Criminal Justice

Judge 'Outraged' at Innocent Man, Orders Him to Pay $30,000 in Support for Child That Isn't His

When poor men are inaccurately declared fathers of children they don't know, the justice system sneers at their pain.

|

Judge finds this (innocent) man's conduct an "outrage." |||

Carnell Alexander is not the father of the now-adult child for whom several courts, including the Wayne County Circuit Court this week, have ordered him to pay $30,000 in back child support for. How do we know he's not the father? Because he took a DNA test proving the contrary, and even the mother (an ex-girlfriend) now says he's not.

How is it possible in the Land of the Free that men can face huge fines, revocation of professional licenses, forfeiture of the right to international travel, and sometimes (as in Alexander's case until this week) even jail time, from owing child support to kids that aren't theirs? I wrote a feature about that 11 years ago, entitled "Injustice by Default." Short version:

Governments (and sometimes even hospitals) are financially incentivized to attach paternity to the children of single mothers, particularly those seeking welfare benefits. Departments of Child Support Services will sometimes go on information as flimsy as "Dude with this name living in Southern California"; if a records search turns up only one dude, he will likely be mailed a court summons. That court summons will often be very confusingly written, so that the men don't realize that they are just 30 days away from being declared the father via default judgment. Once you have been named the father, you owe all back child support (sometimes with interest), said support will be garnished from your wages, and it is devilishly hard to get your paternity undeclared, even with DNA proof and sworn affidavits from the mother.

So why don't we hear about this outrage more? Because nobody likes to defend "deadbeat dads," and the people hardest hit are typically poor men who have even less political and media clout than they do access to good lawyers. Here's how Carnell Alexander describes how he failed for decades to produce a good enough legal motion to set aside the judgment:

For one, he says when he learned he was allegedly a father, he had just gotten out of prison.  He had no income and no savings.  He has an eighth grade education.  He could not find a lawyer to help him. He was on his own. He says while he may not have filed a certain motion required by the bureaucratic court system, he did make sure Friend of the Court workers and judges on the case knew he was not this child's father, had never been in the child's life, and didn't want to be held responsible.

"Every court appearance that she said I made, I made it clear to them I was not the father of this child," said Alexander.

Carnell says when he first learned of the case against him,  the court gave him an old address for the mother who claimed he had fathered a child.  He went there hoping to get a DNA test to prove his story.  She didn't live there.  He says the court told him it could not help him in any other way to locate the mother who said he was the father. He spent a lot of time looking for her over the years, but failed until 2013.  Once he had proof, he again tried to prove his case.

Judge Kathleen McCarthy. ||| Family Lawyer Magazine
Family Lawyer Magazine

Waah waah waah, talk to the hand, said Judge Kathleen McCarthy:

"I am outraged that Mr. Alexander for two and a half decades failed to take this matter seriously," said Judge Kathleen McCarthy. […]

"That motion must be filed within 3 years after the child's birth, or within one year after the order of filiation is entered.  The defendant has failed to timely file this motion setting aside the acknowledgement of parentage[.]"

Not only that, Judge McCarthy is cheesed off that journalists have dared criticize her actions in this case:

"I am outraged at the media for the willful misrepresentations of the facts of this case," said Judge McCarthy.  "Casting this court in a negative light."

Call my outrage selective, but I save more of the stuff for those who preside over willful miscarriages of justice, at total odds with their job description.

As we write about at Reason constantly, the criminal justice system in practice can look an awful lot like an apparatus for shaking every last dime out of the pockets of the poor. Poor communities get policed more, then have a much harder time meeting the Chinese water torture of court dates and filing deadlines, too often ending up in a revolving jail door for underlying offenses that just don't merit such punishment. That's why, as Jesse Walker has noted, any serious anti-poverty program must include criminal justice reform.  

NEXT: Sheldon Richman: Foreign Policy Failure Everywhere

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And she looks like such a nice lady.

    1. Who told her that hair looked good?

      1. Only her hairdresser knows for sure

        1. Looks like she’s aiming for a slot in daytime television.

          1. Not nearly frightening enough to challenge Grace.

            *shudders*

            1. Fuck her with a rusty cactus.

              1. Ya she looks like a fem/Dom now that you mention it.

                1. This is what happens when feminists are allowed to fuck their way to the top.

              2. Ouch. Feel sorry for the cactus.

    2. She would look nicer in a pine box.

      1. I’m thinking tar and feathers would make her a far better representative of justice than she is now.

        -jcr

        1. Or perhaps superglued into a kangaroo costume.

      2. She would look nicer on fire.

    3. She has stupid hair, she’s a bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.

      I really mean it….

      -jcr

    4. Harf, harf, harf, ha!

    5. She looks like a Century 21 Real Estate agent. I wouldn’t want my real estate agent to determine a child’s paternity.

      1. Naturally! A privileged white judge, member of the oppressor class, blames an innocent man of color instead of the privileged white villain who raped the mother, literally or metaphorically. The judge is a RAPE APOLOGIST; a 1-percenter racist who encourages and promotes rape culture. When he sexually objectified, victimized, and colonized this poor woman, the rapist did to her exactly what capitalists and industrialist have done to our Mother Earth. Even if *some* accusations may not be technically factual, this case reveals a greater truth & indicts the entire patriarchy for crimes against humanity. By shielding her white male hetero oppressor brother from punishment, the judge is a gender traitor.

  2. Jesus Christ, I hate everything any more. What a “Les Miserables” playing out in the US “justice” system.

    1. No, it’s not Les Miserables. Jean Valjean was actually guilty of a crime. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.

      1. I was thinking about that the other day. Did he ask the baker if he could work a trade for the bread? If not, fuck you, pull that ship into dry dock thief!

        1. Eh, I’d say five years for a loaf of bread is probably overkill, but I always have been generous to a fault.

          1. Les Tres Miserables.

        2. How did tossing JVJ into prison make the baker any better off? JVJ owed him a broken windowpane, a loaf of bread, and compensation for his trouble.

