 |
posted by Adam on Tuesday June 03, @03:51PM
from the Great-stuff! dept.
|
|
|
|
|
warble writes "It pleases me to announce that SB1030 has passed out of the California Senate by a vote of 34/2. Considering the power of the opposition, it is astonishing to see this level of support for the bill. SB1030 addresses the category of paternity fraud that we call an incorrect default paternity judgments (IDPJ's).
An IDPJ results when a judgment is entered against a male who is mislead into believing he is the father, or a male that never receives notice of a paternity hearing because the mother supplies incorrect information. Currently, when the 6 month to two year time limits expire, there is no possibility of making a challenge to the default judgment.
This means that victims of an IDPJ will potentially be subjected to contempt, oppressive child support burdens, criminal charges, and jail when they refuse to pay for a child that is not theirs. This pattern will continue until the child is 18 or graduates from college. Worse, the victim of an IDPJ will learn that they are behind on the first day they learn of the judgment. The source of the oppression is the CA DCSS. It is radical feminist organizations that seek the oppression of men and the destruction of their families.
Often the victims do not learn of the IDPJ until there is a wage garnishment, tax seizure, damage to a credit report, and etc. That is because the DCSS relies heavily substitute service. With substitute service the notice of a hearing may go to the wrong address without the victim ever learning of a hearing. In Los Angeles County alone, there is a 79% default judgment rate. This means that significant numbers of males never learn of the judgment until enforcement action is taken.
SB1030 addresses this failure of the system by permitting the victims of an IDPJ to use DNA testing to overturn the judgment and have the arrears dismissed. The victim will have two-years to overturn the judgment from the day a wage garnishment begins. The advantage of this is that for under $1000 an IDPJ can be overturned. Currently, if the male is lucky they can do this for ~$5,000 if they discover the IDPJ in time.
The next stop is the California Assembly. There it will meet stiff and well-organized opposition. NCFM, LA will be working with the Men's Issues Coalition in California to lobby the Assembly in California. This is a tough fight, but it is not an impossible fight.
Warble
"
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 03, @05:49PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
You are to be congratulated for all your hard work on this bill, along with NCFMLA. It is great to see all the hard work having some positive result against heavy opposition. It's far from a done deal, but with more hard work and political saviness perhaps we will see a light at the end of this tunnel that is not a train.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 03, @07:07PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
That's very good work. Paternity fraud is one of the dual defects of current paternity law.
The other defect is not requiring men's consent to become fathers before obliging us to the burdens of parenthood, like child support. It's otherwise known as "Choice For Men".
Both defects subject innocent men to "contempt, oppressive child support burdens, criminal charges, and jail". I'll also add that their family planning is often irreparably damaged.
Keep up the good work,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I can sink my teeth into it, and be behind this a hundred percent. Not perfect, but after the DCSS gets a few black eyes, you can believe that they will start to retaliate all on their lonesome against perjurious women.
Heck, if there's any justice, they'll do this as an "administrative" action, and such frauds will have the shoe on the other foot for a change.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
