Childless man freed after serving time for child support violations

[Niels Bohr 72]

CNN) -- Frank Hatley spent the past year in jail for being a deadbeat dad. But there's one problem -- Hatley doesn't have any children. And the "deadbeat" label doesn't fit the 50-year-old either, his supporters say.

Frank Hatley had been ordered to make back payments even after he learned a teenager wasn't his son.

After a hearing, Hatley was released from the Cook County Jail in south Georgia Wednesday afternoon, with the help of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins ruled that Hatley was indigent and should not be jailed for not being able to make child support payments. Perkins postponed a decision on whether Hatley should have to make any more back payments on child-support for a child who is not his.

In June of last year, a judge ordered Hatley to jail for failing to reimburse the state for public assistance that was paid to support his "son," who, as the court was aware, is not actually his son.

Hatley's attorney Sarah Geraghty, who filed a motion for his release, called it a case of "blatant unfairness."

Hatley is a hard-working man who demonstrated his desire to pay what the court said he owed, even making payments from his unemployment checks, Geraghty told CNN.

On top of that, "the state has no legitimate reason to pursue Mr. Hatley for child support -- he doesn't have any children," she said.

The story dates back to 1986, when Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son.

Morrison told Hatley that the child was his, but the couple ended their relationship shortly after the boy's birth, according to court documents. The couple never married and never lived together, the documents state.

When the boy turned 2, Morrison applied for public support for her son. Under Georgia law, the state can go after the non-custodial parent to recoup the assistance.

For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning, in 2000, that the boy might not be his biological son. A DNA test that year confirmed that there was no chance he was the father, according to court documents.

Hatley returned to court and was relieved of any future child support reimbursement but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 that he had owed the state before the ruling.

Latesha Bradley, an attorney who represented Hatley in that hearing, told CNN the argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments was that he had signed a consent agreement with the office of child support services. The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.

Court documents show that Hatley for the most part continued to make payments. He was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments and continued to do so even after he lost another job in 2008 and became homeless, court records state.

Last year, he again became unable to maintain the payments and was once again jailed.

The circumstances of Hatley's arrest didn't feel right to many, including Cook County Sheriff Johnny Daughtrey.

"I knew the gentleman's plight and didn't know how to help him," Daughtrey told CNN.

About two months ago, when attorneys from the Southern Center for Human Rights visited his jail, Daughtrey alerted them to Hatley's case.

There it is.

[_Simpson_ 250]

There it is.

My mistake, sorry. I stand corrected

[Ban Hammer 12,839]

more proof that women are evil.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

more proof that women are evil.

don't you know it....

[_Simpson_ 250]

Not just evil but the root of all evil, except for my every so awesome wife.

[jundp 191]

So ridiculous. I have an ex who, at best, has paid 2 years worth of child support in 17 years - and this poor man did everything he could even AFTER he found out the kid wasn't his...and he's jailed?

#######?

[Ban Hammer 12,839]

Not just evil but the root of all evil, except for my every so awesome wife.

she's watching what you type, isn't she?

So ridiculous. I have an ex who, at best, has paid 2 years worth of child support in 17 years - and this poor man did everything he could even AFTER he found out the kid wasn't his...and he's jailed?

#######?

welcome to our screwed up family legal system that punishes someone just for having a #######.

Edited July 16, 2009 by charles!

[sara..... 371]

thats messed up he trusted her and didnt question if the child was his just did what he was suppose to until he had no job, now my question is if he is being ordered to pay the back child support even after the court sees he is not the father why didnt he file a case against her to refund any and all child support payments issued to her because of a lie?

sara

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

So am I to also understand that a judge cant jump in here and do the right thing and not screw this guy over because of some technicality.

What about the woman, I think she needs to be held accountable to some degree. I cant help but to think she knew he wasn't the father or at best wasn't sure who the father was...

It's not a technicality. He assumed responsibility of the child by agreeing to pay support and did so without question for 13 years. Had his responsibility only been on the assumption that the child was biologically his, he should have taken a paternity test within the first 2 years of the boy's life.

Read the info I posted....it's pretty straightforward as far as how the courts look at it.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Not just evil but the root of all evil, except for my every so awesome wife.

she's watching what you type, isn't she?

So ridiculous. I have an ex who, at best, has paid 2 years worth of child support in 17 years - and this poor man did everything he could even AFTER he found out the kid wasn't his...and he's jailed?

#######?

welcome to our screwed up family legal system that punishes someone just for having a #######.

Oh yeah, not my first rodeo.

thats messed up he trusted her and didnt question if the child was his just did what he was suppose to until he had no job, now my question is if he is being ordered to pay the back child support even after the court sees he is not the father why didnt he file a case against her to refund any and all child support payments issued to her because of a lie?

sara

Well before we start patting him on the back I would like to mention that it looks like that even though he thought the child was his he chose not to have a relationship with him, or hell maybe she kept him from having a relationship but if she was taking his money that's kind of tough to do.