      2. -1 bad analogy

        *hangs head*

        1. *Throws bread at Al*

        2. Now bring me prisoner 24601
          Your time is up
          And your parole’s begun
          You know what that means.

          Yes, it means I’m free.

          No!
          Follow to the letter your itinerary
          This badge of shame you’ll show until you die
          It warns you’re a dangerous man

          I stole a loaf of bread.
          My sister’s child was close to death
          And we were starving.

          You will starve again
          Unless you learn the meaning of the law.

          I know the meaning of those 19 years
          A slave of the law

          Five years for what you did
          The rest because you tried to run
          Yes, 24601.

          My name is Jean Valjean

          And I am Javert
          Do not forget my name!
          Do not forget me,
          24601.

          1. I am not a number, I am a free man.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7LH__BPqSY

      3. It’s not a crime to NOT fuck a woman, who then gives birth to a child the ISN’T yours, who you then don’t support.

        IT is a crime to have a penis.

        1. Would not having a penis even be a defense?

          1. How about, “Women? Eeeew!”

          2. Well in our expanding Social Justice Courts it is the only defense.

          3. Better get rid of those testicles, too.

            1. I don’t think anyone has the balls to do that.

        2. Courts have this cognitive disconnect — it simply does not matter what reality actually is if a judge says differently.

          Even if you prove absolutely that you could not have done what a judge says you did, the fact remains that a judge said it, and that is all a court needs to know.

          1. The one thing we have retained from the classist bigoted system of the UK is the divine right of Judges. In the UK, the King was seen as chosen by god, and the hubris of the king was seen in all royal and legal systems. Judges, through royal appointment, ruled their little judicial fiefdoms with no oversight. Our American judges today act as if they are also minions of God himself, to the point where disrespect of a judge is more serious than actual commission of a crime. In this case, the convicted man is not even guilty of disrespecting a judge, but simply of insulting her sense of propriety concerning filing times of court documents. The courts in America are so corrupt and unfair, the time has come to at best, recreate the entire system, or at least throw the bums out of every judicial seat and start again.

      4. the only crime is the woman has more rights than the man in the court. and I thought they wanted equality.

        1. Very few people choose equality when given a choice between it and elite privilege.

          1. Indeed. They want equality as much as the Nazis wanted equality for Silesian Germans. Yeah, sure, the Silesian Germans got fucked over by the allies by getting forced into Poland, but who would seriously trust a self-described Germanist to decide what is ‘equality’ between Germans and Poles?

        2. In this case, I don’t think the woman has much to do with it, or much at stake. It’s the state that want’s its money.

      5. If any of today’s feminists had written Les Miserables it would be a safe assumption that Jean Valjean would have been guilty by gender.

        “Gender equality” in a feminist dominated society? – Harfing hilarious!

  3. “I am outraged at the media for the willful misrepresentations of the facts of this case,” said Judge McCarthy. “Casting this court in a negative light.”

    Tough shit. You can always resign from the bench if it is too much for you, your Judicial Majesty.

    1. It’s generally frowned upon for individual judges to comment on cases to the press. Hopefully she will be censured.

    2. Maybe she could explain sais “willful representations of the facts” or at least provide a rational explanation. FYTW doesn’t count.

      1. *said I’m making my morning coffee right now.

    3. Is the evidence that this man is not the kid’s father and had never acted in that capacity facts that have been misrepresented? Otherwise, it would seem everything else is trivia.

  4. Procedures were followed. Nothing else happened.

  5. Isn’t this what so-called ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ were originally supposed to be protesting?

    1. Fun fact: They are. And always have been.

      1. But they also seem to have branched out into other, stupider things too.

    2. According to an SNL sketch penned by Lena Dunham, the MRA movement exists to protest abortion, equal pay, chocolate, and everything good in life. Also MRA members are just sexually frustrated dorks lashing out at the real victims: white, middle class, college grads who have to pay for their own birth control.

      Abandon hope all ye who click here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6tiyGqL9ck

      1. Thankee, no.

        1. Con: skit is unfunny and the narrator’s commentary is cringe-inducing

          Pro: Lena Dunham keeps her clothes on

      2. And Law & Order: SVU thinks they are the equivalent to ISIS.

        1. Really? Was there actually an episode on it? I’m curious really.

      3. I didn’t know she joined forces with SNL. What an unspeakable horror.

        1. The last time SNL was funny, Chris Rock and Chris Farley were still on the show.

          -jcr

          1. The last time SNL was funny was when (insert name of cast member on SNL when poster was in high school) was on the show.

            Ever since (insert name of cast member on SNL when poster was in high school) left the show, it’s been nothing but terrible, which is why I haven’t watched SNL since high school.

    3. Probably more stuff about actual dads who couldn’t see their actual kids, but yeah.

      1. Great, now all I can think of is another Jeffrey Leving radio ad…

        I once saw Jeffrey Leving argue against an equally obnoxious lawyer at the Daley Center… it got so bad even the jaded divorce lawyers in the room were groaning.

      2. I think I first heard the term many years ago when some dude in the UK dressed up like Batman and scaled a balcony at Buckingham Palace to protest inequalities in the UK family courts.

        1. I always associate it with a guy who used to stand around downtown with a sandwich board describing how much child support he had paid to his bitch ex wife who hadn’t let him see his kids for 15 years or something.

        2. Holy shit, I was staying at a hotel across the street when that happened.

  6. Clearly Judge McCarthy’s tiny brain cannot grasp complicated concepts like “innocence” and “justice”. She should be sold to a Port Said pimp, as she clearly does not belong in any society that allows women to make decisions.

    1. She’s a judge. What do those things have to do with her job description?

      1. to a judge innocence and guilt are whatever she thinks it is and nothing more.

        Back to the “shut up and pay” mentality.

        …and they wonder why we hate them so much

    2. To be fair to the judge, by the time she does that hair, there isn’t a lot of time left over for wrangling with legal concepts.

      1. That and the chemicals have likely seeped through her skull.

    3. You think the court system cares about innocence? How quaint.

  7. Step 1. Scrape together enough money for a rifle.
    Step 2. Use newly purchased rifle.

    1. Meh, skip step 1. When the time comes for step 2 there will be a surplus

    2. It’s an appealing thought, but running away would probably have a better outcome.

  8. Family law, where damaged people with bar licenses take out their childhood issues on hurting people during the worst season of their lives.

