Man Must Pay $30,000 Child Support For Someone Else’s Kid

Imagine a story that starts in 1987. Unbeknownst to you, your ex-girlfriend fraudulently claims you are the father of her child to “earn” welfare payments. In 1991, you realize for the first time that you’re a “dad” because a cop has pulled you over and says you’re a deadbeat parent who owes thousands in child support. Meanwhile, your scheming ex has received thousands in taxpayer funds as a result of her hideous lie.

Oh, but it gets worse! You’re incarcerated on another matter and a court server falsifies a document to make it look as if you refused to sign a court summons about the so-called child support debt. But how could you have? You were in jail. Once released from prison, you’re unable to track down the mother who’s your ex and the court-provided address for her is the wrong one.

You finally find your alleged baby mama in 2013 and a DNA test proves that you are not the father, and the woman freely admits she took you for a ride. Worse still, the real father is and has been involved in the now adult kid’s life.

Now guess what? You’re about to meet a judge with a broom so far up her ass that it’s touching both her spinal cord and the moon. And she’s making you pay $30,000 in backdated child support to that scamming ex of yours. All while falsely impugning your character and rubbing pounds of salt into your festering emotional and financial wounds.

Meet a truly unlucky man

Thankfully for you, a casual observer, the man in this case, and it’s a very, very real case, is named Carnell Alexander, a resident of Detroit. The details of the situation are truly gut-wrenching [1] [2] [3].

“I am outraged that Mr. Alexander for two and a half decades failed to take this matter seriously,” bellowed Judge Kathleen McCarthy, who is now the leading contender for Bitch of the Century for her psychopathic condemnations.

McCarthy’s “outrage” stems from Alexander’s inability to appeal the paternity and child support issues earlier, as legally required within three years. Yet given the two massive frauds of both the ex and the server, not to mention Alexander’s poverty and deprived education, it’s hard to share her sense of being offended if you haven’t been sniffing gasoline for a year.

The reason we have lawyers is because most people, understandably, lack the requisite legal knowledge in an increasingly complex and technical world. And the cost of seeking this knowledge through an attorney is usually prohibitive for the most upper middle-class families, let alone a poverty-stricken African-American from the Detroit area.

News reports allege that Alexander has but an eighth grade education. Even if he were college-educated, the idea that he should be held responsible for a welfare-scamming ex, a forgery-loving server and the false address information provided by the court system itself is as fanciful as the Philadelphia 76ers going on a 30 week winning streak.

Blame where no blame exists

Importantly, again, Alexander was destitute for much of the time since the birth of the child. At one stage he had been released from prison and didn’t have a penny to his name. Inasmuch as he has made some poor life choices in other areas, an indigent person such as him has committed neither a fraud nor another injustice worthy of McCarthy’s disdain and inhumane vitriol.

We cannot blame McCarthy for the law itself, which often rules squarely and dispassionately against common sense and any shred of fairness. But judges routinely, through what is known as obiter dicta, opine on aspects of the law not central to the determination of the case, which is called the ratio decidendi. For example, U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia described the future legalization of gay marriage as a march towards equality, but was still forced to enter a stay upholding the present one-man, one-woman law.

Obiter dicta, which are often phrased sympathetically towards the losing party or side, can be found across all forms of law, even in the most banal commercial cases.

If Judge McCarthy had said her hands were tied, someone aware of a judicial officer’s limitations could understand her position and defend it based on the separation of powers. She is, after all, only there to interpret the law. But the draconian way in which she treated Alexander, a victim of two gargantuan moral, if not criminal frauds, is beyond the pale and evinces a clearly anti-male bias in her reasoning. The mother and ex, a professional scam artist and clear sadist, received nothing of the same rebuke.

Men are fourth-class citizens in family courts

As you must already know, Alexander’s plight is far from the first not only unfair but moronic anti-male family court debacle. Take the older case of Ari Schochet. His court-ordered alimony and child support payments were astronomical, but affordable when he was earning the magical sum of $1 million per annum. But when the economy and his business both tanked, funds were harder to come by.

The lifetime nature of his alimony meant that the rate was locked in, irrespective of how much he was earning on an ongoing basis in years subsequent. Consequently, he frequently found himself in jail for “missed” payments based on his formerly huge but now vastly depleted income.

The only plus here is that Carnell Alexander’s loss and humiliation over nearly three decades will shine further light on a hysterical and virulently anti-male family legal process. In the meantime, let’s hope and pray that the man finally begins to receive the support and solace so long denied to him.

Read More: Men Do Not Get A Choice In Having A Child