Appellate court denies reimbursement to paternity fraud victim

Posted for Marc A.:
Appellate court denies reimbursement to paternity fraud victim; 1 judge suggests changing the law
_________

In their decision (.doc file), the Court of Appeal just upheld the trial court's refusal to order the County of L.A. to reimburse paternity fraud victim Taron James, an NCFM-LA member. The denial of reimbursement is based on the statuary language. Justice Rubin, one of the 3 judges, wrote a concurring opinion in which he recongizes the fundamental injustice and suggests that the California Legislature change the law to allow reimbursement for men like Taron, who paid money to and would be reimbursed by the County (welfare reimbursement) rather than the mother.

Taron denied paternity from the start and fought this for over ten years while in a financial and psychological prison. The mom first sought benefits from the Navy while Taron was deployed in the Gulf War. Taron denied paternity and the Navy requested a paternity test from the mom, saying Taron would pay for it. The mom did not pursue the claim further but instead collected welfare from L.A. County, which Taron spent the next 10+ years paying for. Even after DNA excluded him as the dad, the County garnisheed his paychecks, his tax returns and unemployment.

In 2003, NCFM-LA sponsored Senate Bill 1030 to protect people like Taron. In response, Child Support Services helped introduce a competing bill, Assembly Bill 252 ("AB252"), which was later amended into a compromise bill, passed and became effective January 1, 2005, codifying Family Code §§ 7646-7649. This has relieved scores of men like Taron from false paternity judgments. But it still is not as strong as it should be. It gives judges too much discretion and denies reimbursement even in cases like Taron's, where, as Justice Rubin recognizes, reimbursement should be given.

According to the American Association of Blood Banks, out of about 300,000 DNA paternity tests reported yearly by accredited labs, 30% exclude the man as the father (http://www.ncfmla.org/pdf/na-fraud.pdf).
CBS News reported this same statistic in this video of Bert Riddick and NCFM-LA.

The appellate court failed to mention that the lower court specifically found Taron was a victim of fraud. The appellate court also falsely says Taron was served when in fact he was not.

We are considering seeking California Supreme Court review. Meanwhile, we're mindful of all the other paternity fraud victims, many of whom have come to us for help. We're hoping for further legislative changes in the future, such as the changes Justice Ruben suggests.

Marc E. Angelucci
President
Los Angeles chapter
National Coalition of Free Men