempt of court and sent him to the very place he had desperately tried to avoid for years — a cell.
"It was horrible," said Ridley, who spent 42 minutes in a juvenile court holding cell. "I just wanted to explain to the judge that I wasn't the father, and that I just didn't have time to keep coming back again and again to court."
To avoid unnecessary angst, some judges are looking to the state legislature for guidance.
Bill did not pass
"While the court is always sympathetic towards men who find themselves in this situation, judges must also take into consideration what is in the best interest of the child," said Juvenile Court Referee Scott Rosenberg, who has presided over paternity and support cases in Nashville for nine years. "I think it is important for the state legislature to step in and clarify the issues of law and lay out a clear public policy on paternity matters."
Attempts by the legislature to alter the paternity law included a bill introduced this past legislative session that would have allowed a man to stop paying support for a child that is not his, no matter when he finds out he's not the father.
"I think it's an injustice to make someone pay for a child that isn't theirs," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville. He said he introduced the bill after hearing from a constituent who was stuck paying child support even though he was proven not to be the biological father.
The bill didn't pass.
Cases can be anguishing
While officials grapple with broader implications of DNA testing, Iraq war veteran Freddie Joyner has seen the consequences upfront and personal. Joyner estimates he has spent nearly $50,000 in child support and gifts for a 7-year-old girl who turned out not to be his daughter.
Joyner's experience demonstrates the complexity of emotions and financial concerns these cases generate. Joyner is now willing to end his relationship with the little girl, born to his former girlfriend, although he said he carried the girl's picture on his helmet during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and still loves her dearly.
"She kept me going," he said, recalling his days in the combat zone. "I knew I had to make it back home to her."
When Joyner left the Army this year, he returned to Nashville — passing up a better paying job in another state — to be close to the little girl, he said.
But nagging doubts about the child's paternity prompted him to take a DNA test. The results, which he received a week after Father's Day, were devastating.
"I cried," he recalls. "I knew right then that I wasn't going to see her grow up or be a part of her life."
Joyner is trying to permanently end his monthly child-support payments of $732. While a judge temporarily suspended the payments earlier this month, Joyner still faces a significant hurdle.
Because he voluntarily acknowledged he was the girl's father and had his name placed on the birth certificate, it may not be easy for him to end his payments. State law gives him five years to challenge his voluntary acknowledgment, and that time has expired.
The primary exception to that law involves proving the mother of the child knowingly lied when she told him he was the father. But proving fraud on the part of the mother in such situations is difficult, experts agree.
Joyner now faces a crucial court hearing in August to determine if his support payments should end. He is hoping the court rules in his favor.
"I love (the child) to death," Joyner said. "But any law that says a man must support a child that is not his is wrong."