    1. At least in the IL part of the “Family Law” bar, some years ago there were much higher reported rates of suicide, alcoholism and some of the most cynical things spoken aloud by humans.

      1. Family courts should not exist really. Nothing they do could not be easily replaced by partners signing a few simple contracts.

        It’s really one of those areas of state malevolence without even a fig leaf. Their job is quite literally to steal money and ruin lives. I’d sooner admit to being a klansman than being a family court judge.

  9. Something tells me there’s a not so small component of “don’t criticize the mama” contributing to this as well. Deadbeat dads are disgusting but when you are confronted with incontrovertible proof that someone isn’t the father and you are then “outraged” that procedures weren’t followed when those procedures shouldn’t have been applied in the first place, you’ve not just lost the beat, you’re playing a whole different tune. That music sounds eerily similar to the unquestioning “#believe” nonsense surrounding the current rape “epidemic.”

    1. Agreed. It seems similar to a 4th amendment argument. When your initial premise is flawed, the entire shitshow you built on top of it will come down.

      The judge in this case is so beholden to the procedure she cannot see the issues. She would let a person be put to death despite DNA evidence coming out proving innocence if the trial procedures went correctly.

    2. “Deadbeat dads are disgusting ”

      Are deadbeat moms, you know, moms who can’t afford to support their children, equally disgusting?

      1. Yes. I will be sure to give equal air time when we are commenting on a story about a mother who dropped her child off at the father’s house and abdicated all sense of parental responsibility.

        1. Deadbeat mothers are even worse actually. Deadbeat dads may just take off, but the female equivalent seems to be to drown your kids in the bathtub.

          What’s funny is, ‘deadbeat dads’ seem to be more indefensible in common culture than a woman who murders her kid. “But, she had post-partem depression!!!” Then why wasn’t she locked in a padded room where we’re all safe from her lunacy?

      2. That’s not deadbeat. That’s something different.

  10. Also, how are you drawn to the “justice” department and have no sense of justice? I remember when I was a kid I wanted to be a cop to protect people and catch bad guys. It never crossed my mind I could wield power and be immune to prosecution. I guess that’s why I’m in healthcare instead of law enforcement. I don’t find power that alluring.

    1. I don’t care to actually look, but I’m willing to bet she was previously a prosecutor.

      1. You misspelled “persecutor”.

        -jcr

        1. But, they’re the good guys!!! Law and Order says so1

    2. They have a sense of justice. It’s just that to them, justice is by definition whatever courts decide it is.

  11. States also systematically set child support obligations above the actual cost of supporting a child, and above what married people actually spend on their children:

    http://www.examiner.com/articl…..ort-levels

    One reason for this is that they order the non-custodial parent to pay more than the full cost of raising the children, even though the custodial parent is already receiving refundable child tax credits and refundable EITC and other tax credits that effectively cover the very same expenses:

    http://www.richmond.com/opinio…..321ca.html

    Most child support payors and recipients are in low-to-modest income households, who often receive more back in child and other tax credits than they pay in income taxes, and custodial parents often receive government payments on account of their children that cover most of the cost of raising them. Child support guidelines essentially allow the custodial parent to engage in double-dipping, collecting money from both the non-custodial parent and the state for the very same expenses, creating a windfall.

    1. Yet you will always here the issue framed as “you, the taxpayer, shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s responsibilities.” Strange that the government payouts aren’t reduced in proportion to the amount of child support derived. Stranger that this framing rationale somehow doesn’t apply to ALL social welfare spending in the minds of the members of the family law industry.

      1. *hear

        Needz moar caffeine.

      2. Government TANF payouts (explicitly welfare) are sometimes reduced by the amount of child support, but refundable tax credits are NOT, and most means-tested government benefits are not reduced by the amount of child support.

        1. And of course to my knowledge very few states make child support inversely proportional to the father’s involvement in the child’s upbringing.

      3. I don’t know the policies in all states in regards to TANF and child support. I do know that in Washington state, anyone receiving TANF assigns their rights to child support to the state in return for benefits. My cousin went through a divorce in WA, and got back together with his wife. The problems that caused, whoo boy.

    2. This is why I’m still married.

      1. + yes 🙂

      2. This is why I’m not married and only use condoms that have remained in my custody from purchase to use.

      3. Rule #1. Don’t get married.
        Rule #2. If you do get married, don’t have kids.
        Rule #3. If you get married and have kids, don’t get divorced.

        1. Rule #4 – If ypu fuxk the preceeding rules up, see post above regarding “rifle.”

    3. “One reason for this is that they order the non-custodial parent to pay more than the full cost of raising the children, even though the custodial parent is already receiving refundable child tax credits and refundable EITC and other tax credits that effectively cover the very same expenses…

      Emphasis mine. So, I really need to clarify a couple things.

      Are you sincerely arguing that a parent’s duty to a child is, what… limited, nullified (it’s not clear) on grounds of “the government’s got this, bro”?

      And the commentariat hasn’t said anything yet about this?

      Fuck you, cut spending.

      1. Meh. The credit, exemption, lowering of tax burden, and so on is a topic that gets brought up a lot here. Are you claiming that someone having less money stolen from them is a bad thing? You’ll find libertarians on both sides on this issue.

        1. Paying for your kids’ support =!= taxes. (We can discuss all the minutae of family court suckage and support law WTFery, but the point remains. =!=)

          I look forward to seeing the rationale on both sides.

          1. The argument is generally not couched in those terms. It’s that too much is already extracted, so that reclaiming part of that (by whatever means available) is morally acceptable. Not saying I necessarily agree with this. The best way out is a fair tax. But within the extraordinarily complicated system of credits and exemptions for damned near everything, I don’t see much reason to fault someone for taking these credits over anyone else.

          2. A single non-parent that doesn’t own a house has to pay for everyone’s free shit. I get screwed even with a flat tax with no exemptions.