Edited July 16, 2009 by looking_up

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So ridiculous. I have an ex who, at best, has paid 2 years worth of child support in 17 years - and this poor man did everything he could even AFTER he found out the kid wasn't his...and he's jailed?

#######?

I agree that throwing him in jail under the mitigating circumstances is too severe. Perhaps the mother and this gentlemen could enter an agreement in family court that would be fair.

It's a messed up situation no doubt, however, men should not assume any responsibility for a child without a paternity test if the biological connection makes a difference to them.

BTW, there have been plenty of people born and raised in families where the father they know isn't really their biological father. It happens more often than people might imagine.

[_Simpson_ 250]

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

So am I to also understand that a judge cant jump in here and do the right thing and not screw this guy over because of some technicality.

What about the woman, I think she needs to be held accountable to some degree. I cant help but to think she knew he wasn't the father or at best wasn't sure who the father was...

It's not a technicality. He assumed responsibility of the child by agreeing to pay support and did so without question for 13 years. Had his responsibility only been on the assumption that the child was biologically his, he should have taken a paternity test within the first 2 years of the boy's life.

Read the info I posted....it's pretty straightforward as far as how the courts look at it.

So you think nothing should be done or that the fact he didnt have a paternity test he has only himself to blame. I say put that lying woman in jail.

I did read what you posted and I get what your saying. What I am saying here is that this is just wrong and this guy doesnt deserve this and that there has got to be something(I hope) that the judge can do and still stay within the law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

So am I to also understand that a judge cant jump in here and do the right thing and not screw this guy over because of some technicality.

What about the woman, I think she needs to be held accountable to some degree. I cant help but to think she knew he wasn't the father or at best wasn't sure who the father was...

It's not a technicality. He assumed responsibility of the child by agreeing to pay support and did so without question for 13 years. Had his responsibility only been on the assumption that the child was biologically his, he should have taken a paternity test within the first 2 years of the boy's life.

Read the info I posted....it's pretty straightforward as far as how the courts look at it.

So you think nothing should be done or that the fact he didnt have a paternity test he has only himself to blame. I say put that lying woman in jail.

I did read what you posted and I get what your saying. What I am saying here is that this is just wrong and this guy doesnt deserve this and that there has got to be something(I hope) that the judge can do and still stay within the law.

Because legal paternity doesn't hinder solely on whether a child is biologically yours or not.

As for the woman - you are assuming that she knew the child wasn't his, but let's assume that's true. If that was the case, I'd say for sure, he should be able to legally sue her for all the amount he's had to pay and then some.

[Peikko 1,575]

In terms of Family Law, child support is considered a relationship as the article I just posted makes perfectly clear. If the man's name was on the BC of the child as the father, that means he signed it. The man did not dispute his relationship to the child for 13 years. I'm not sure how to make it more clear than what the above article states. You may not agree with it, but that's how most states handle such cases.

So am I to also understand that a judge cant jump in here and do the right thing and not screw this guy over because of some technicality.

What about the woman, I think she needs to be held accountable to some degree. I cant help but to think she knew he wasn't the father or at best wasn't sure who the father was...

It's not a technicality. He assumed responsibility of the child by agreeing to pay support and did so without question for 13 years. Had his responsibility only been on the assumption that the child was biologically his, he should have taken a paternity test within the first 2 years of the boy's life.

Read the info I posted....it's pretty straightforward as far as how the courts look at it.

So you think nothing should be done or that the fact he didnt have a paternity test he has only himself to blame. I say put that lying woman in jail.

I did read what you posted and I get what your saying. What I am saying here is that this is just wrong and this guy doesnt deserve this and that there has got to be something(I hope) that the judge can do and still stay within the law.

Because legal paternity doesn't hinder solely on whether a child is biologically yours or not.

As for the woman - you are assuming that she knew the child wasn't his, but let's assume that's true. If that was the case, I'd say for sure, he should be able to legally sue her for all the amount he's had to pay and then some.

As I said earlier, I think this is wrong, not because an assumption of paternity should not be taken seriously, but because to all intents and purposes in this particular situation the person in question a) did not have any involvement in the upbringing of the child beyond paying the bills and B) he did not deliberately shirk his assumed duties despite all the odds.

To suggest that everyone who is not married should automatically assume that women is lying and demand a paternity test would I fear lead to far worse situations than this one.

Courts should (if they are not already able to) be able to make a case by case adjudication in these kinds of matters, taking all the circumstances into consideration, not least the balance at this stage between what is right for the child (assuming he still is one) and what is right for the father figure. I would imagine that if the facts as they are presented are more or less acurate, such an adjudication would in fact lead to a dismissal of the arrears at this stage.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

MC - what all family courts should require for all issues regarding paternal responsibility is have the men take a paternity test, which I believe they do if the man wants to contest it. It's unfortunate for this man that he didn't and who knows, maybe at the time he just felt it was the right thing to do. Why else would have not wanted to get a paternity test if the child was not part of his life?