TN: Court Forces Man to Support Child That Isn't His

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=3.2.1

By Bernard Watson
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WHBQ FOX13 myfoxmemphis.com) --
A Memphis man is forced to pay child support for a child that's not
his has suffered a legal setback. Even though DNA tests prove the man
is not the father of a nine-year-old child, Wednesday he learned he'll
have to continue paying until he can convince the court he shouldn't
have to.

Henry Madkins said it seems so simple. He's not the biological father
of the girl, so he shouldn't have to pay her mother child support. But
he said when he walked into court, he found out that when you're
dealing with juvenile court, nothing is simple.

"It's just not right," said Madkins.

Once again Madkins walked away from juvenile court a frustrated man.

"I'm disappointed with the court," he said.

A judge said that for the time being, he will have to continue to pay
child support for a little girl who is not his.

"The DNA says zero possibility of being the father, but yet he's going
to rule I am the father," said Madkins.

For nine years Madkins thought the child was his, but now that tests
prove otherwise he says he shouldn't have to pay. But a court
appointed attorney for the little girl said it's not that simple.

"It would seem logical that you could separate it like that, but the
court will never do that," said attorney Don Handly, when asked why
the court couldn't stop support payments, but mandate that Madkins be
involved with the girl's life. "You are either the child's father or
you are not."

Madkins was hoping for a ruling Wednesday, but a judge ruled he'll
have to continue paying while waiting for his next court date in
August. It's the next step in what's shaping up to be a long court
battle.

"It's taking a lot of money out of my pocket, 500 bucks a month when
you're just giving it away," said Madkins. "I'm sure the state got it.
I don't have it."

"Unfortunately, this happens everyday. It's a really sad thing," said
Handly.

A judge ruled that because he didn't contest the paternity of the
child nine years ago, the court considers him the father regardless of
the DNA tests.

Meanwhile, Madkins says the court should go after the child's real dad
and make him pay child support. But he said he believes that won't
happen because it's too easy to take his money and the court system
won't spend the time or money finding the real father.

Henry Madkins is due back in court in August.

wrote:
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=3.2.1

By Bernard Watson
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WHBQ FOX13 myfoxmemphis.com) --
A Memphis man is forced to pay child support for a child that's not
his has suffered a legal setback. Even though DNA tests prove the man
is not the father of a nine-year-old child, Wednesday he learned he'll
have to continue paying until he can convince the court he shouldn't
have to.

Henry Madkins said it seems so simple. He's not the biological father
of the girl, so he shouldn't have to pay her mother child support. But
he said when he walked into court, he found out that when you're
dealing with juvenile court, nothing is simple.

"It's just not right," said Madkins.

Once again Madkins walked away from juvenile court a frustrated man.

"I'm disappointed with the court," he said.

A judge said that for the time being, he will have to continue to pay
child support for a little girl who is not his.

"The DNA says zero possibility of being the father, but yet he's going
to rule I am the father," said Madkins.

For nine years Madkins thought the child was his, but now that tests
prove otherwise he says he shouldn't have to pay. But a court
appointed attorney for the little girl said it's not that simple.

"It would seem logical that you could separate it like that, but the
court will never do that," said attorney Don Handly, when asked why
the court couldn't stop support payments, but mandate that Madkins be
involved with the girl's life. "You are either the child's father or
you are not."

Madkins was hoping for a ruling Wednesday, but a judge ruled he'll
have to continue paying while waiting for his next court date in
August. It's the next step in what's shaping up to be a long court
battle.

"It's taking a lot of money out of my pocket, 500 bucks a month when
you're just giving it away," said Madkins. "I'm sure the state got it.
I don't have it."

"Unfortunately, this happens everyday. It's a really sad thing," said
Handly.

A judge ruled that because he didn't contest the paternity of the
child nine years ago, the court considers him the father regardless of
the DNA tests.

Meanwhile, Madkins says the court should go after the child's real dad
and make him pay child support. But he said he believes that won't
happen because it's too easy to take his money and the court system
won't spend the time or money finding the real father.

Henry Madkins is due back in court in August.


Another sad indication of our society, but it has to be said to every
man out there. As soon as the woman says she's pregnant, before you
pass out the cigars pass out the swabs. She may be as honest as the day
is long (and I still believe that most people are honest), but the price
you risk is way too much.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=3.2.1

By Bernard Watson
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WHBQ FOX13 myfoxmemphis.com) --
A Memphis man is forced to pay child support for a child that's not
his has suffered a legal setback. Even though DNA tests prove the man
is not the father of a nine-year-old child, Wednesday he learned he'll
have to continue paying until he can convince the court he shouldn't
have to.

Henry Madkins said it seems so simple. He's not the biological father
of the girl, so he shouldn't have to pay her mother child support. But
he said when he walked into court, he found out that when you're
dealing with juvenile court, nothing is simple.

"It's just not right," said Madkins.

Once again Madkins walked away from juvenile court a frustrated man.

"I'm disappointed with the court," he said.

A judge said that for the time being, he will have to continue to pay
child support for a little girl who is not his.

"The DNA says zero possibility of being the father, but yet he's going
to rule I am the father," said Madkins.

For nine years Madkins thought the child was his, but now that tests
prove otherwise he says he shouldn't have to pay. But a court
appointed attorney for the little girl said it's not that simple.

"It would seem logical that you could separate it like that, but the
court will never do that," said attorney Don Handly, when asked why
the court couldn't stop support payments, but mandate that Madkins be
involved with the girl's life. "You are either the child's father or
you are not."