  12. Wait, so the court couldn’t find the mother? Who were they going to send money to if they collected?

    1. Different branch of government.

      As long as the mother keeps contact with the welfare offices, she’ll get checks.

  13. I got into a massive fight with a progressive friend during dinner one night on this topic. She insisted I had not “read the literature” and was talking out of my ass, and that this type of thing never happened.

    1. This happens because welfare case workers need something, anything, for the application. You can’t leave those questions blank and often the women applying for aid know who the father is but don’t want to put a child support case on them so they’ll name an ex or someone they dated or just make something up. I had several TANF cases that had more fathers listed in the case file than the number of children. DNA testing or occasional fraud charges against the mothers would cut down on the problem but Child Support Enforcement doesn’t have any incentive to do this. Neither do the courts.

    2. Next time just tell her rape never happens.

  14. There was a case a few months ago where a sailor out on a sub was ordered to appear in court for a child custody hearing. The sailor tried to schedule a video call since the Navy could not get him there. The judge said tough titties, you must be in court. He lost custody of his child.

    http://seattle.cbslocal.com/20…..-contempt/

    What do you call someone who graduates last in their class at laws school?
    Your Honor.

    1. The order was given by Judge Margaret Noe.

      Hmm. Seems to be a pattern.

      1. They’re both judges?

        1. Her phone number if 313-224-5481. I recommend calling her. Of course she won’t answer: someone else will. But if 100 people called and civilly but firmly called attention to this injustice, she might listen. Probably not, but then at least you could make here feel bad.

          1. See below, the matter was resolved.

            1. Thanks, Swiss Servator. The sailor’s matter was resolved, not the matter that Matt wrote about above.

      2. They’re both in Michigan?

      3. They both have vaginas where their penises should be? TIWTANFL

        1. Beat me to it!

      4. Vagina?

    2. You will respect my authoritah!

  15. This is the kind of systemic corruption that breeds terrorists.

    1. Don’t mention the T word, if you do the junior varsity extremists win

  16. Earlier this year, my wife informed me that my former brother-in-law was going to court to have his child support payments lowered. His reasoning was that he was leaving his current job as a college professor to start his own company, meaning his pay would, at least temporarily, be going down. My wife was acting like he was being a dick. My response was, “Wait, he pays child support? They have joint custody. Why does he pay your sister at all?” “Because he makes more money than her.” They have joint custody, they live two blocks away from each other, are the kids starving every two days when they spend the night at their mom’s house?

    1. Don’t know his jurisdiction, but in many places his support wouldn’t be reduced if he voluntarily left a higher paying job for a lower one. That’s because you’re assessed at what you’re capable of earning, not actually earning. Doesn’t matter that he might be making even more if he goes out on his own two years from now, all that matters is what he’s capable of making right now.

      1. I can remember when we went over that concept in domestic relations class years ago. I raised my hand and asked, “Uh, I’m sorry, how many steps away from indentured servitude is that?”

        Catatafish’s professor was…nonplussed.

      2. “That’s because you’re assessed at what you’re capable of earning, not actually earning.”

        Indentured servitude. Whip whip whip.

        1. So if the can prove my IQ is as high as Steve Jobs’s does that mean they can make me pay a billion a year in child support?

          Child support should have nothing o do with your income. If I break your windshield, I should be required to pay restitution to cover the cost of a windshield whether I make 30,000 or 30 million a year, because it’s a windshield either way.

          Just wondering, did all policymakers in this country eat lead paint chips as children?

    2. I got news for you, if that’s your wife’s attitude, you’re in trouble. Skip out on the bitch ASAP

      1. I’m glad I’m not the only one who was thinking this

      2. I’ve got news for you, that’s most women’s attitude. That’s why these laws exist. 😉

        My wife is still better than most. If she got worked up about this stuff, that’d be one thing. But she was just repeating something her sister said without thinking about it critically. Besides, Rule #3: If you get married and have kids, don’t get divorced.

        1. I have broken up with a number of women over this view. It’s not worth the potential long-term consequences.

          1. Happy to still be abiding by Rules 1-3. 🙂

    3. I s’pose an alternative to having the government tell them how to behave is to discuss the issue together, as grown-ups who have a shared obligation.. If he talked to her about the project, convinced her of the business plan and the potential for success, and she concluded the net benefit to their child would be increased by this change, then she could talk to the courts on his behalfHAHAHAHA!

      Almost said that with a straight face. Humans suck.

      Theory: Humans are not sentient, they are just really talkative animals. Individual humans occasionally achieve sentience. Discuss!

    4. I worked this out with my ex-wife. Had custody of my daughter roughly half time. Didn’t pay a dime of child support. I had to be extra nice but a small price to pay. Also contributed to a better environment for my daughter.

      1. That’s the scary part. How it goes is nearly completely dependent on the woman. My mom still liked my dad when they divorced, so he paid a hundred a month which ended the second I went off to college. My mom hated my siblings dad when they divorced, so she absolutely soaked him and insists on splitting all big costs spent on the younger siblings.

        From a justice point I’m pissed, from a personal point I’m so grateful I’m female and my parents got along.

        1. My daughter is a teacher, so I still help her out a bit here and there…better investment than stocks.

      2. A lot of people do that. The real problems come up when a divorce is nasty, or if state benefits are involved in any way.

  17. http://www.komonews.com/news/l…..58342.html

    Looks like the outcry got to “11” and the idiot judge caved.

    1. God – I’m so glad my wife and I aren’t as fucked up as so many other unfortunates.

      We literally talk about this shit all the time now – “Yeah, as fucked up and weird as we can get, we got nothin’ – and I mean NOTHIN’ – on our friends and family who go through divorces, kids/parents in jail. fucked up relationships, vicious retaliation, bone-stupid behavior, destruction….”

      Makes us almost seem “normal” – whatever that is!

  18. Mr. Welch,

    Just to clarify, is *anyone* claiming that he’s factually the father, or might be factually the father, or in any way challenging the accuracy of the DNA tests?

    1. I’m sure not.

      The mother probably has no idea who the real father is. And he sure isn’t going to volunteer at this point.

