California Default Judgements

Adam G. Alsop writes "I happened to come across your article on Taron James' Paternity Fraud case and thought that this link should be widely spread, as is speaks *directly* to the heart of that (and many similar cases).

In this appeal, the Court is VERY clear about the "wording" of the Law vs the "intent" of the law:

"The County, a political embodiment of its citizens and inhabitants, must always act in the public interest and for the general good. It should not enforce child support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature’s clear directive that child support agencies not pursue mistaken child support actions, the County persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse."

This is a MAJOR victory for all those falsely accused of paternity and hit with a default judgement. While I am not in a similar position, I felt it important to pass along this information to you and your readers. Hopefully it will help set a standard across other states as well."

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/05/02/16/038250.shtml