General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDetroit man faces prison for not paying child support for child who isn't his; sparking controversy
The Detroit man learned years ago that an ex had listed him as the father so she could sign up for welfare, which prompted the state of Michigan to seek him out for child support. The state claims it notified Carnell of a paternity hearing, and when he didn’t show up, the state declared that he was the father.
But there is the other problem — Alexander never got that notice. In fact, at the time the court claimed he received the petition, Alexander was actually in prison serving a sentence for an earlier crime.
As 7News in Detroit noted, Carnell Alexander tried to clear up the issue once he found out about it, but was told by a judge that he was too late. He was stuck with a $30,000 child support bill for a child he never fathered or even knew about.
“A child that I did not father, that I did not biologically create, that I was not involved in raising,” said Carnell. “It is not fair.”
What makes the case even more infuriating for Alexander is the fact that he got a DNA test proving he’s not the father. The biological father was actually involved in the child’s life, but because the state pursued Alexander, he was never approached for child support.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1783422/carnell-alexander-detroit-man-could-be-headed-to-jail-for-30k-in-unpaid-child-support-for-child-thats-not-his/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)this situation.
kcr
(15,314 posts)The fact this wasn't a problem that was handled sooner. Yes, he isn't the biological father but you can't just let back child support pile up while you do nothing. If he knew he wasn't the father then, he should have said so at the time and had the child support obligation stopped.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Since he was in prison when notification was sent out and he did not receive it, how was he supposed to know? The judge said he was too late once he did become aware of it and tried to get it fixed. I think when this goes to court he will be exonerated. One should never have to pay for the State's mistakes.
kcr
(15,314 posts)My point is this isn't just a case of a man wrongly being made to pay child support for a kid that isn't his as the headline suggests. If he didn't know, of course he should be exonerated. I don't think the mere fact he was in prison is enough evidence, though.
Since he was in prison when notification was sent out and he did not receive it, how was he supposed to know? The judge said he was too late once he did become aware of it and tried to get it fixed.
kcr
(15,314 posts)How was he supposed to know? Do inmates receive no information whatsoever and are hermetically sealed from the world?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)I have no problem with that 
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)think it's already been determined that the man didn't sign it.
kcr
(15,314 posts)You tell me.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)I think you have a problem. it means I'm not following you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6139524
kcr
(15,314 posts)I don't have a problem with a finding of facts.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)in declaring the man to be irresponsible in a case where you clearly had no facts.
kcr
(15,314 posts)The fact this wasn't a problem that was handled sooner. Yes, he isn't the biological father but you can't just let back child support pile up while you do nothing. If he knew he wasn't the father then, he should have said so at the time and had the child support obligation stopped.
And, Post #9
If it's shown he didn't know, he may be
My point is this isn't just a case of a man wrongly being made to pay child support for a kid that isn't his as the headline suggests. If he didn't know, of course he should be exonerated. I don't think the mere fact he was in prison is enough evidence, though
Either you didn't read the article before shooting off a comment or you did read it and dismissed the idea of him being in prison not receiving any notice and that when he did find out he was told by a judge that it was too late.
kcr
(15,314 posts)I don't know if he knew or not. I have no idea. But it doesn't matter, because the state doesn't either. This isn't a case of the state knowing someone isn't the father and going after them anyway. This is a case of bad welfare policy. Women have to name a father or they don't get benefits. This is what happens. If he did know, he needed to address that then. In no way does that state that I think he's irresponsible. I have no idea if he is. I don't know the man.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you wrote:
The fact this wasn't a problem that was handled sooner. Yes, he isn't the biological father but you can't just let back child support pile up while you do nothing.
If you don't see that as calling someone irresponsible you and I use some wildly different dictionaries.
kcr
(15,314 posts)That this isn't OMG the evil state going after an innocent man who isn't the father! The meaning of the words are exactly what they are. The state pursuing a child support order that wasn't handled sooner. All are matters of fact. Note the absence of judgment. You are inserting that.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)to say the state should have cleared this up long ago not that Mr. Alexander was remiss in not clearing this up?
kcr
(15,314 posts)I wasn't ascribing a judgment in either case as to the reasons why. I don't know why this particular case itself wasn't resolved sooner. EDIT let me clarify. I know he says he didn't know. I don't know why the state didn't clear it up sooner.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Response to msanthrope (Reply #66)
kcr This message was self-deleted by its author.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)that Mr. Alexander was properly served?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)refused, then yes....that's going to count as good service as far as the court is involved.
