| To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
Subject: ACFC: ANALYSIS - Child Support
and Foster Care Fraud
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 21:16:42 -0400
- Child Support and Foster Care Fraud
Thanks to Stuart
Miller for this story from Maine where
the child support gestapo lunatics
continue to seek $11,450 and revoked
the driver's license of a man years
after a court ruled that DNA evidence
proved that he wasn't the father.
Amazingly, it was the state itself
that had asked for the DNA test when
the man had asked for custody, after
the child had been placed in foster
care. Foster care is also a
lucrative source of federal funding
for state "human service"
agencies, which will generally go
to almost any length to deny
custody to a father in order to keep
federal dollars flowing. This story
should be examined as a case
study of all that is wrong with child
support and foster care throughout
the United States.
Based on a typical
argument, even though they know he's
not the father, the Maine Attorney
General's Office made the blatantly
fraudulent argument that Fisher
owes the money because he failed to
file a court motion three years ago
to relieve him of financial responsibility.
Wait a minute. At that point
Fisher was willing to do the right
thing and asked for custody of the
child. It was only at that pointthat
the state came clean, and admitted
that he was never the father in the
first place. Why would Fisher
have asked a court to be relieved
of financial responsibility for the
child, when he thought he was the
father and was seeking custody?
And how could Fisher have known that
he had to file anything more after
the court ruled that he wasn't the
father,and also ruled that he didn't
have to pay support?
To rub salt in
the wound of the lunacy of the Office
of the Attorney General, Department
of Human Services spokesman Michael
Norton then comes along and says,
""We'll work with him as
best we can, but everything is controlled
by court orders." Wait
another minute. According to
the story, a court had ruled
at the request of DHS itself, that
he was not the father, and he didn't
have to pay support. The
way Norton talks sounds like the way
the Mafia would say, "We don't
want to break your legs. We're
your friends. We just want you
to pay up and shut up."
Hiding behind the fig leaf that "everything
is controlled by court orders"
won't cut the mustard here, especially
when the most recent court order said
the opposite of what Maine DHS claims.
What the story doesn't tell us, and
what the public needs to know, is that
the apparent lunacy of the Maine
Attorney General, and DHS is caused
by the even greater lunacy of the federal
Bradley Amendment that prohibits "retroactive
modification" of child support
orders, even in cases of proven paternity
fraud such as this. We can hear
the little gears turning in the pin-head
minds of the Attorney General and DHS
as they gleefully exclaim, "Gotcha!
Catch-22. You didn't know about
the Bradley Amendment,
so you'll still have to pay,
even though we all know that you're
not the father, and a court has ordered
that you don't have to pay!"
Their "logic" (if you can
generously call it that) would be
that because of the Bradley Amendment, the
court order only applies to the period
AFTER the state proved he wasn't the
In their way of
"thinking" he should have
filed ANOTHER motion to relieve him
of the support obligation from BEFORE
the state proved that he wasn't the
father. And in their way of
"thinking", the Bradley
Amendment would have prevented the
court from granting the second motion.
"Therefore, Catch-22, gotcha,
you still owe the money even though
we all know that the whole thing
We believe that Fisher
is being overly generous when he describes
these lunatics as "crazy." If
anything, they are crazy like a fox.
To buy their crock-of-baloney, one
would have to believe that learned
counsel for the Office of the Attorney
General never heard of setting aside
a judgment as void based on fraud.
Anyone who thinks the mother didn't
know she'd been sleeping with some
other guy, needs to go around the
block a few more times. Setting
aside a judgment as void is not the
same thing as seeking a retroactive
modification, but would have the initial
order declared void from the beginning,
as if it never existed. The
principle of void judgments is the
obvious legal logic that should be
applied here by anyone with an ounce
of common sense, and would have been
applied if the Office of the Maine
Attorney General and Maine DHS weren't
bent out of shape in pursuit
of almighty federal subsidies and
incentives by pursuing a claim that
they know or ought to know is false.
We also can't
help but notice that neither the article,
nor apparently Maine state officials
bother to inform the public of their
incompetent and corrupt interpretation how
the Bradley Amendment should be applied
to this situation. Apparently,
Maine state officials are quite content
to keep the public ignorant of the
Bradley Amendment as well as their
bizarre legal logic, so that they
can continue to ensnare innocent citizens
in their web of deceit, and thus generate
even more federal subsidies and incentives
in the future.
if we destroy the lives of innocent
fathers?" these hypocrites will
no doubt try to claim, "It's
for the children." Don't
believe them for a second.
All they really want is federal subsidies
and incentives. If they had
any concern for the child in this
case, they'd have never had a
DNA test to begin with, but would
have let this man have custody
of a child that he
thought was his, instead of placing
the child in foster care so they could
get millions more in federal subsidies.
We can't help
but note that the Office of the Maine
Attorney General and Maine DHS are colluding
in what we can only describe as a
"trick, scheme or device"
(within the meaning of 18 USC 1001)
to obtain payments from the United
States by fraud, which under 18 USC
1001is a federal felony punishable
"by fine or imprisonment
up to five years, or both." Sadly,
we believe that the fraud and corruption
seen in this case is rampant
throughout the United States
in child support and foster care
cases. As one of his last acts,
California Governor Gray Davis vetoed
a paternity fraud bill with a statement
that it would cost California $40
million a year in federal subsidies
and incentives, if they stopped pursuing
claims that they know or ought to
know are false. $40 million
from California only scratches
the surface of systematic "social
service" fraud that stretches
from coast to coast, as clearly seen
in this story from Maine. When
the house of cards of the malignant
cancer of this kind of "social service"
fraud finally collapses of its own
dead weight, it will dwarf scandals like
Enron or the saving and loan crisis
of the 1980s.
The good news
is that when integrity is finally
restored to government social
service agencies and the legal profession,
American families and children as
well as the long-suffering taxpayer,
will immediately begin to benefit
April 23, 2005
Auburn man ordered to pay support
for child that's not his by Associated
AUBURN, Maine -- A District Court
judge ruled three years ago that
Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to
pay child support for a child that
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,"
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
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
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 fath! er 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."
Information from: Lewiston Sun Journal,
Information from: Portland Press
Children Need BOTH Parents!
The American Coalition for Fathers
For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS
or see ACFC's homepages at:
To subscribe send a message to:
Message in subject line: subscribe
To unsubscribe send a message to:
Message in subject line: unsubscribe
The ACFC List Serve provides timely
information to fathers, second wives,
and others seeking restoration of
fatherhood in America and the world.
ACFC does not endorse or approve the
views or opinions expressed by contributors,
whic! h have been provided only as
a service to our list serve subscribers.