Childless man freed after serving time for child support violations

[almaty 19]

CNN) -- Frank Hatley spent the past year in jail for being a deadbeat dad. But there's one problem -- Hatley doesn't have any children. And the "deadbeat" label doesn't fit the 50-year-old either, his supporters say.

Frank Hatley had been ordered to make back payments even after he learned a teenager wasn't his son.

After a hearing, Hatley was released from the Cook County Jail in south Georgia Wednesday afternoon, with the help of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins ruled that Hatley was indigent and should not be jailed for not being able to make child support payments. Perkins postponed a decision on whether Hatley should have to make any more back payments on child-support for a child who is not his.

In June of last year, a judge ordered Hatley to jail for failing to reimburse the state for public assistance that was paid to support his "son," who, as the court was aware, is not actually his son.

Hatley's attorney Sarah Geraghty, who filed a motion for his release, called it a case of "blatant unfairness."

Hatley is a hard-working man who demonstrated his desire to pay what the court said he owed, even making payments from his unemployment checks, Geraghty told CNN.

On top of that, "the state has no legitimate reason to pursue Mr. Hatley for child support -- he doesn't have any children," she said.

The story dates back to 1986, when Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son.

Morrison told Hatley that the child was his, but the couple ended their relationship shortly after the boy's birth, according to court documents. The couple never married and never lived together, the documents state.

When the boy turned 2, Morrison applied for public support for her son. Under Georgia law, the state can go after the non-custodial parent to recoup the assistance.

For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning, in 2000, that the boy might not be his biological son. A DNA test that year confirmed that there was no chance he was the father, according to court documents.

Hatley returned to court and was relieved of any future child support reimbursement but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 that he had owed the state before the ruling.

Latesha Bradley, an attorney who represented Hatley in that hearing, told CNN the argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments was that he had signed a consent agreement with the office of child support services. The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.

Court documents show that Hatley for the most part continued to make payments. He was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments and continued to do so even after he lost another job in 2008 and became homeless, court records state.

Last year, he again became unable to maintain the payments and was once again jailed.

The circumstances of Hatley's arrest didn't feel right to many, including Cook County Sheriff Johnny Daughtrey.

"I knew the gentleman's plight and didn't know how to help him," Daughtrey told CNN.

About two months ago, when attorneys from the Southern Center for Human Rights visited his jail, Daughtrey alerted them to Hatley's case.

[almaty 19]

For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning, in 2000, that the boy might not be his biological son. A DNA test that year confirmed that there was no chance he was the father, according to court documents.

Hatley returned to court and was relieved of any future child support reimbursement but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 that he had owed the state before the ruling.

by the way, georgia courts sux

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Poor guy, but he made some bad decisions that contributed to this mess. He initially accepted the son as his without taking a paternity test. His former girlfriend also didn't help matters by listing him as the biological father when she applied for public assistance. By the time he found out the boy was not his, he had already established a relationship with the son in the eyes of the court. It's unfortunate that it happened. I think paternity tests should be required before the state can legally require a man to pay child support for a child that may or may not be his.

[natty bumppo 297]

Poor guy, but he made some bad decisions that contributed to this mess. He initially accepted the son as his without taking a paternity test. His former girlfriend also didn't help matters by listing him as the biological father when she applied for public assistance. By the time he found out the boy was not his, he had already established a relationship with the son in the eyes of the court. It's unfortunate that it happened. I think paternity tests should be required before the state can legally require a man to pay child support for a child that may or may not be his.

established as a financial supporter maybe ... any other relationship re-read the article

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Poor guy, but he made some bad decisions that contributed to this mess. He initially accepted the son as his without taking a paternity test. His former girlfriend also didn't help matters by listing him as the biological father when she applied for public assistance. By the time he found out the boy was not his, he had already established a relationship with the son in the eyes of the court. It's unfortunate that it happened. I think paternity tests should be required before the state can legally require a man to pay child support for a child that may or may not be his.

established as a financial supporter maybe ... any other relationship re-read the article

There is a difference between legal paternity and biological paternity. Legal paternity begins when a person signs the birth certificate or acknowledgment of paternity form. Even if the person knows that she or he is not the biological parent, there is no fraud, as this document only concerns the legal relationship between person and child.