I've had this happen to clients in prison. A court is not going to hold a government agency accountable for finding your location if you have a LKA that you didn't bother to change, particularly if it is with a family member.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)good to know.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Star Member msanthrope (28,400 posts)
66. It doesn't matter who signed it. That's not what determines service. nt
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Here is a link to an opinion from a Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization. He is saying this:
That’s not Alexander’s situation, though. In his case, the woman misnamed him as the father and received Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, but, when the state tried to sue Alexander for child support, it failed to notify him of the case against him. The process server who claimed he’d given Alexander notice of the suit actually gave it to a relative. Alexander was in jail at the time, so he can prove he never received service.
And since service of process is a fundamental part of due process of law, the court that’s been adjudicating matters against Alexander for several years now, has actually had no jurisdiction over him. All courts require two types of jurisdiction of a case, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The court that’s ruled in Alexander’s case had jurisdiction of the subject matter, i.e. child support, but none over Alexander since he was never properly informed about the case against him. The original child support order is therefore null and void because a court without jurisdiction is a court whose orders are without effect
Mr. Alexander has an attorney now and it seems she is pursuing this avenue. There seems to be some sympathy for Mr. Alexander's plight from the judge as she has suspended his sentence for 30 days to give the attorney time to put up a case.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Look, I've had clients in prison who have been served at their LKA. No court is going to hold a governmental agency accountable for tracking someone down when you haven't bothered to change your LKA, or, if your LKA is with a relative who accepted on your behalf.
In this case, it looks to be that the father accepted service. No court is going to accept the excuse that Mr. Alexander was then not "aware" of what was going on.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)by your professional experience I have none. I am only passing on what I have been able to find using teh Google.So I respect that you posses a more realistic view of the eventual ruling.
Having been on the consumer end of Family Law I have nothing but sympathy for Mr. Alexander. My counsel battled for 5 years to get the DA office to allow me to pay the past due amount in payments. The debt was eventually satisfied by the county takiking the sum from my income tax over those same years.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
TeamPooka
(24,205 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The burden of resolving problems that aren't yours should never be on you. The state screwed up all the way down the line on this one, they should be the ones who bear the burden, not someone whose only problem was the state screwing up.
kcr
(15,314 posts)If there is a child support oder you can't simply refuse to pay it. If you aren't the parent, you can't simply say "Not me!" There would be an awful lot of single parents raising kids totally on their own if it were that easy. "The burden of resolving problems should never be on you" Well, who should they be on? Everyone is a "you" Whenever there is a problem, someone is going to have to solve it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)kcr
(15,314 posts)My whole point is child support obligations don't just magically go away by themselves. He might not have known because he was in jail and never saw the summons. My whole point is child support obligations don't just disappear, and the state isn't going to give up. I know that a certain crowd that thinks child support is just a racket to punish men, and love to point at these stories as evidence. But they aren't. This isn't a case of a state knowingly going after a man who isn't a father for child support. The biggest thing wrong with this story is welfare reform, and the real cause of the problem. They won't give women benefits unless they name the father. None of this would have happened had that not been a requirement.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Your post reeks of victim-blaming.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1559678/man-fights-30k-support-order-for-child-hes-never-met-dna-test-showed-hes-not-the-father/#Fo8Qc6ejKlhxppik.99
The child Carnell Alexander has been ordered to pay back child support for was born in 1987. Everyone agrees that the child isn’t his. He discovered that he was considered a father at a traffic stop in the early 90’s according to WXYZ News. Alexander told WXYZ News that the officer called him a deadbeat dad.
“I knew I didn’t have a child, so I was kind of blown back,” Alexander explained.
The court told Alexander that it was too late for the court to order a DNA test, he said. Alexander said that when he first discovered that the State of Michigan was ordering that he pay back child support, he didn’t even know where the mother of the child was or how to find her. Alexander said he tried explaining the situation to the court, but no one would help him. He said that Friend of the Court employees weren’t legally allowed to give him advice on the issue, and that he didn’t understand at the time what kind of formal steps would need to be taken to rectify the problem.
He said that one day, simply by chance, he ran into someone who was able to help him get in contact with the mother of the child that was said to be his. The woman said she knew he wasn’t the child’s father. A DNA test was arranged between the two and Alexander was right. He was not the father of the child that he was ordered to pay back child support for. In an odd twist, the actual father of the child was actually in the child’s life.
Armed with a DNA test and the mother’s acknowledgement that the child was not his, he approached the court again, but the judge would not free him of his support order.
“Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby,” Alexander remembered.