  19. And lawyers wonder why we hate them.

    1. Hey, he’s got a lawyer basically defending him pro bono, from love of justice.

      1. “For the love of justice!” My new favorite exclamation.

      2. I’m honestly starting to think the prosecutors may be worse than the defense attorneys. At least the latter don’t always fuck people in the assholes on the taxpayers’ dime.

        1. Starting? I’d say it is incredibly obvious.

  20. Sorry, but if someone shoots that filthy cunt of a judge I will laugh and laugh.

  21. Yeah, it’s difficult to understand government’s refusal to set things right! Because this happens in my home state, I’ve known about this stupidity for years, but, as you can tell, the judges in his case just have no common sense and a very poor understanding of what the justice system is intended to do.

    1. Save face, they can never be wrong.

      For instance, when the gov issues a contract they occasionally reduce the period of performance because they are late awarding the money. So we get money for 12 months of work but on 10 months to do the work. Of course, we can get a no cost extension. Thing is we cannot use the delay of the award as rationale. We have to make up some BS reason to do it. I know how to play the game, it always gets done but the gov is all FYTW.

      1. Law isn’t reality. It’s like a game, and judges are the referees (and no instant replay is allowed). Once all appeals have been used up, whatever the official says is what happened, according to the rules of the game.

  22. Judge McCarthy should be doused with gasoline and set ablaze, as an inspiration to the rest of her profession.

    1. It’s easier to say that than to call 313-224-5481 and to really try to make a difference, isn’t it, The Late P Brooks?

  23. “”Every court appearance that she said I made, I made it clear to them I was not the father of this child,” said Alexander…..”I am outraged that Mr. Alexander for two and a half decades failed to take this matter seriously,” said Judge Kathleen McCarthy. [?]…..Not only that, Judge McCarthy is cheesed off that journalists have dared criticize her actions in this case:

    “I am outraged at the media for the willful misrepresentations of the facts of this case,” said Judge McCarthy. “Casting this court in a negative light.”

    I have some difficulty understanding how ProL, John, Rc, Tarran(?) etc. can work as lawyers seeing that they are clearly not sociopaths. The profession is infested with them.

    1. I’m not a lawyer; I merely carry the genes – and have been forced by circumstance to consume too many of their services.

    2. A fair amount of that is “bad lawyers make for good stories.” But generally speaking, I think the closer you get to a courtroom, the higher propensity for what you’re talking about. Particularly when you have slaves to process, utilitarian “interest-balancing” and outright outcome preferences.

      I do commercial contracts and consequently sleep like a fucking baby. Then again, most sociopaths sleep pretty soundly as well…

      1. Sociopathic lawyers aren’t necessarily a bad thing. For instance, they make great defense lawyers.

        1. did we just read the same article?

    3. I, on the other hand, am clearly a sociopath. And I am billing you for this response.

      1. I did work with a water utility that once had a court case regarding a large unpaid bill (five figure – commercial customer). The utility won the case. The assistant superintendent called the lawyer to thank him. I was told a week later they got a bill in the mail for the three minute phone call. Fantastic.

  24. Men, do NOT get married until you get a pre-nup. Even with a pre-nup, make sure she knows your position on child support and her initiating divorce and whatever, regardless of what’s actually enforceable in court, and tell her you’ll see it it that you’ll personally enforce that agreement.
    Yes, I said it. You know what I mean and I seriously mean it, and really you ought to do it. Ain’t nothing worth being forced to pay $1500/month, which you won’t be able to and then get sent to prison.

    1. Prenups are invalidated with impunity at every single family court in the US. They are not worth the paper they are printed on if the judge feels that there will be hardship for the woman.

      1. which is why I said you should also make her tell you exactly what you guys intend beforehand, and not agree to bullshit. If she actually does try to steal from you through the court system later, you just self-enforce. It isn’t THAT hard if you just plan it out.

      2. also, that’s not true about pre-nups. Every fucking jaded MRA douche says that, but it’s not true.

        Pre-nups can’t cover CHILD SUPPORT. But they do cover ALIMONY. and indeed they DO. The only exception is that it can’t be so low that the woman will need to go on some form of public assistance. But that is easily written into the pre-nup itself.

        Also Remember, there is such a thing as severability clauses.

        1. It varies. Some judges can and will throw out prenups, but they’re not by any stretch worthless.

          The key is to not just have a prenup, but to never marry a woman who doesn’t work. And make sure she pays for at least half of every thing. Since it’s almost a given that she will get the house, it’s only fair she pay for most of it and cover most of the bills, for example.

        2. It varies. Some judges can and will throw out prenups, but they’re not by any stretch worthless.

          The key is to not just have a prenup, but to never marry a woman who doesn’t work. And make sure she pays for at least half of every thing. Since it’s almost a given that she will get the house, it’s only fair she pay for most of it and cover most of the bills, for example.

    2. Freedom of contract? What adorably quaint views you have.

  25. Jokes and comedy require serious study. This judge and her ruling and ruling s from 2 1/2 decades earlier. . .also comedic jokes. Maybe the judge can take her job seriously and provide Justice, not based on what the non dad can afford, but what is morally right.

  26. Here’s a wonderful anecdote from my life for everybody:

    One of the guys I used to work with got divorced after having 2 kids with a woman. The woman moved over a thousand miles away, making their “joint custody” impossible for him to exercise. She also received much of their “joint” (note: she never worked, even before having children) liquid assets, including all of his retirement savings, and he got to pay the penalties and taxes on the early withdrawals. She got spousal and child support that amounted to almost half his pretax income.

    When the company we used to work for downsized, he started his own business. He went into debt and selling his house at a loss because his support payments didn’t go down, but as soon as his business picked up his ex-wife petitioned to have the payments increased, and they did.

    After a few years of this the market began drying up. His revenue started dropping and his business costs were increasing. He eventually went bankrupt and moved in with me, doing work as needed.

    His payments didn’t decrease.

    He was jailed for non-payment for 6 months (racking up support payments while incarcerated of course).

    He was raped in jail.