Madkins was hoping for a ruling Wednesday, but a judge ruled he'll
have to continue paying while waiting for his next court date in
August. It's the next step in what's shaping up to be a long court
battle.

"It's taking a lot of money out of my pocket, 500 bucks a month when
you're just giving it away," said Madkins. "I'm sure the state got it.
I don't have it."

"Unfortunately, this happens everyday. It's a really sad thing," said
Handly.

A judge ruled that because he didn't contest the paternity of the
child nine years ago, the court considers him the father regardless of
the DNA tests.

Meanwhile, Madkins says the court should go after the child's real dad
and make him pay child support. But he said he believes that won't
happen because it's too easy to take his money and the court system
won't spend the time or money finding the real father.

Henry Madkins is due back in court in August.


Another sad indication of our society, but it has to be said to every
man out there. As soon as the woman says she's pregnant, before you
pass out the cigars pass out the swabs. She may be as honest as the day
is long (and I still believe that most people are honest), but the price
you risk is way too much.

In most states a man could SUE the mother in court and get a verdict to pay
back all support that she recieved, unfortunatly it does not mean the
support will stop being owed until the original order is changed but it just
means she will have to pay it back as it is recieved.. sort of a pain in the
ass but it can be done. a man needs to sue on the basis of Fraud. This is
sepperate from the actual child support case.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pa...tentId=3551218...
By Bernard Watson
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WHBQ FOX13 myfoxmemphis.com) --
A Memphis man is forced to pay child support for a child that's not
his has suffered a legal setback. Even though DNA tests prove the man
is not the father of a nine-year-old child, Wednesday he learned he'll
have to continue paying until he can convince the court he shouldn't
have to.

Henry Madkins said it seems so simple. He's not the biological father
of the girl, so he shouldn't have to pay her mother child support. But
he said when he walked into court, he found out that when you're
dealing with juvenile court, nothing is simple.

"It's just not right," said Madkins.

Once again Madkins walked away from juvenile court a frustrated man.

"I'm disappointed with the court," he said.

A judge said that for the time being, he will have to continue to pay
child support for a little girl who is not his.

"The DNA says zero possibility of being the father, but yet he's going
to rule I am the father," said Madkins.

For nine years Madkins thought the child was his, but now that tests
prove otherwise he says he shouldn't have to pay. But a court
appointed attorney for the little girl said it's not that simple.

"It would seem logical that you could separate it like that, but the
court will never do that," said attorney Don Handly, when asked why
the court couldn't stop support payments, but mandate that Madkins be
involved with the girl's life. "You are either the child's father or
you are not."

Madkins was hoping for a ruling Wednesday, but a judge ruled he'll
have to continue paying while waiting for his next court date in
August. It's the next step in what's shaping up to be a long court
battle.

"It's taking a lot of money out of my pocket, 500 bucks a month when
you're just giving it away," said Madkins. "I'm sure the state got it.
I don't have it."

"Unfortunately, this happens everyday. It's a really sad thing," said
Handly.

A judge ruled that because he didn't contest the paternity of the
child nine years ago, the court considers him the father regardless of
the DNA tests.

Meanwhile, Madkins says the court should go after the child's real dad
and make him pay child support. But he said he believes that won't
happen because it's too easy to take his money and the court system
won't spend the time or money finding the real father.

Henry Madkins is due back in court in August.

Another sad indication of our society, but it has to be said to every
man out there. As soon as the woman says she's pregnant, before you
pass out the cigars pass out the swabs. She may be as honest as the day
is long (and I still believe that most people are honest), but the price
you risk is way too much.

In most states a man could SUE the mother in court and get a verdict to pay
back all support that she recieved, unfortunatly it does not mean the
support will stop being owed until the original order is changed but it just
means she will have to pay it back as it is recieved.. sort of a pain in the
ass but it can be done. a man needs to sue on the basis of Fraud. This is
sepperate from the actual child support case.

Iowa had a case where the man was forced to pay even
though he legally questioned paternity early on, and
DNA proved he was not the father.

The Iowa high court ruled he had to pay because
it was in the best interest of the child.

Part of the paternity puzzle is a bit like the old
"common law marriage" thing where if you both
present yourselves to friends and associates as
married, after several years, you ARE by virtue of
the fact you presented yourselves that way for years.

If a man functions as Dad for years and
then finds out she got pregnant by somebody else,
he can't escape the legal obligations.

Somebody studied paternity a few years
ago in England and found that even in families
where there are several kids and everybody
thinks the Dad is the biological father, the
DNA shows that something like 25% of all
kids were NOT fathered by their accepted father.

When parents joke about the one kid who was
the "milk man's kid" it's not so far from the truth.

Is it possible this is why our legal system is against
"upsetting the apple cart" as far as paternity goes?

By the way, this is not the only arena where
"best interests of the child" has become overblown
and a threat to people's basic Constitutional rights.

The Child Protection INDUSTRY has twisted and
defined the meaning of that phrase to justify
a whole host of abuses of Families and in that
sense even the children themselves.

That industry is so devious they even formed
groups like "Child Rights" which actually works
against parents and serves as a "spoiler" group
suing states for more services. (Handy for the
UNION labor insiders to have their jobs funded.)

They also have connections to a group of whackos
against all forms of spanking, and even a group
out to give young teen agers full rights to
vote, be emancipated, use liquor, etc.

This has turned out to be embarassing for the
"social worker types" and their industry because
of other supporters of emancipation.
Apparently more emancipated minors and more
minors with self determination would help
child molesters take advantage of them.
Groups like NAMBLA eagerly support more emancipation.

The "best interests of the child" imperative has been
twisted so bad that it is even being used to justify
actions that are the exact opposite of what it says.