Almost put this in the comedy channel (although, it's more like a tragedy for the guy). It's more like a bureaucratic farce, regardless.. And, like all good comedies, a cautionary tale.

No big deal, of course. It's not like many taxpayers don't already pay for other people's kids... (and, likely, WAY more than $30K, because, y'know... "common good.")

In cases like these, they may just have well used a lottery of all registered voters and randomly select one of them to pay. Like a jury duty, but with child-support duty... Maybe even have a woman be the "deadbeat dad." And then the Great Fiction could be enjoyed as though it were a game.. like poker..

or roulette.

redacted

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, October 27th, 2014 7:37pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Trancecoach.

Those social contracts sure are expensive.

The state was doing the proper thing to make sure taxpayers DIDN'T pay for his children, but here you are saying that's the state doing the wrong thing too. Huh? Pick a thought process and stick with it please.
The state had every reason and right to go after this guy, from the evidence they had. It is ridiculous the judge didn't vacate the entire 'debt' when the process server's fraud and the girlfriend's fraud was discovered, but it will happen. He has a judgment showing clearly the state didn't actually meet it's burden to notify him, he just needs to take it to court when he addresses the other debt.
They didn't pull his name out of a hat, he was listed as the father, and the state had 'evidence' he had ignored his obligation yet never denied the 'charge' of being the father.
The one in the wrong here is not the 'state', it's the private process server the state hired that obviously lied/perjured themselves and never served him, and the ex girlfriend. Too bad he likely can't sue them, it's been too long.

They weren't his children.

Fair and just society that we live in.

This guy has this hanging over his head for 24 years. When will someone stand up, apologize and correct this mistake.

He should go after the woman who crated the fraud but that would solve nothing.

Sad but probably typical in America.

Well, the children were not his kids (despite your insistence to the contrary), so your entire argument is fallacious.

But far be it from me to interfere with your consensual sadomasochistic relationship with an abuser who, according to you, is never wrong... So, the abuse really isn't a "problem," since you've consented to it. It's far too "progressive" for me to try to talk you -- or any other stranger -- out of an abusive relationship that you choose to be in (and even try to defend)!

I hope you enjoy your statist fetishism, you naughty boy!

I'll submit my assumption that, had the state simply accepted his word that it's not his child, so long after the fact and so long after being legally designated the parent, you would be up in arms about the state allowing him to be a deadbeat dad.
There's simply no winning with you people. If the state follows the law, which is clear and simple, the state's wrong. If they don't follow the law, the state's wrong. This story is about the fair and just society we live in, but you see it as an example of how society is not fair and just (by completely ignoring the fact that the first debt has been erased, and the second debt WILL be erased).

Perhaps this did 'hang over his head' for 24 years, but it didn't effect him in any way for that time, he had no idea it existed.

I'll put it to you and @Trancecoach, exactly what SHOULD have happened in your eyes in this case?
As I see it, once the fraud was discovered and revealed in court, the case and debt were dismissed, as it should be. The second case, about his 'debt' to the state will also be dismissed when it goes to trial. That simple, problem solved, but the two of you don't see it that way somehow and still need to rant about the state being evil.
The judge DID stand up, apologized, and corrected the part of the mistake he had a right to correct. Another judge will undoubtedly do the same thing when the second portion of the 'debt' is litigated.
I just don't get what youall are going on about with your ranting, the state followed the law, did the right thing in the first place (with the evidence they had, and with no one disputing the claims), and when they realized they had been lied to, immediately reversed their position and dropped the case.
And no, this is NOT typical in America. It's only the second case I've ever heard of, and it's the second case that's been properly adjudicated in the end.
Yes, he should get to 'go after' the woman that started the fraud, and the process server that continued it, but statutes of limitations probably make that impossible.
What exactly are you two angry about in this case? Do you even know? I certainly don't get it.

The CHILD (only one, I'll remind you again) was legally his. Your inability to understand this is YOUR failing and leaves your position ridiculous...so I'll oblige you and ridicule you for it. Take a reading comprehension class, or be ready for more ridicule.
The state is often wrong, but not in this case. You clearly believe the state is ALWAYS wrong. That's just plain dumb AND fallacious.
I hope you walk the walk (but I seriously doubt you do), and just don't talk the talk, because then you'll find yourself in prison soon for ignoring the 'state' and claiming because you didn't concede to their authority, it doesn't exist. Then you can find out what a real abusive relationship is when your cell mate Bubba shows you.
Wow, you anti-statists are so removed from reality it's frightening.