    When he was threatened with jail for non-payment less than a year after released the judge actually laughed at him when he begged on his knees to have the payments decreased and a new repayment schedule drawn.

    He was RORed until report date, during which time he left my house and shot himself.

    1. Jesus.

    2. Well, if that story doesn’t make you want to draw a warm bath and stare at a razorblade I don’t know what will. Christ.

      1. It was/is pretty upsetting.

        I knew he was terrified of going back inside, but I didn’t realize just how much.

        The worst part was that his wife appeared to be a fantastic woman, until a few months before their divorce. What seemed to turn her was her nutbag radfem manhater sister. Our work had us traveling a lot and whenever he was out, his sister-in-law would stay with the family. That woman is easily the most evil human I’ve ever personally encountered. I mean true, unapologetic screeching evil. If I still believed in such things I’d say that she was possessed.

        After seeing what perverse incentives the American divorce and family courts create to strongly encourage even decent women to indulge in the most outrageously petty behavior I’ve almost entirely sworn off the idea of getting married or having children.

        His story was the worst I’ve seen and was truly familiar with the details, but most of the men I’ve known who’ve gotten divorced have been destroyed by the experience, if not emotionally, financially.

        1. “The worst part was that his wife appeared to be a fantastic woman, until a few months before their divorce.”

          This is the most terrifying part of marriage, children, and all the other basically iron-clad contracts one can form with a woman. She seems great now and has never given me reason to expect psychotic behavior. But put her in a system biased toward women and put a lawyer in her ear and it could go south quickly.

          1. you could always move to a different country

        2. To feel trapped like that has to be utterly terrifying. Jesus.

    3. Gah.

      Here’s my anecdote: my deadbeat father didn’t contribute shit to me or my three brothers growing up. I suppose my mom could have made his life living hell if (a) that was even possible in the 70s/80s and (b) she wanted to. I think she was content merely to have him out of our lives. I simply cannot fathom a women so incredibly vindictive as to ruin a life like that.

    4. I’m glad I checked the comments a second time.

      Sheesh.

    5. Keeerist.

      There were a few things he should have used the gun for before killing himself, IMHO.

    6. At the very least, these lives should not go in vain. I’m thinking that it should be done on the steps of the courthouse with an appropriate note. Perhaps a murder/suicide would be in order. Or just straight up murder. Heck one can claim they did not know what they did was wrong considering the morality of such a court system.

    7. I wonder why he didn’t shoot anyone else first.

      1. Despite feminist claims, most men are not naturally violent, and really don’t want to hurt anybody. It is difficult to push an average man to violence, and this what the feminists and the courts take advantage of.

        That said, this may ultimately lead to violence. There are limits to how far men can be pushed.

    8. I’ll repeat it: systemic corruption.

    9. I shouldn’t say this… I’m a Christian and “Do unto others” and all that… but I’ll say what I told my fellow Marine back in the day when he half-joked about killing himself.

      “Wait, you’re not the problem, the person doing this is the problem. So shooting yourself isn’t solving my problem, I still will have to deal with them. So if you have to do something, don’t shoot yourself, solve the problem.”

      He got a really big smile on his face and did nothing of the type. He just needed to have hope. Killing yourself gives you no hope.

    10. That’s truly horrifying. I’m so sorry.

    11. Did he have a pre-nup?

    12. And this kind of thing is why, I don’t give a shit what barbiturate Elizabeth Nolan Brown is on that makes her thing otherwise, feminism is a social disease. They create the circumstances that lead to this. They have blood on their hands, and it will be entirely fair posterity lumps them into the same category as fascists and white supremacists. That movement is an honest to God disease.

    13. Between this and the later comments, I’d say he shot the wrong person.

  27. reverse sexism, judges must feel as if its like affirmative action for women. women have to be paid back and need to be taken care of. because thats the equality they were after, right?

  28. Fathers’ and Children’s rights advocates fought tooth and nail over this stuff, beginning in the 1990s, right after Ronald Reagan defeated marriage and turned it into a footnote in federal welfare law. Bill Clinton was building on “welfare reform” with even more cost increasing cronyism and some increased benefits for single mothers, just to keep up the impression that it had something to do with that stuff. It isn’t just the poor who are raked over the coals .. although they are much more likely to fit at least part of the “deadbeat dad” idea because they are unable to pay what has been (arbitrarily) ordered. It is about money – big money – and lots and lots of cronyism. So corrupt that you can’t even find the 10s of billions in federal funding involved. It just disappears into a money-laundering scheme. The child support enforcement scheme from 1990 onward was the largest corruption scandal in US history – right up until ObamaCare.

  29. Fathers’ and Children’s rights advocates fought tooth and nail over this stuff, beginning in the 1990s, right after Ronald Reagan defeated marriage and turned it into a footnote in federal welfare law. Bill Clinton was building on “welfare reform” with even more cost increasing cronyism and some increased benefits for single mothers, just to keep up the impression that it had something to do with that stuff. It isn’t just the poor who are raked over the coals .. although they are much more likely to fit at least part of the “deadbeat dad” idea because they are unable to pay what has been (arbitrarily) ordered. It is about money – big money – and lots and lots of cronyism. So corrupt that you can’t even find the 10s of billions in federal funding involved. It just disappears into a money-laundering scheme. The child support enforcement scheme from 1990 onward was the largest corruption scandal in US history – right up until ObamaCare.

  30. I don’t think you people understand -it’s what’s in the child’s best interest that matters. It’s in the child’s best interest to have somebody paying for his support, whether or not that somebody is morally obligated to pay the support is totally beside the point. This is the worst example of “for the children” imaginable, but it happens more than you realize. The mother can name anybody she feels like as the father and if it’s not contested that’s all there is to it. Doesn’t matter if you were given no notice or any opportunity to contest the paternity, it’s not about you any more – it’s only what’s best for the child.

  31. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  32. I propose a “Father of the day” lottery, where, each state, each day, selects a random man from it’s list of Designated Undesirables, and awards a random single mother 50% of his gross income.
    I’m a shoo-in in any blue state. If the electorate gives me trouble, I’ll add single gay fathers to the list of recipients of my magnanimous largess.

