CA: Justices: No refund of child support

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/arti...?showAll=y&c=y

Torrance man who paid $50,000 for child that wasn't his biological
offspring loses his appeal.
By Denise Nix
Staff Writer

Three appellate court justices have decided that state law precludes
reimbursement to a Torrance veteran who claims he paid nearly $50,000
in child support for a son who wasn't his.

One justice, however, suggested the law may be unfair and the
Legislature should correct it.
Tony's on The Pier

Taron James, 38, said he would appeal the decision to the state
Supreme Court.

"The fight is to keep this from happening to anyone else," James said
from the courthouse in Los Angeles, where he and his attorney were
collecting papers to appeal.

"It's horrendous what they're getting away with and saying this is the
law and that's the way it is," James added.

James was in the U.S. Navy in 1992, serving in the Persian Gulf, when
a boy named Tyler was born to his former girlfriend.

She named James as the father, and the first he heard about the boy
was when she requested child support.

James said he knew from the timing that the boy wasn't his, and the
mother agreed to genetic testing but then disappeared, according to
James.

Two years later, the District Attorney's Office - which handled child-
support cases back then - filed a complaint against James. However,
James says he was never properly served and was even given a summons
for a different case.

The issue of whether James was properly given the court papers is
still in dispute, with a court commissioner siding with prosecutors
that he was.

Since it was determined he didn't respond to a summons, a default
judgment against him was ordered. He found out about the order eight
months later - two months past the deadline to dispute it.

James paid $121 a month and played no role in Tyler's life.

Finally, in 2001, a DNA test proved James was not the father. Although
he was allowed to cease further child-support payments, he still was
responsible for the amount in arrears.

Last year, citing a new state law, Assembly Bill 252, and case law
stemming from a 2004 court ruling, James argued he should be
reimbursed. His request was denied, and he appealed to the 2nd
District Court of Appeal.

James argued that had those laws been on the books in 1997 and 2001
when he fought to have the judgment against him overturned, he would
be entitled to reimbursement.

The appellate opinion, published Tuesday, found that both laws clearly
bar reimbursement.

Justice Laurence Rubin said the laws seemed designed to protect the
child from any financial hardship that could come if the mother is
forced to return support money.

Rubin, though, suggested that the Legislature might find a way to make
public agencies - such as the Los Angeles County Department of Child
Support Services - financially responsible, especially in situations
like James' case, where error led to a child-support order.

Rubin cited the Child Enforcement Fairness Act of 2000, which
lawmakers relied on in passing AB 252.

The act says, in part: "It is the moral, legal and ethical obligation
of all enforcement agencies to take prompt action to recognize those
cases where a person is mistakenly identified as a support obligor in
order to minimize the harm and correct any injustice to that person."

Fesia Davenport, staff attorney for the Support Services Department,
said the agency is following the law set by the Legislature in denying
reimbursements.

"Should the state Legislature enact legislation saying that there will
be reimbursement for fathers … we would be obligated to follow the
law," Davenport said.

James' attorney, Marc Angelucci, who is also president of the Los
Angeles chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men, said he felt
the court disregarded some of his arguments but was pleased with
Rubin's opinion.

Angelucci feared that the opinion diminishes the chances for other
men, like Bert Riddick, who are also seeking reimbursement.

Riddick, a San Pedro man who has paid support for 13 years for a girl
he did not father, is scheduled to return to court Wednesday on his
motion to have the support order thrown out and get reimbursed.

"People like Bert had some hope, and this really reduces it,"
Angelucci said.

He said the best outcome for Riddick and James is a change in the law
in Sacramento.

James said he's been in "financial hell" since the legal case began.
He has lost jobs, he said, because of the time it has taken to fight
and watched his paychecks wither down because of the support payments.

"Just the fact that this is allowed to happen to a serviceman,
especially in times of war, when you shouldn't have to worry about
something like this or deal with something like this," James said,
"it's too important of an issue to let it go."