The reason why it was too late for a DNA test is because in the late 1980’s, the State of Michigan sent a process server to Alexander’s father’s house to deliver a summons. The process server’s documentation said that the summons was refused, but Alexander said he didn’t refuse. He says he wasn’t there. When WXYZ News checked the process server’s documents, Alexander’s story was accurate. He couldn’t have refused the summons at the Highland Park home because he was serving time in prison at the time.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1559678/man-fights-30k-support-order-for-child-hes-never-met-dna-test-showed-hes-not-the-father/#Fo8Qc6ejKlhxppik.99
trumad
(41,692 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)in jail.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
jen1980
(77 posts)then yes he *is* a bad dad.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... if the child is not his, and he was never involved in the child's life, I don't think its unreasonable for him to take the position that he shouldn't have to pay.
And the child (mother) received support for the child. The child is grown now. This is a suit brought by the State seeking reimbursement of the support paid to the mother over the years.
I think that's a good law in most instances - it saves the child support program money and puts the responsibility for the child where it belongs - most of the time. But it should go without saying that they should be sure they have the right guy, and not try to enforce a judgment against someone (who is obviously the wrong guy) based only on a "you're too late" technicality.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)OLDMADAM
(82 posts)She knowingly lied to the State Authorities in identifying the wrong man, knowing who the real man was.. Why isn't the mother the the real father now responsible? She and he are crooks!
LisaL
(44,972 posts)He is not the dad.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)And he should get any income and savings the POS has. The state should STFU and pay him for his troubles.
Evil and ignorance should never be projected onto innocent people.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)The article indicates she just used his name so that she could qualify for Welfare. The *state* used that info to go after him for child support. The mother has actually tried to help him.
I wonder why a single mother is required to list a father in order to qualify for Welfare? That seems to be where the problem originated.
Beaverhausen
(24,470 posts)states try to get back any welfare paid to a mother when there is a father out there not paying support. States would rather the parent's pay for the child than the state. Not saying right or wrong, just what it is.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... after the father for reimbursement. It's a cost saving effort.
The real problem is that the State was permitted to get a "default" judgment against the guy when he didn't show up. Basically the Court ruled that he was a deadbeat dad, and awarded the State reimbursement of the $ paid to the mother. By the time he learned of it and obtained proof he was not the father, the time limits for appeals and reconsideration had run.
LisaL
(44,972 posts)It would appear she knew who the real father was.
So, what gives?
TeamPooka
(24,205 posts)since he found out for a long time.
That's why it's piled up to 30K.
But nice of you to throw the "he must be lazy judgement thing" out there.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)90s.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... maybe. But as I read the story, when he found out he didn't know where the woman was and was at a loss as to what to do. He says he went to the Court and tried to clear it up - but he got the run around. In my experience, it would be very easy for someone in his position to just say "well, I tried to tell them, but no one would help me".
Most states are way behind on trying to collect these judgments, and it probably just sat there while he went on about his life for 20 years. They might have never gotten around to actually going after him. But then he stumbled across the mother, got the test and her statement that he was not the father, and he went back to court to clear it up. That's when he was told "it's too late", and it looks as if someone decided that since he was there, they needed to prosecute him.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)difficult to access a system when you have limited money and education.
Hopefully, his new attorney will be able to make a settlement with the state.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Because if you don't, I can't see how you could possibly have an opinion on that.
Is it because she used his name to gain Welfare? Why does a single mother need to list a father to qualify for Welfare in the first place?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I agree that it should be fixed.
But she lied on an official government application, which damages her credibility.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)any woman can name any man the father of her child. It is up to the named "father" to prove that he is not and that in itself is not cheap. Imo, the woman should be gone after by the State for welfare fraud.
kcr
(15,314 posts)In no way should she be charged with welfare fraud. In cases where women don't know or aren't entirely sure who the father is, what do you propose they do? Go without?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I'm not aware of anyone being denied help if they have said, I don't know who the father is. Are you?
kcr
(15,314 posts)Just because you aren't aware of something doesn't mean it isn't so.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)she committed welfare fraud. And it does sound like she did know- because the real father was/is in the child's life.
kcr
(15,314 posts)dsc
(52,152 posts)I know you aren't the father and, on top of that, she said the real father is in the kids life.
kcr
(15,314 posts)And I don't see that anywhere. This is also not a new case. I've heard and read about it before and do not remember ever hearing that she'd told him that.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)For further understanding you can look at this link which is part of the linked to article:
kcr
(15,314 posts)
I don't see anywhere that states she told him he wasn't the father.tonedevil
(3,022 posts)kcr
(15,314 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)are you always so argumentative?
kcr
(15,314 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Since you didn't answer mine, I won't answer yours.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)TeamPooka
(24,205 posts)
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Did he go to Olive Garden?