    1. Even better idea: whenever a child needs an organ, we’ll randomly select an adult male and have him put down so his organs can be harvested and transplanted.

      Oh, it’s for the children! How could anyone question such a measure?

  33. my roomate’s step-sister makes $62 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her income was $20670 just working on the laptop for a few hours….. ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  34. my roomate’s step-sister makes $62 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her income was $20670 just working on the laptop for a few hours….. ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  35. Just in case you’d like to tell this b*tch what you think of her:

    http://www.3rdcc.org/FamilyDomestic.aspx#/name/0/1

  36. This judge is a real cuntburger, and looks the part . . . and the War on Men continues.

  37. Kathleen McCarthy is an incompetent shyster with no regard whatsoever for justice. She should be bounced off the taxpayers’ teat, disbarred, and forced to pay her entire net worth to the man she is persecuting.

    -jcr

  38. “I am outraged that Mr. Alexander for two and a half decades failed to take this matter seriously,” said Judge Kathleen McCarthy. [?]

    I am outraged that you didn’t spend thousands on lawyers to jump through all the hoops we require to fix our mistake.

  39. is she elected or appointed. if elected I’d pay good money to the candidate who unseats this idiot.
    If appointed- how do we get her impeached – Someone that stupid has to have done something wrong to get to where she is.

  40. I once took on a case pro bono for a man who was on the wrong side of the infinitely cruel state child support apparatus.

    Long story short – mother’s attorney. Magistrate. Rep for the state in that room. Not a Y chromosome to be seen amongst them. Probably not a solitary high school date in the aggregate history from amongst them either.

    Look – I’m not making it a man/woman thing. I am not a misogynist. I am a misanthrope. I hate all people more or less equally. But with that said, you did NOT want to be in that room sans at least one ovary.

    The law itself covering the issue at hand was unspeakably cruel, arbitrary, inflexible, and harsh. So there wasn’t much that really could have been done anyway. But even at that, the “I hate men” club we were up against there made certain to administer a thorough and utterly vicious hammering.

    (Issue was basically that he was unemployable due to an injury sustained doing day work as an independent contractor – so no worker’s comp even for him. The magistrate’s response: too fucking bad. Go get a job paying 50 grand a year. Because that’s what the average 30 year old male should be able to earn. This client was a black inner city guy with felony priors on his record, I might add.)

    1. This illustrates why misandry is worse than misogyny. In the old days before women could vote, all male “misogynist” juries would almost invariably go easy on female defendants out of chivalry. Old school misogynists are at least ‘chivalrous’ so the woman doesn’t go away empty handed.

      But man-hating women have no sense of inverted chivalry. They don’t disdain men as less competent or think me belong in the kitchen, they jut flat out hate them.

  41. Still not understanding why this innocent man hasn’t filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the bureaucrats, the state and the judge for persecuting him.

    -jcr

    1. Because he’s not innocent. He’s 100% guitly. The state declared him to be the father of the child and therefore he is. Reality is of little consequence where the law is concerned. My wife and I are looking into adopting a older child and, once the courts have declared us worthy, a new birth certificate will be issued listing us as the child’s parents. It doesn’t matter that we had nothing to do with the birth, the state will declare us to be the parents. Adoption may be a good thing, but rewriting history is very disturbing to me.

      1. it’s not that

        the issue is he didn’t respond to the court in time. It’s like a “contempt of court” charge, but statutory from the Family Court based laws

  42. Aw, the poor Judgie is upset that bad things have been said about her atrocious jurisprudence.
    Well, TFB!
    When you Lynch a man without any semblance of proof of his crime, don’t expect to be congratulated for it.

    1. without any semblance of proof of his crime,

      It’s worse than that. There is physical evidence that exonerates him.

      -jcr

  43. Look, ultimately the government has to place the well-being of children above the wishes of their parents or whatever random adults they’ve decided might as well be their parents.

    That’s why the fine, upstanding women of the family court system have taken such a tough stance against no-fault divorce, which unnecessarily deprives children of the benefits of a two-parent household to serve the whims of an adult.

  44. Looks like this shithead’s page here needs a bit of updating:

    http://judgepedia.org/Kathleen_McCarthy

    The local bar has some esplainin’ to do, too. She was rated as “outstanding”.

    -jcr

    1. She got elected with 6.92% of the vote. I didn’t run in that election and she only beat me by less than 7%.

  45. McCarthy was a partner in a private law firm, specializing in family law and personal injury litigation, prior to her election to the circuit court in 2001.[2][3]

    Ambulance-chasing just wasn’t bringing in the money, it seems.

    -jcr

  46. We should stop calling judges “Your Honor” as if they are so high and mighty that we cannot address them directly, like royalty of old. Apparently after a few years of hearing it, they start to believe it.

    1. How about calling them “skippy” when they’re doing something so obviously wrong?

      (Skippy was a kangaroo, in a long-running Australian TV show.)

      -jcr

  47. She ran for office as one of 17 candidates for 16 slots. She won her spot with 6.92% of the vote according to Wikipedia. The Detroit Metropolitan Bar rated her as outstanding. Here’s the qualifications for that designation:

    “To be rated “Outstanding,” an individual must stand at the top of his or her profession. He or she must rank among the very best qualified judges or lawyers available for judicial service. This candidate must have outstanding legal ability and background, as well as wide experience, wisdom, intellect, insight, and impartiality. To be accorded the highest rating, a candidate should generally have the breadth of vision and outlook that derives from participation in civic, religious, charitable or political organizations of the community, and the work of the organized bar or other professional associations. In short, each should be a person whose preeminence in the law and as a citizen is widely acknowledged and whose qualifications are virtually hailed by judges and lawyers.”

    Her bad judgment is an indictment of the entire Detroit bar. She might not have had the liberty to have ruled in the man’s favor but she should have reduced the support owed to $1 and assessed court costs for not doing the paperwork right. That would have been justice.

    1. She certainly could have ruled in his favor, under the constitutional prohibition of excessive fines. ANY fine is excessive for an innocent person.