Just as an aside, I dislike the Title. He isn't a "deadbeat" anything.

Maybe put the "non" at the beginning?

I believe the problem is with the government's use of competitive judiciary : where each side debates their case, regardless of merit, and the expectation is that the 'right' argument will win simply because truth should naturally be able to present a stronger argument.

This assumption not only leads to some face-palm-worthy cases/charges, it also inevitably leads to people being convicted in situations where everyone involved knows with absolute certainty that the defender is innocent (often because quirks within the rules of the official process).

In this case, the "right" thing to do is : Apologize to the man, and refund him any costs that he's incurred so far due to this mess.

But "process" requires that the government push their argument to its absolute limit, even with zero merit, because the officially sanctioned way by which the situation is resolved is via argument in court (conveniently, the need to do this is also decided by people working in court - effectively excusing their professional existence and securing their very employment).

There is no 'admitting there was a mistake'. A mistake has to be proven in court. So even though everyone involved knows that the man is not at any fault, they will still force him to spend his time and money arguing a case, just to jump through hoops, and in the end it's _extremely_ unlikely that his personal costs will be refunded to him (lawyer fees, etc).

In the mean time, everyone on the government side is simply doing their 9-5. None of this is a burden to them, and it's in fact 'how they put food on the table'. If they aren't charging him, they're charging someone else. This is just another day at the office.

The guy getting screwed can't say 'no thanks, I'll not participate', because men with guns will show up and drag him away (police arrest for not going to court). It's effectively a predatory practice whereby the government fleeces people. Everyone involved knows it's meritless, but they simply force you to dance [else go to jail], and collect some fees in the process.

Because, really, what's at stake is not 'the truth' or 'justice'. It's simply "process". An excuse to inflate the number of court cases, to keep court spending high (to secure next year's budget - "use it or lose it" accounting), to keep collections high, and generally keep the high paid welfare cases (9/10 govt employees) employed.
TBH, for a country that supposedly "hates communism", actual communist countries haven't even managed to work it out this well. (I'm not talking fairy tale boogey man communism like you see in old propaganda. I mean the practical day to day actual workings. Vast government employment, bureaucracy, "process above all".)

-scheherazade

Deadbeat? Come on, the guy has suffered enough. Change the title OP.

That argument might make sense if the courts were not so overburdened that there's near gridlock. Because they are, there's absolutely zero need for anyone to create more court cases to ensure job security, and has not been since the 80's at least, if not longer.

Burden or gridlock. Those are subjective terms that connote a desire to catch up. Catching up helps no one involved in law enforcement.

They terms you should look for are "Artifacts and metrics".

Every department must spend more than it did last year. This year's funding is what it is because of what was spent last year. Next year's funding depends on what will be spent this year.

A lack of funding leads to downsizing and furloughs. Best way to secure funding for next year is to spend this year.

Money has colours. You get different charge codes for different actions.
Some charge codes are considered low pri / overhead. Others are considered necessary. If you're charging mostly overhead, and very little necessary, you have bad metrics. If you charge mostly towards necessary and little to overhead, you have good metrics.

Police have to arrest/charge people to look productive. That generates metrics showing that police are needed. If they can make sure to spend at least as much money on enforcement this year as last year, their jobs are secured. A department that's mostly sitting around, is a department that is not critical, and can get a budgetary cut.
So long as police are employed, they will find people to arrest/charge/ticket/whatever. Even if they have to stretch for it.

The same situation applies in court. Prosecutors are looking to maximize their convictions metrics. Their job is to get people convicted. It's not that they /want/ to convict people. That's simply how they charge their time, and how they get good metrics.

Judges don't necessarily care how a case goes. They simply want to charge as much time to judging as possible.

Actually "catching up" serves the interests of no one. And it's not that people are sitting down saying "Hey, how can I make myself look necessary". Some people do, sure. But most people are simply thinking "I gotta stay/look busy".

The "system" takes care of getting things to run amok.
Everyone stays busy so they can charge productive looking time codes, so they don't get scolded by management or downsized.
Departments spend all their allocated money so they don't get under funded.
Analytically, it looks like they are saturated, so they get more funding, and bring on more people.
The new people need to stay busy, and the cycle repeats.
The beast grows.