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)He is the father based on a technically but not a technicality like a constitutional rights violation. He missed a court date which a wide ranging of possibilities exist like maybe he didn't check his mail. Maybe it says why somewhere out there but I'll say this -- and hardly consider this whistle blower material as the judge was probably well within her rights because she said it in a room full of cameras and microphones but the last time I was in misdemeanor court, someone receiving a paper telling him his next court date from her assistant, don't know the official title I'll go with clerk. The court room had one of those swinging door type of things on that barrier between the court & the seats. He let it slam shut on the way out, she clearly mentioned I can't remember what but that letting the door slam irritated her. Seconds later she tells her clerk, "change his court date" and as they're both typing and looking at a computer she asks her "what address to send it to" to "cover her back" (or something similar with the words "cover my" at the beginning of it.
Everyone in the court or possibly could have heard it, witnessed it, and were all unmoved by it. But if he misses that court date which was immediately changed after receiving a piece of paper telling him his next court day, it is all on him. Also if he did than the judge got her justice served for letting that door slam.
Anyways, I could express further but no way in hell do I support him going to prison over child support which was based on a lie to get TANF
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)The Detroit man learned years ago that an ex had listed him as the father so she could sign up for welfare, which prompted the state of Michigan to seek him out for child support. The state claims it notified Carnell of a paternity hearing, and when he didn’t show up, the state declared that he was the father.
But there is the other problem — Alexander never got that notice. In fact, at the time the court claimed he received the petition, Alexander was actually in prison serving a sentence for an earlier crime.
As 7News in Detroit noted, Carnell Alexander tried to clear up the issue once he found out about it, but was told by a judge that he was too late. He was stuck with a $30,000 child support bill for a child he never fathered or even knew about.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but highlighted the reason which I should have claimed likely exists but also tried to relay something why something such as missing a court date would have a reasonable explanation and that is one far more reasonable since the opportunity to show up wasn't even an option.
I also missed a court date once I realized the 15th was going to land on a Sunday, I remember he asked a clarification from the judge but I thought he added a one. Closer inspections shows he crossed it out but it was very tight straight down the one so it still appeared to be a 1 from a casual look. Courts always hold the responsibility on the defendant though attorney giving a client a wrong court date is often a reason why people miss court dates.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 26, 2015, 04:46 PM - Edit history (2)
the first story I told to highlight a possible missing future court data didn't even involve me except my mention that I witnessed it.
The second one was to clarify the point I was making, I also pointed to others missing court dates for a similar reason. I didn't need to read further because I didn't need a reason to believe the reason why he did miss it was likely reasonable. All this was to try to clarify a misunderstand which led to a bigger misunderstanding. I didn't read further not because I was thinking about me but I was badly misunderstood from the get go in this sub-thread which is my responsibility since it was my words and my inarticulate way of defending him that caused this, so I'm sorry meaning it wasn't my intentions.
I often don't read initially but get back to it, I made the mistake of trying to say the explanation on why he missed it likely exists the wrong way and I understood a high probability it was further down. I usually have several topic interests (and "about me" is far from the motivation of those topic interests) going at once when I have DU so I often do a quick overview, I often read the thread before I read the article, just a quirk of mine. When it came to the missing court date, the reasons why he missed it are unnecessary to feel the actions taken against him were unjust. I hope this clarifies my point or my intentions. Hardly self-interested motivated, I f'd up in defending him.
On edit - I badly clarified that. I explained the reason why I didn't read further is explained because I was misunderstood which logically doesn't make sense. I'm not even going to bother to try to clarify that, I'm a lot of stress & have issues getting adequate sleep or healthy sleep schedules which is an issue that stretches back to early in my teen years, I'm just trying to explain the sleep deprivation. Having discussions on DU offers a comfort to that stress when outside the DU place is a very Republican reality -- I live in the city #1 on the list -- http://www.salon.com/2014/10/29/the_10_most_conservative_and_liberal_cities_in_america_partner/
I'm going to shut my laptop to prevent a further digging of the hole
TeamPooka
(24,205 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)The bigger issue than being justified in responsibility by writing is name on the birth certificate is based on the most common similar but very different cases like this where a man is continued ordered to pay child support or back child support for a child that isn't biologically his but defended because he put his name on the birth certificate on the line above 'father' (which I don't support myself, especially if the possibility it wasn't was withheld). DU searches would likely confirm the existence of those child support disputes. Basically my claim was this was different and no way whatsoever legally justified even factoring his missing court date for whatever reason. My contrasting the law breaking technicality by the police to highlight my concerns. "Guilty" was an exaggeration which was intentional on my part but assumed the satire would be clear, plus I didn't put a whole lot of thought in using it.