State law differs, but in most cases, people have between 2 months and 2 years to get a DNA test to remove their name from the birth certificate. If the person fails to do so in the required time period, they will be legally responsible for child support until the child reaches the age of majority, usually 18. The only way they will be excused from child support payments is if the biological parent (or another responsible individual in the court’s discretion) steps up and claims support for the child.

If the person’s name does not appear on the birth certificate, and the child has not been adopted, there is still another way a person may be held liable for child support payments: the theory of “detrimental reliance through promissory estoppel.” Basically, when a person holds themselves out to society as the parent, the child comes to believe that she is the child. The child relies on the person, and stops searching for her biological parent. If the person suddenly renounces their parenthood, the child will be psychologically and socially damaged.

A court decision puts it thus, “There is an innate immorality in the conduct of an adult who for over a decade accepts and proclaims a child as his own, but then, in order to be relieved of the child's support, announces, and relies upon, his bastardy.”

A fundamental principle in family law is that the needs of the child come first. Family courts have the power of “equity” – to fairly consider all facts and circumstances to reach the best possible solution in the interests of the child. Therefore, if the parent has been supporting the child for a number of years, they will have a very difficult time getting out of child support payments.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/arti...ical-child.html

[Niels Bohr 72]

Come to freaking Massachusetts! Heck, MA was the first colonies to rebel against the Crown in the 18th century. They'll definitely treat this guy well.

[Peikko 1,575]

Purely from reading the article, it's difficult to see how this can be strictly applied Colonel. They were never married, they never even lived together and I think it's probably fair to say that aside from sending financial support he did not act as a father figure in any way so to suggest he 'proclaimed' himself the father and had influence in the child's life is a stretch. Not only that, but despite all that and despite a patchy work history the guy did do his best to make payments as and when he could so I think it's really wrong to suggest he tried to ditch responsibility. There comes a time, and I think at this stage that time has come, where to extract the back payments is far more punitive to the man than it is beneficial to the child.

[Niels Bohr 72]

The contract that this guy signed should've been dismissed due to the support services end unable to prove that he is the parent. Essentially, they're are robbing him.

[natty bumppo 297]

Poor guy, but he made some bad decisions that contributed to this mess. He initially accepted the son as his without taking a paternity test. His former girlfriend also didn't help matters by listing him as the biological father when she applied for public assistance. By the time he found out the boy was not his, he had already established a relationship with the son in the eyes of the court. It's unfortunate that it happened. I think paternity tests should be required before the state can legally require a man to pay child support for a child that may or may not be his.

established as a financial supporter maybe ... any other relationship re-read the article

There is a difference between legal paternity and biological paternity. Legal paternity begins when a person signs the birth certificate or acknowledgment of paternity form. Even if the person knows that she or he is not the biological parent, there is no fraud, as this document only concerns the legal relationship between person and child.

State law differs, but in most cases, people have between 2 months and 2 years to get a DNA test to remove their name from the birth certificate. If the person fails to do so in the required time period, they will be legally responsible for child support until the child reaches the age of majority, usually 18. The only way they will be excused from child support payments is if the biological parent (or another responsible individual in the court's discretion) steps up and claims support for the child.

If the person's name does not appear on the birth certificate, and the child has not been adopted, there is still another way a person may be held liable for child support payments: the theory of "detrimental reliance through promissory estoppel." Basically, when a person holds themselves out to society as the parent, the child comes to believe that she is the child. The child relies on the person, and stops searching for her biological parent. If the person suddenly renounces their parenthood, the child will be psychologically and socially damaged.