In effect, burden and gridlock are the food that keeps the beast fed.

This isn't simply a law enforcement issue. It's how government works. Every program makes it a goal to spend all of their funding, and look as busy as possible. No one wants to be cut, and looking like you're not busy is an easy way to be 'it' when there is a cut.

Rememer : All money is spent on payroll.
You don't pay the earth for anything.
If you buy materials, that's simply paying the payroll for the material supplier.
The entire cost of anything, is the total cost of all employees.
The only way to ever reduce costs, is to reduce how much someone makes.
Either by cutting the amount paid, or by cutting jobs.
Every year there's talk of reigning in government spending.
That means that every year, there's talk of cutting jobs.

TBH, newtboy, I don't know your background, or how much experience you have around government crap. I donno if this all sounds like a joke, but it really is this stupid.

-scheherazade

According to a January 2014 report by the nonprofit organization State Budget Solutions, Michigan had a state debt of over $142 billion. Gotta get that money back one trumped up charge at a time!

@scheherazade
bingo!

the courts are a racket.
ideals and principles are all well and good,full of fluffy bunnies and rainbows but the hard facts are that the,ironically named "justice system" ,is simply a money extraction machine.

its business,with little or nothing to do with actual truth or justice.

its a pay to win system.
you have the cash?
well here is your fine and have a nice day.
you're broke?
fuck you...pay me.
no job?
fuck you..pay me.
cant pay?
fine i have a nice little cell where we get a kickback for your time spent and just for a nice,good kick in the balls..we are going to charge you for everything and double it for privileges,because we have a 20 year contract with the local privately owned prison and we guaranteed 90% occupancy.

what did people think was going to happen with all the austerity going around? the roads still need to be maintained.cops need to be paid,schools need to open,water needs to be treated and rich people/corporations sure as fuck dont wanna pay for any of that bullshit..so fuck you poor people!

welcome to the grinding machine that is your local courthouse!

fuck you and have a nice day!

It's funny you call it a racket. The government funding model is the same as the mafia funding model. (That's actually a thing. Not making a joke).

Both rely on a tribute, both have enforcers to make sure you cooperate, and both provide the community with protection from touble makers that would harm productivity.

Heck, in south America, there are mafias that provide public services in places where the government doesn't have a presence. Utilities, policing, welfare, healthcare, etc.

I say this not as a criticism of either government or mafia. Simply pointing out that both work on the same basic principles.

-scheherazade

Cynical implies an emotional bias.

I'm simply describing what I've actually experienced IRL dealing with government business.

-scheherazade

I guess I'll just be grateful that my own experiences were not THAT bad (not to imply they were 'good').

There are a lot of good government folks.

(With the odd ball here or there that knows that unless they make a timesheet error, the only way they can lose their job is by an act of congress - so they just don't give a crap.)

The problem is in the system.
Local optima vs global optima.

Every employee is doing what's best for them - like any reasonable person would.

The system lacks the incentives to make "what's best for the individual" the same as "what's best overall".

-scheherazade

I'll agree the system does not properly incentivize doing what's right over doing what's easy far too often. That said, not all people are self centered, and some do work for the greater good, to their own detriment. We do need more of them, but they are out there, even in government jobs. I've been fortunate enough to run into many....along with the other variety.

TBH, self centered is not a requirement.

Not being busy means management will pick on you, so you stay busy, even if there isn't really anything worth being busy with. Basically that simple.

The right thing to do is simply say : "hey, I'm really just forcing it here, so I'm gonna resign". Followed by the department management not replacing the employee, and allowing their funding to shrink. Not a realistic expectation.

-scheherazade

I think that in order to be working in the legal system (private lawyers excepted) and not look busy, you must be shirking your duties, because the courts (and their subsidiary systems) are insanely overburdened. There is no one who could say "I'm just forcing it here" (meaning pretending to have work to do) reasonably, that's just not a realistic assessment of the current situation in the court system.

At work and unable to watch at the moment, but the most important question in my mind is: did the non-father in a parental role in the child's life for any length of time? The second most important question is: where the hell is the kid's actual father and why hasn't the mother helped track him down?

It's one thing if the guy is just some stranger who has no relationship and no relation with the child, but another thing altogether if he is the child's father figure.

That's absolutely true, however it's precisely why it is realistic.