      -jcr

    2. What a joke of an “election”. You only need 6.25%+1 to win a robe.

      1. It’s likely WORSE than this. I live in a city of 500k people in a larger metro area. People frequently don’t vote on “lower” positions and turnout is lower for munincipal elections. In recent memory, no candidate has failed to get elected as an Orphan’s Court judge that got at least @500 votes. Also, no one has gotten more than a 1000 votes as an Orphan’s Court judge. That’s a threshold whereby you can just buy the election for next to nothing. Find 500-1000 people that are likely to vote, buy them a beer and get them on yout facebook, win election, get paid.

  48. If the judge thinks someone who isn’t the father should have to pay child support, then I nominate her to pay it.

    If she insists on another victim, I don’t think she’s taking this matter seriously enough.

  49. There are legal theories which might assit Mr. Alexander. Clearly this is a miscarriage of justice and a court, sitting in equity, as this judge can, could relieve him of this burden.
    More importantly the girlfriend, who defrauded the court, should be held responsible for the damages she has caused, her perjury, and whatever she has collected from the “father” and the government as a result.
    Matt, with liberty comes responsibility, for all. Why don’t we try that and pin the tail on the real donkey.

  50. The following strikes me as a reasonable response from Mr. Alexander to Judge McCarthy.PISS OFF,your honor.

  51. My earlier comment seems to have gone astray. Therefore, I will repost.
    A reasonable response from Mr. Alexander to Judge McCarthy might be as follows. PISS OFF your honor.

  52. Guilty until proven innocent, and even then I guess innocence has a shelf life? What a witch.

  53. Honestly, I think the guy should break into her house and steal everything he can from her to use it to pay this extortion. If he could get away with it of course.

    Seriously. What law would he be violating? A law upheld by the very system imposing injustice on him? Yeah, fuck that. Rob her blind.

  54. Michigan Circuit Judge Kathleen McCarthy. One more dumb blonde…

  55. If this were a movie, the judge would be found dead in chambers with her tongue cut out.

    And I’d be rooting for the guy to get off.

  56. Patriarchy seems cruel and demeaning until you recognize the alternatives.

    I am beginning to think that feminism is an existential risk to humanity.

  57. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
    ……….. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  58. Do not confuse that which is legal with that which is justice. The two, quite often, do not equate.

  59. War Against Whom?

    The Democrats would have Americans believe that the Republicans are waging a “War on Women”. In fact, the sexual war waged is a war against men, and it being waged by the Democrats and their neo-liberal allies.

    The consequences for individual men can be tragic. The consequences for this nation on fire are disastrous (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

  60. We do not have a “Justice” system. We have a legal system. And this legal system is rife with abuse, injustice, favoritism, and fraud. There are so many laws on the books that it is impossible for the legal system to prosecute everyone. Therefore, selective prosecution prevails. When people can choose who to prosecute certain people and leave others alone equality vanishes. That how bad laws stay on the books. The bad laws aren’t enforced for everyone. They are selectively enforced.

  61. When procedures are leading to unjust results, MAYBE it’s time to rethink the procedures.

    But, nope, procedures are sacrosanct. Who cares if it leads to things up to and including people being wrongly put to death.

  62. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you force a person to labor for another, to whom you have no legal or ethical obligation, then is that not one of the definitions of slavery? I’m not talking about being taxed and your taxes funding social programs. I’m talking this man has been turned into a slave in order to serve this one particular woman, (and her child).

  63. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……
    http://www.wixjob.com

  64. $$$ rolex cash system $$$
    how to turn $10 into $10,000 in 7 days online
    discover a bullet-proof,5-step
    formula for injection your bank
    account with absurds windfalls
    of cold hard cash
    Feel FREE To Check This Out Here:.. .

    ——??? http://www.netpay20.com

  65. Join the Fathers Rights Movement against an extremely biased, sexist, and unjust family courts system that treats fathers like second class citizens. They split up children from their fathers, force financial support without regulation or follow-up to see how the money is spent, and alienate children form their fathers.

  66. I have gotten to know a lot of judges in my time an no it’s not from being in court but outside of their profession and I’ve got to say that they are some of the nuttiest people you will find in society. I don’t know if it’s the role that lures that type of individual or if the job makes them that way but they are definitely existing on some other planet.

  67. I would like Reason to tell us which countries will grant asylum to guys in this position. Because there is no way he should ever pay up.

  68. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    == .. http://WWW.JOBSBLAZE.COM

  69. It’s not just poor fathers who are hit by this stuff. The federal government took over marriage and family law via “welfare reform” in the 1980s and 1990s. The welfare state expanded instantly to encompass everyone, and child support laws became a matter of “social policy” – i.e. like any welfare benefit, not subject to civil rights; only political whim and “equal treatment”. The reforms offered billions per year to states based on how much “child support” was “collected” and offered them the suggestion of arbitrarily increasing the amount of “child support” ordered and calling all payments “collections” – thereby maximizing their federal gifts. At the same time, they invented a private child support collection industry that gets a lot of the public money, and also an extra bump based on “collections”. Welfare reform led to a dramatic increase in the cost of welfare, partly in increased benefits for single mothers, but mostly due to the dramatic increase in overhead cost for useless “collection services”. It’s a racket.

  70. It’s not just poor fathers who are hit by this stuff. The federal government took over marriage and family law via “welfare reform” in the 1980s and 1990s. The welfare state expanded instantly to encompass everyone, and child support laws became a matter of “social policy” – i.e. like any welfare benefit, not subject to civil rights; only political whim and “equal treatment”. The reforms offered billions per year to states based on how much “child support” was “collected” and offered them the suggestion of arbitrarily increasing the amount of “child support” ordered and calling all payments “collections” – thereby maximizing their federal gifts. At the same time, they invented a private child support collection industry that gets a lot of the public money, and also an extra bump based on “collections”. Welfare reform led to a dramatic increase in the cost of welfare, partly in increased benefits for single mothers, but mostly due to the dramatic increase in overhead cost for useless “collection services”. It’s a racket.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.