A court decision puts it thus, "There is an innate immorality in the conduct of an adult who for over a decade accepts and proclaims a child as his own, but then, in order to be relieved of the child's support, announces, and relies upon, his bastardy."

A fundamental principle in family law is that the needs of the child come first. Family courts have the power of "equity" – to fairly consider all facts and circumstances to reach the best possible solution in the interests of the child. Therefore, if the parent has been supporting the child for a number of years, they will have a very difficult time getting out of child support payments.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/arti...ical-child.html

your term relationship is more than just about $$$$. the guy agreed to support when he thought the child was his. per the article, he did not live with the woman and it appears the only "relationship" was financial via the State.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Poor guy, but he made some bad decisions that contributed to this mess. He initially accepted the son as his without taking a paternity test. His former girlfriend also didn't help matters by listing him as the biological father when she applied for public assistance. By the time he found out the boy was not his, he had already established a relationship with the son in the eyes of the court. It's unfortunate that it happened. I think paternity tests should be required before the state can legally require a man to pay child support for a child that may or may not be his.

established as a financial supporter maybe ... any other relationship re-read the article

There is a difference between legal paternity and biological paternity. Legal paternity begins when a person signs the birth certificate or acknowledgment of paternity form. Even if the person knows that she or he is not the biological parent, there is no fraud, as this document only concerns the legal relationship between person and child.

State law differs, but in most cases, people have between 2 months and 2 years to get a DNA test to remove their name from the birth certificate. If the person fails to do so in the required time period, they will be legally responsible for child support until the child reaches the age of majority, usually 18. The only way they will be excused from child support payments is if the biological parent (or another responsible individual in the court's discretion) steps up and claims support for the child.

If the person's name does not appear on the birth certificate, and the child has not been adopted, there is still another way a person may be held liable for child support payments: the theory of "detrimental reliance through promissory estoppel." Basically, when a person holds themselves out to society as the parent, the child comes to believe that she is the child. The child relies on the person, and stops searching for her biological parent. If the person suddenly renounces their parenthood, the child will be psychologically and socially damaged.

A court decision puts it thus, "There is an innate immorality in the conduct of an adult who for over a decade accepts and proclaims a child as his own, but then, in order to be relieved of the child's support, announces, and relies upon, his bastardy."

A fundamental principle in family law is that the needs of the child come first. Family courts have the power of "equity" – to fairly consider all facts and circumstances to reach the best possible solution in the interests of the child. Therefore, if the parent has been supporting the child for a number of years, they will have a very difficult time getting out of child support payments.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/arti...ical-child.html

your term relationship is more than just about $. the guy agreed to support when he thought the child was his. per the article, he did not live with the woman and it appears the only "relationship" was financial via the State.

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[_Simpson_ 250]

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

So am I to also understand that a judge cant jump in here and do the right thing and not screw this guy over because of some technicality.

What about the woman, I think she needs to be held accountable to some degree. I cant help but to think she knew he wasn't the father or at best wasn't sure who the father was...

[natty bumppo 297]

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

So am I to also understand that a judge cant jump in here and do the right thing and not screw this guy over because of some technicality.

What about the woman, I think she needs to be held accountable to some degree. I cant help but to think she knew he wasn't the father or at best wasn't sure who the father was...

of course it's not her fault

she just wanted the person with the deeper pockets to help pay for the child.

[_Simpson_ 250]

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

So am I to also understand that a judge cant jump in here and do the right thing and not screw this guy over because of some technicality.

What about the woman, I think she needs to be held accountable to some degree. I cant help but to think she knew he wasn't the father or at best wasn't sure who the father was...

of course it's not her fault

she just wanted the person with the deeper pockets to help pay for the child.

Exactly, that's what I'm thinking, she decided to screw over the more responsible one.

[Niels Bohr 72]

The sad part is it made this guy homeless.

[_Simpson_ 250]

The sad part is it made this guy homeless.

I didn't read that anywhere.