Tenn. appeals court rules that man must pay support for child

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

For nearly two years, Sam Lewis paid child support for a son he thought was his.

In January 2004, the Tennessee factory worker began making monthly child support payments for the then-3-year-old child. His ex-girlfriend had been living with someone else when the child was conceived.

In addition to monthly payments of $317, Lewis also agreed to pay an extra $50 a month in retroactive support for the three years of the child's life that Lewis missed.

During that time, Lewis also began weekly visits with the child, who eventually came to call him "Daddy."

Since then, Lewis has discovered through DNA testing that he is not the child's biological father. But that fact has not relieved him of his financial obligations.

Last week, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that Lewis could not seek reimbursement for payments he has already made to the mother, who concedes that Lewis is not the biological father of her now-7-year-old son.

Nor do the courts dispute that Lewis was fraudulently coerced into making the payments. On paper, Lewis is no longer considered the child's father, and he is not responsible for future monthly child support payments.

But, according to the decision handed down last week, Lewis cannot get out of making the retroactive payments from the years before he officially became the child's father by signing a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity.

He also cannot seek reimbursement for the money he has already paid, a figure which his lawyer puts at $9,000.

"It's pretty clear that my client is the innocent party who was taken advantage of, but he still has to suffer the consequences of it," Lewis' lawyer, David Douglas, told CourtTVnews.com.

"It appears that you can lie through your teeth to get a guy to sign a piece of paper saying he's your child's father, and if he finds out otherwise, the courts can't do anything about it," he said.

State law prohibits judges from modifying orders for retroactive child support.

The statute was originally intended to prevent payers of child support from "venue shopping" for a sympathetic judge to reduce a support amount from another judge. But as technology has advanced to the point where DNA can conclusively determine paternity, the legal system has failed to keep pace by modifying statutes to address individual situations.

"We are operating under a system of law that doesn't take into account that we can determine pretty clearly who the real father is," said Stephanie Walton, an expert on child support policy with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"This is definitely something where there's an opportunity for the legislature to take a look and make public policy. But boy, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes," she said.

Lewis' saga began in 2002, more than two years after the child's birth, when he signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity for the child after his ex-girlfriend, Suzy Whitley, told him the boy was his.

One year later, in December 2003, the state filed a petition on Whitley's behalf to set support payments. According to court papers, both parties agreed that Lewis would pay $317 in monthly child support and $13,314 in retroactive child support that would be paid off in monthly installments of $50.

While the child continued to live with his mother, Lewis also began to assume the role of father to the boy, who is identified as M.C.L. in court papers, with visits on weekends and gifts on holidays and birthdays.

Friends told Lewis that the child was not his. In 2006, he sought a court-ordered paternity test.

After a DNA test excluded Lewis as the father, a juvenile court judge disestablished his paternity standing, terminated his future financial obligations and forgave his arrearages.

The judge also ordered Whitley to pay Lewis $9,341 for the money he had paid, plus attorney fees and court costs, including the cost of the DNA test.

Without disputing Whitley's deception, the state appealed the ruling on her behalf on the grounds that the juvenile court judge acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction under Tennessee law.

Assistant attorney general Lauren Lamberth wrote in her brief to the court that the juvenile court judge did not have the authority to suspend Lewis' unpaid retroactive support or award him reimbursement for payments that he already made.

Furthermore, Lamberth argued, Lewis should seek reimbursement from the biological father. Both sides acknowledge the biological father is most likely the man with whom Whitley was living when the child was conceived.

In response, Lewis' lawyer acknowledged that state law prohibited the judge from modifying the original order. Instead, he argued that the juvenile court judge should set aside the order under a motion that permits judges to set aside orders under a number of extenuating circumstances, including fraud.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals sided with the state and ordered Lewis to pay the retroactive support, in addition to Whitley's attorney fees and court costs.

Lewis' lawyer says he can still try to obtain the money from the child's natural father, who reportedly lives with Whitley's sister.

But in light of his recent defeat, Douglas says, his client wishes to drop his fight altogether.

"This really seems like an unfair result for Mr. Lewis, because this guy tried to do the right thing, and instead, he got hammered by the system," Lewis said. "I understand that the court's role is to protect children, but it shouldn't reward people who lie and use deceit."

In the decision, which also overturned the judgment against Whitley, the justices said that Lewis was arguing semantics, which did little to change the fact that the juvenile court is bound to act under the governing statutes.

Until state legislatures decide to tackle issues raised in cases like this, Walton says the courts are likely to continuing making decisions with the child's best interests in mind.

"Everyone wants to look at these cases as disputes between two parents, but the law has decided that the big picture is the best interests of the child," Walton said. "It's a case-by-case basis of deciding what's best for the child. It may be best for the child to have someone involved, even if he's not the real father."

link

[Sinergy 3]

wow!! But then again, if you love the child and at some point allowed him to call you "daddy" you wouldnt really seek reimbursment. or maybe im just not that way

[JoeMama 0]

An all-too-familiar story of the man getting screwed by the family courts. Getting stuck having to pay for a child that is not his. Whether or not, the mother decieved him all for the benefit of financial gain, it's time these judges started handing down punishments of jail time to those who purposely commit fraud in cases such as this. And give legal recourse to men to be reimbursed by deceptive mothers. Maybe it will stop ####### like this from happening. That judgement seriously needs to be overturned and the laws corrected.

[Emancipation 2]

But in light of his recent defeat, Douglas says, his client wishes to drop his fight altogether.

Good guys sometimes finish last.. I feel bad for this guy.. he tried to do the right thing.. and got screwed over.. Wonder what will become of his relationship with him & this child.

[Jasman0717 9]

There are other states making men responsible for children that aren't theirs because they co-habited with the mother. The pussification of America

[Marc and Olga 0]

Crazy thing is, she could probably go afterthe real father now and get back child support from him too, while still collecting from this guy!

the worst part was it was not the woman's idea to pursue his past child support "obligation" but "the state appealed the ruling on her behalf "...even more

[SteveLaura 0]

It's not clear from this article that the woman lied. It is possible that she actually didn't know how the father was, and she chose the wrong bloke, for whatever reason. Not great, of course, but not exactly the same as outright fraud.

[almaty 19]

it is a sad story for the guy..terrible...

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

It's not clear from this article that the woman lied. It is possible that she actually didn't know how the father was, and she chose the wrong bloke, for whatever reason. Not great, of course, but not exactly the same as outright fraud.

she sounds like she has lots of class