Obstruction of Justice in Florida

Paternity fraud is "a recipe for violence" warns Florida officer of the peace

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 01-13-03

Michael Anderson is being forced to "mentor a child" in Florida by paying $666 per month for 18 years.\1 Although the child has no legal right to the damages awarded by the court, Mr Anderson is forced to pay $225 per month more than taxpayers if this 2 person family received welfare (TANF). \2 If Mr Anderson resists this form of indentured servitude, by refusing to pay into fraud, he may face debtor's prison.

As a member of local law enforcement in Tampa, Florida, Mr Anderson was served up a heaping helping of family law justice and warns that the current law is ``a recipe for violence.'' \1 After Mr Anderson obtained DNA proof that he was a victim of a confidence game, the Florida Supreme Court decided that this irrefutable evidence did not prove that Mr. Anderson was deceived. As if to say "she never said that this baby was yours, she said she couldn't believe it wasn't".

When the only person in a position to know the truth is not required to tell it, then judges are powerless to administer justice and the lawyers are powerless to seek it. Allowing a litigant to operate with impunity and granting them immunity from prosecution, results in a child who is denied to know the identity of its biological father, a man who is fraudulantly sentanced to indentured servitude, and a possible source of federal incentives earned by the state's CSE for collecting the fraudulant child support payments.

The Family Law ramifications for "doing the right thing" may not be as bad as some states might think.

How can we demand that Mr Anderson continue to work for a Florida Attorney General who has turned his back on his troops. How can we expect Mr. Anderson to enforce laws unifiormly when his boss is not required to do the same. Fraud is a crime and some may agree that "crime don't pay, people do".


\1 Man Told To Support Child Of Another, Joe Follick, Tampa Bay Online, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kr/20030110/lo_krtampa/man_told_to_support_child_of_another
\2 Table 7-9 - "Maximum Combined TANF And Food Stamp Benefit For Families Of One To Six Persons, January 1, 2000" US House Ways and Means Committee, Greenbook, Section 7, TANF
Florida reports $293 per month TANF benefits for a 1 person family, $442 for 2, $587 for 3, $721 for 4; California reports $384 per month TANF benefits for a 1 person family, $627 for 2, $813 for 3, $988 for 4.
\3 Table 8-20 "Paternities Established", Table 8-21 "Out-Of-Wedlock Births", Table 8-22 "Percentage of Paternities Established". US House Ways and Means Committee, Greenbook, Section 8, CSE; Florida's paternity establishment percentage was reported to be 68% in 1998 and represents over 23,000 out-of-wedlock births over and above paternity establishments. California's paternity establishment percentage was reported to be 123% in 1998 and represents over 34,000 paternity establishments over and above out-of-wedlock births. California has continued to exceed 100% paternity establishment since Clinton's welfare reform made it profitable in 1996
\4 AllLaw.com; Florida demands 18% of an NCP's net income for 1 child, 28% for 2, 36% for 3; California demands 25% of an NCP's net income for 1 child, 40% for 2, 50% for 3

Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, gzs@gndzerosrv.com, www.gndzerosrv.com

Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the teachings of Henry David Thoreau (civil disobedience) to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.

Man Told To Support Child Of Another

JOE FOLLICK jfollick@tampatrib.com, 01-10-03

TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, ruled Thursday that a Tampa police officer must continue to pay $8,000 a year in child support even though he is not the child's biological father.

In a 4-3 decision, the court sidestepped moral issues and simply said Michael Anderson failed to prove he was ``defrauded'' by his ex- wife, Cathy Anderson, when she told him twice that he was the biological father of her child.

Neither Anderson was available for comment Thursday.

Michael Anderson's attorney, Tom Elligett of Tampa, said he was disappointed and might request a rehearing.

Tom Casper, the Tampa attorney representing Cathy Anderson, said he was pleased the court found that his client was not lying when she told Michael Anderson he was the father. He said Cathy Anderson still believes Michael Anderson is the father.

``An answer that turns out to be incorrect is not sufficient to meet the [necessary legal] elements to establish fraud,'' Casper said.

``In black and white, Mr. Anderson is being shortchanged ... he shouldn't have to pay,'' Casper acknowledged. ``But he didn't follow the proper legal procedure, and that happens to people all the time.''

Nationally, men who have been paying child support for a nonbiological child have been asking lawmakers for years to intervene and stop forcing the payments.

But most states have decided that allowing a man to stop paying support harms the child by cutting off necessary money.

``The best interests of a child are not served by depriving them of support at any time a father may elect to question his paternity,'' Casper wrote in a brief submitted to the court.

That's the position the state Supreme Court affirmed Thursday. Justices ruling in favor of the position were Charles Wells, Peggy Quince, Major Harding and Harry Lee Anstead. Dissenting were Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis and Leander Shaw. Shaw and Harding recently retired and are no longer on the court.

The court took an unusually long time, more than two years, in issuing a ruling after receiving the case in August 2000.

In 1994, shortly after breaking off their long relationship, Michael and Cathy Anderson reconciled and married after she told him she was pregnant. She told him he was the father.

In late 1995, Cathy Anderson filed for dissolution when the child was about 18 months old.

A year later, Michael Anderson was ordered to pay child support after a contentious divorce.

In 1997, he began doubting the paternity of the child after learning Cathy Anderson lied about not being married before. He submitted himself and the child to a DNA test, which proved he wasn't the father.

He challenged the support within one year of the order to pay, meeting the legal time limit. But the Supreme Court joined the two lower courts that had ruled he was not entitled to relief since he didn't prove Cathy Anderson lied to him.

In the dissenting opinion, Pariente said Cathy Anderson ``was deceptive'' enough to allow Michael Anderson to stop making payments.

``Clearly, Cathy had at least one other sexual partner at the time of conception,'' Pariente wrote. ``A father should be able to rely on the unequivocal, affirmative representations of his wife that he is the father of the child and should not be obligated to request DNA testing during the divorce action to disprove this presumed fact.''

Rep. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, proposed a bill last year that would have allowed fathers to quit paying child support if they proved to a court that they were not the biological father.

Smith said the current law is a ``recipe for violence.''

``Imagine a guy who finds out, `This is not my kid and I'm paying child support for 18 ... years,' '' Smith said.

Smith said Thursday that he might file a bill this year allowing a man paying child support to seek compensation from the biological father who has not been paying support.

``If you take action against the mother, in essence that's taking money from the kid,'' Smith said.

``The whole thing is a matter of fairness,'' Smith said.

Reporter Joe Follick can be reached at (850) 222-8382.