So, will he get his money back?

[Jamisjockey]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_wrongfully_jailed

Man jailed for not supporting someone else's child
AP

Thu Jul 16, 3:48 am ET

ADEL, Ga. – A Georgia man spent more than a year behind bars for failing to pay child support for a child that wasn't his, but he was released after DNA tests showed he wasn't the father.

Frank Hatley, 50, had been jailed since June 2008 for not making payments, but two separate DNA tests in the last nine years showed he was not the father of the boy, who is now 21.

Southern Center for Human Rights attorney Sarah Geraghty won Hatley's release at a hearing Wednesday in Superior Court. A court order has also relieved him of his financial obligation to the Georgia Department of Human Resources.

"State child support officials have shown extraordinarily poor judgment in Mr. Hatley's case," Geraghty said.

Although Hatley was freed from making future payments after a 2001 hearing, Superior Court Judge Dan Perkins had ordered him to continue making $16,000 in back payments. He paid $6,000 of that before being laid off from his job.

Perkins ordered Hatley's immediate release Wednesday after determining that he was indigent. Although he was released, Hatley's paternity case is still unresolved. No future hearings are scheduled.

"Out of it all, I just feel like justice should be served for me in this case," Hatley told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution shortly after his release. "I shouldn't have to keep being punished for a child that is not mine."

Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison, who had a baby in 1987 and told Hatley the child was his, according to court records. The couple never married and split up shortly afterward.

In 1989, Morrison applied for public assistance through the state Department of Human Resources. Hatley agreed to reimburse the state because he believed the boy was his.

Documents show Hatley paid at least $9,500.

But in 2000, DNA samples showed the two were not related, according to court records. A test earlier this month confirmed that.

Seems to be a large scale miscarriage of justice on this one. 

[zahc]

In OH, if I remember correctly, you have to prove (yes, you have to prove) that you are not the father before the baby's first birthday. If you don't, then even if it comes out later that he's not your child, you still have to pay child support. How do I know? My brother-in-law's ex, while living with the man she left him for, sent him a nice child support letter 1 week after "his" child's first birthday.

[MicroBalrog]

In OH, if I remember correctly, you have to prove (yes, you have to prove) that you are not the father before the baby's first birthday

That is ridiculous. It's not that I don't believe you, but...

[K Frame]

Unfortunately there have been numerous cases like that in this country over the years.

Seems like it's rewarding a whore for being a whore.

[Standing Wolf]

Seems like it's rewarding a whore for being a whore.

Works for politicians, doesn't it?

[red headed stranger]

It's really disgusting.

From what I have been told, some of the reasoning behind some of these types of rulings is "looking out for the best interest of the child." 

[Seenterman]

From what I have been told, some of the reasoning behind some of these types of rulings is "looking out for the best interest of the child."

See I've heard that too but If you are really just looking out for the child, Why not make the REAL biological father pay the child support? Is it fair to force another man to pay for someone else's kid just because he had sex with the mother and might have more money and therefore "be able to better care for the child" than the biological father? This show's sexism is still alive, just not in the ways we would expect.

Check out divorce law, that's fun for males too. Yay! 

In reality the best explanation for this has already been said

Seems like it's rewarding a whore for being a whore.

Crap like this needs to be stopped.

[seeker_two]

Seems like it's rewarding a whore for being a whore.

Works for politicians, doesn't it?

Professional courtesy.....  :rolleyes:

[Firethorn]

California has had numerous similar cases.  They require the mother to name a father, even if she has no name.  Then they'll often go after a random guy with a similar name, going for a default judgement that assumes the guy has a minimum wage 40 hour a week job.

They send the notice using first class mail to the last known address, and there's a very limited dispute period.

One case involved an asian guy getting a dunning notice for an obviously black baby (as in the baby was darker than momma, who was also african american).  He didn't find out until his wages were garnished because they sent the letter to an old address.  That he hadn't been living at for two years.

It took extraordinary effort for him to get that stopped.

[MechAg94]

So I am curious:  If the Ex-girlfriend in the OP had any useful possessions, could the guy sue her for fraudulently claiming he was the father and therefore costing him thousands of dollars?

[red headed stranger]

So I am curious:  If the Ex-girlfriend in the OP had any useful possessions, could the guy sue her for fraudulently claiming he was the father and therefore costing him thousands of dollars?

That would be fair and make sense.  Therefore, probably not possible in a family law related case. 

[Strings]

I seem to recall a similar case in FL, where the guy was still getting hassled about back support several years after it was determined that he was not the father. The assumption seemed to be that, although he dind't owe further support, the backlog was still his...