He is the father based on a technically but not a technicality like a constitutional rights violation.
The first references the claim from the article "The state claims it notified Carnell of a paternity hearing, and when he didn’t show up, the state declared that he was the father." That is all I mean with the first claim. The second deals with having the police have a drug possession thrown out because they violated the 4th amendment for stopping and searching the defendant for no reason or no probable cause or reasonable suspicion (which would limit to an outer patdown). I forgot to mention that an Ohio man was ruled legally dead based on a technically (which I forgot the reason, I think for waiting so long to challenge his death status so he can start working again).
He missed a court date which a wide ranging of possibilities exist like maybe he didn't check his mail.
He factually did miss a court date but I made the mistake with the word possibilities instead of reasonable explanations and not checking his mail would be what I consider reasonable. The next one after that is "maybe" the reported explanation could exist and when I said that, I understand in all likelihood it did.
Where it all blew in my face but I would appreciate you in pointing in which facts I mention that specifically pertain to him are wrong with the exception of mistypes (on a recent post, I typed histories when I clearly meant Turkey and didn't see it until after my post reply. My most common is mistake is typing the word "know" in sentences I have every intention of typing but I somehow don't & don't figure why I do it with the exception I don't stop, make sure to include it, then continue typing) is the being my prison didn't hit my radar as a reason though personally, even if he missed it for a reason like he just didn't feel like going -- I still feel the actions taken against him would be unjust so I didn't concern myself with the specific reason because it didn't matter to me in how I feel the actions taken him against him.
As far as the rest of my claims, all intended to highlight what I would consider a reasonable missing of a court date by something I thought was unreasonable on the part of the judge, though legally allowed and the next judge would hold him reasonable. My further clarification was intended to show what I was trying to say by mentioning someone would miss a court date for a reasonable reason like a lawyer giving him the wrong court date but the judge holding him responsible for missing it because it is on him for making it. Basically, I used another example there in the attempt to be crystal clear in clarifying my mistake as I'm making great pains to do so here.
Though your claim that my facts are wrong, appear to be wrong and where it is, I'd appreciate you pointing it out specifically which fact I claimed is wrong.
As far as the example, a good chance I misheard the following 3 sentences after the door was let slammed and the memory of which certain words in the sentences has already faded. If you want to independently verify, the evidence if it does would exist at West Mesa Justice Court, E 1st avenue (near Center st so its close to a 0 building number), courtroom #302 (IIRC) sometime shortly after 9am, January 13th, 2015.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but now he's supposed to pay $30,000 in child support, and he faces prison for non-payment?
This is really screwed up.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)He should easily be able to provide the results of the paternity test.
Obviously, it never should have gotten this far in the first place, but it looks like everything will turn out ok.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It shows how messed up the justice system is. You don't get anywhere unless you can afford a good lawyer.
Imagine the number of people in jail for crap like this. No wonder America leads the world in incarceration.
TeamPooka
(24,205 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I dont know why this isn't settled already. It's proven the child isn't his and he never got the summons bc the process server said he delivers it to his house when he was in prison at the time.
This is ridiculous. The state should be concerned with going after real deadbeats, not throwing innocent people in jail.
vankuria
(904 posts)which begs the question, does he contributes anything to this child? I'm no legal expert by any stretch but when the judge say's "its too late", how could it ever be too late to know the truth, in this case the child's biological father?
We sure have a screwed up legal system.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)He is not the father and owes $0 to anyone regarding the financial care the child in question.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Proof enough he should pay the $30K. Probably deserves to do time just to be sure justice is served
hughee99
(16,113 posts)to reimburse them for benefits the mother received. The child won't get a dime of whatever he pays (and the child is now approaching 30 anyway). The mother knowingly put down Alexander's name when she knew he wasn't the father. The state then claims it served him at his house at a time at a time when he couldn't have possibly been there. It sounds like at least one (the mother) if not two (the process server) people committed fraud they aren't being prosecuted for.
LisaL
(44,972 posts)So why doesn't the state go after him?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)he's the father, paternity probably hasn't been legally established. Also, since the state didn't start legal proceedings against him years ago, it may be too late to go after him.