They've created a massive rigid process that allows them to stay busy for eternity without getting much work done.

It's that massive rigid process that empowers them to put the man in the OP through hoops that drain his time and money, and threaten him with fines/incarceration (for not participating or for failing to pay fines) - even though the evidence is out plain as day that the guy was never involved in any of the matters at hand.

You could call what they are doing "work" and "duties". You could also call it a waste of time and money, and predatory. If you consider it work, that's fine. If you consider it a waste, then what they are doing is 'just forcing it here'.

In the end, process is made by people. People choose to maintain the status quo.
Prosecutors/judge *could* just drop the charges/case/fines/whatever - but they won't. Because a chance to win an argument on some technicality is more important than the man in the OP's life - and the process requires this mess to play out.

To the 9 to 5'ers, this is just a debate team exercise. It costs them nothing.

-scheherazade.

Wait...hadn't you been saying it was the workers making their own busy work that forced people like this guy into court? Now it's the process intentionally designed that way?
The prosecutor DID drop the charges, as did the judge when they were before him. What NEITHER can do is erase the debt, which must be done in a legal fashion, not just by a clerk that hits 'erase' on his own whim because they THINK it's right. Can you imagine the problems if they COULD just do that? You didn't think it through. The process is not perfect, but it's far better than letting individuals decide these things on their own.

The process government workers follow is designed in government by government workers.

Legal fashion = in court... where a judge decides.
This could have been decided already by someone he's already seen, but some person decided not to.

Either because they personally decided they still had a chance to make the fees stick, or because they have a process (that they or another person designed) that decided for them that they should try to make the fees stick.

But since you mention a clerk, that's a great idea. A good process /would/ have an 'out', where the man could go to a clerk and file a form for dismissal of the fees, and this would all be over.
Where simple rules allow simple results.
Is there a court verdict demonstrating that you were in no way whatsoever involved in the matter? If so, fees removed.
But that would mean that things take less time, and less busy work.

-scheherazade

Yes, it is, but it's not designed to make themselves more work. That's silly.
"Decided not to"...because a family court judge can't vacate a state fee, only the support order. He has to see another judge. Family court is not superior court, and should not interfere with superior court issues. There are numerous reasons why these courts are separate.
It's not about 'making the charge stick', it's about following the same rules everyone else follows, rules designed to make a process work properly, if not faster. It's about getting the right thing done by the right people with the authority to fix it, based on the right evidence, not randomly doing what you think is right for a single defendant in a single extremely odd case based on what someone feels.

If a state family court can't vacate state fees levied on account of family matters (child support), then the process is broken.

Courts have the authority they do because of the results of generations of ego driven turf wars between departments.

The rules exist for a reason : because people decided.
Nothing in court or law is based on physics or nature. It's all made up by people.

Properly would be using empirical evidence and a logical ruleset that doesn't require people to argue personal opinions - but rather strictly solve the inputs for an output.

Judges and prosecutors are people. They grimace just like anyone else.
The courts are not 'higher' or 'enlightened'. They are simply the sum of generations of personal bickering.
They don't "work properly". They simply "work as they do - whatever that may be".

Like I said, the 9 to5ers don't give a crap. It's just a time code.

-scheherazade

You misunderstand. Family court can't vacate state fees levied because of ILLEGALLY IGNORING family matters (child support). That's criminal. (and please don't be silly and say 'he didn't illegally ignore anything', because as far as the state is concerned he did until he proves he did not IN COURT, where the claim can be scrutinized and verified)
Courts have the authority and processes they do because intelligent, thoughtful people designed an imperfect system to do the best we could at serving justice. Because it is now so overworked, (and in this case abused by numerous people perpetrating frauds) it no longer works as designed...not because those in it are creating their own busy work, but because there is far too much actual work. (agreed, that's a good reason to streamline any process that could be streamlined)
Um...I don't want to sit in front of a robotic judge, thank you very much.
Um...courts ARE higher and more enlightened, due to their authority granted by society and their experience dealing with it.
Often courts do work properly. This one did, it vacated his child support order as soon as he proved he was never notified. Because you don't understand the full process does not mean it's poorly designed.
Like I said, I'm glad I'm not as cynical as you....you can deny it, but you are incredibly cynical about those working in the courts. I have known some, and they do not resemble your remarks in the least. They joined the law to help people, not to become a 9-5 drone lapping up the legal honey.