ME: Man ordered to pay support for child that's not his - after judge rules he doesn't have to pay.

Auburn man ordered to pay support for child that's not his (after judge
rules he doesn't have to pay)


April 23, 2005

AUBURN, Maine -- A District Court judge ruled three years ago that Geoffrey
Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that hasn't stopped the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license
and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back
payments.

Fisher, 35, said he's flabbergasted the state sent him a letter this month
seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests
have proven he isn't the father of the child in question.

The state's action "is crazy," said Fisher, of Auburn. "A man doesn't have
much power in a situation like this."

Fisher's attorney, James Howaniec, said he and Fisher thought the matter was
resolved in January 2002, when a judge ruled Fisher no longer had to pay
support.

"It's ridiculous that the state is going after men proved not to be the
fathers of particular children," Howaniec said.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman seven years ago and believed
her when she got pregnant and told him he was the father. He began paying
child support but fell behind over time.

In the summer of 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services took him
to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up,
and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed
for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the
father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could
no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he
owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

Fisher thought the matter resolved when a judge ruled he no longer had to
pay child support in January 2002.

But earlier this month, the Maine attorney general's office wrote a letter
to Howaniec saying Fisher owed support payments for the time from the
child's birth until she reached 3 years old, when tests proved Fisher was
not the father.

State officials said that Fisher's problems have resurfaced because he
failed to file a court motion three years ago that would have relieved him
or any financial responsibilities for the child.

Because of that, Fisher is regarded as the legal father and responsible for
child support, said Michael Norton, spokesman for the Department of Health
and Human Services.

"We'll work with him as best we can, but everything is controlled by court
orders," Norton said.

Howaniec said he is negotiating with the state and has filed the motion to
relieve Fisher of parental responsibilities. But he said Fisher could still
be held responsible for past child support.

As for Fisher, he thinks it's pretty "cruddy" what the state's doing.

"It was hard enough finding out this kid is not yours," he said. "It's like
the state is rubbing salt in the wound."


----------------------------------------------------
The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmond Burke

Oops, forgot the link...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mai...urn_man_ordere
d_to_pay_support_for_child_thats_not_his/

Dusty wrote:
Auburn man ordered to pay support for child that's not his (after judge
rules he doesn't have to pay)


April 23, 2005

AUBURN, Maine -- A District Court judge ruled three years ago that Geoffrey
Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that hasn't stopped the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license
and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back
payments.

Fisher, 35, said he's flabbergasted the state sent him a letter this month
seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests
have proven he isn't the father of the child in question.

The state's action "is crazy," said Fisher, of Auburn. "A man doesn't have
much power in a situation like this."

Fisher's attorney, James Howaniec, said he and Fisher thought the matter was
resolved in January 2002, when a judge ruled Fisher no longer had to pay
support.

"It's ridiculous that the state is going after men proved not to be the
fathers of particular children," Howaniec said.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman seven years ago and believed
her when she got pregnant and told him he was the father. He began paying
child support but fell behind over time.

In the summer of 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services took him
to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up,
and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed
for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the
father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could
no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he
owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

Fisher thought the matter resolved when a judge ruled he no longer had to
pay child support in January 2002.

But earlier this month, the Maine attorney general's office wrote a letter
to Howaniec saying Fisher owed support payments for the time from the
child's birth until she reached 3 years old, when tests proved Fisher was
not the father.

State officials said that Fisher's problems have resurfaced because he
failed to file a court motion three years ago that would have relieved him
or any financial responsibilities for the child.

Because of that, Fisher is regarded as the legal father and responsible for
child support, said Michael Norton, spokesman for the Department of Health
and Human Services.

"We'll work with him as best we can, but everything is controlled by court
orders," Norton said.

Howaniec said he is negotiating with the state and has filed the motion to
relieve Fisher of parental responsibilities. But he said Fisher could still
be held responsible for past child support.

As for Fisher, he thinks it's pretty "cruddy" what the state's doing.

"It was hard enough finding out this kid is not yours," he said. "It's like
the state is rubbing salt in the wound."

I'm willing to bet someone knew damn well that he needed to file that
motion and didn't tell him about it on purpose so as to get their mitts
on his money. Then they kept quiet about it until the day after it was
too late for him to file -- oh, but that was just "coincidence"!

These departments and the people who work for them are such ****ing weasels.

- Ron ^*^

Dusty wrote:

Oops, forgot the link...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mai...urn_man_ordere
d_to_pay_support_for_child_thats_not_his/

The link doesn't work any better than the agency it discusses! :^)

This man should be reimbursed for the money he DID pay, not pursued for
the money he DIDN'T pay. All the world is upside-down.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:LVSae.595$zv1.495@lakeread07...


Dusty wrote:

Oops, forgot the link...


http://www.boston.com/news/local/mai...urn_man_ordere
d_to_pay_support_for_child_thats_not_his/

The link doesn't work any better than the agency it discusses! :^)

This man should be reimbursed for the money he DID pay, not pursued for
the money he DIDN'T pay. All the world is upside-down.

- Ron ^*^

Hey, it's from the Boston Globe, wadda ya expect.

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:gUSae.594$zv1.301@lakeread07...

[snip]

I'm willing to bet someone knew damn well that he needed to file that
motion and didn't tell him about it on purpose so as to get their mitts
on his money. Then they kept quiet about it until the day after it was
too late for him to file -- oh, but that was just "coincidence"!

These departments and the people who work for them are such ****ing
weasels.

- Ron ^*^

That's what I found troubling, too. Since the order was voided in court,
why would he need to file anything - the court already did the work.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of "internal" filing that needed
to be taken care of, and not something the court may have known about.

Either way, the court already said he's off the hook, so let'em rant. They
can't do squat and they know it.

Hell, I'd sue'em for harassment just to shut'em up. Maybe even go after
them for degradation of character, toss in pain and suffering for good
measure, make'em cough up some big bucks and really make'em squirm!

Poor Crusty always wanting to sue someone. I bet you know that woman in
Las Vegas. Are you missing a fingertip?

"William Barger" wrote in message
...
Poor Crusty always wanting to sue someone. I bet you know that woman in
Las Vegas. Are you missing a fingertip?

Are you smoking catnip again?

"William Barger" wrote in message
...
Poor Crusty always wanting to sue someone. I bet you know that woman in
Las Vegas. Are you missing a fingertip?

Why? You hungry for chili?

Refreshing to know that not everyone here is just plain stupid.