Father Must Pay Child Support For Kid That’s Not His

WFMY News 2 Greensboro, NC
2 Wants to Know brings you a story even we found hard to believe. The state says a man must pay child support for a child that’s not even his.

High Point, NC — We all know the stories about deadbeat parents. Well, Billy Mason is not a deadbeat dad, he’s not even a dad to one particular child. But, he still has to pay for a child that’s not his.

Billy Mason says he was 15 at the time he went before a Guilford County judge on a child support case and said, “Didn’t know anything about them kind of laws.”

“The judge asked me if I was the father of the child. Yeah I’m the father. That was my girlfriend at the time. She was pregnant. I just went in. Thinking I was doing the right thing. Boom. Son you’re going to pay this amount.”

For years, Mason paid child support until he started to suspect the child wasn’t his. So, he took a test.

“Went and took the DNA test. Hey boom, come back, hey you’re not the father. No way possible. Zero percent. When I got that letter back from the DNA test, I had to take off work because I broke down. I couldn’t mentally do nothing.”

Mason went back to court, won his case, and a judge ended the child support. But, this is where the story takes a strange turn.

The county attorney under procedure appealed and a higher court reinstated the child support. Mason must pay for a child that’s not his.

“Wasn’t quick enough. After a year, supposedly can’t come back and say I’m not the father.”

“Hard cases make bad law. And this is as extremely unfortunate. The General Assembly has said by statute you have one year to do this. He’s dad as far as the legal system’s concerned,” says Trey Aycock, an attorney who specializes in family law.

Administrative Rule 60 only gives a person a limited amount of time and reasons to appeal a case, and Mason did not fall under it.

“The same rule we lawyers use technicalities to get around things all the time, he’s stuck with,” says Aycock.

Mason will have to pay for a child that is not his until the boy’s 18th birthday. Aycock recognizes the injustice.

“But for him to have a continuing on-going child support obligation for 18 years, there is something about that, that just doesn’t sit right in your belly.”

“I look at all these posters, deadbeat dad, and I sit there, I’m not a deadbeat dad. I’ve been paying for years for a child that’s not even mine,” says Mason.

We talked to a judge and a county attorney about these type of cases. The court determines paternity, not biology, so once declared the father, you’re it.

They also told us, you lose your legal rights if you don’t seek them in a timely manner, and in this case, it is one year.

Share

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

11 Comments

  1. griffitg says:

    And we call this a “Justice System?”

  2. TheDeenster says:

    He had a year? What the heck, the guy thought he was the father. So much for trusting a woman. Then the court wouldn’t let a DNA be done probably because it’s against the mothers constitutional rights huh?

  3. mikevac says:

    Okay, let’s role with this. I am the custodial father of my son. His mother is, well, not very wealthy. So, since you don’t have to be the parent of a child to be obligated to pay child support, I name Gloria Steinem the ‘mother’ of my son. I expect to collect my back child support and current child support any day now…

  4. denigates says:

    When a situation like this happens, I would be suing the mother for paternity fraud. I would also try to find out who the real father is and sue him.
    I am a female and cant believe what alot of women are doing. It is so wrong. I know child support is needed and I had child support from my
    xhusband but they were his children. The only reason states don’t back fathers with DNA proof is because it would break down the system. It would costs states a fortune to unravel all this mess but I think it should be done.

  5. Kevin Merck says:

    There are plenty of females out there who wait till a year is past before they file a claim for child support. The truth is there are plenty of ways for unscrupulous courts and females to usurp a man’s rights.

    The solution is very simple. When an unwed female becomes pregnant, she should have to petition the court to name the father of the expected child, before the child is born. When the child is born, a DNA test should be performed at the cost of the petitioner. If the biological father can be determined, then that father’s rights need to be protected. He should have all the rights the mother has in making a decision about parenting.

    If the mother fails to petition the court before the child is born, then she should forever forfeit that right.

    A man should also be able to petition the court for a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child yet to be born, if he believes that child may be his biological offspring; at his expense of course. If he fails to petition the court before the child is born, then he should forever forfeit that right.

    In all cases, the rights of either party must be equal. Child support should not be the primary issue; joint physical custody of the child, or marriage, should be the issue if both parties want to parent the child.

    We have to find ways to take the profit motive out of single females having children in order to extort child support from the prospective father with the full cooperation and assistance of every court and law enforcement agency in the country. Hard up females and predatory courts should not be allowed to exploit our children at the expense of us all.

  6. LillyC says:

    There was no determination of paternity and no child was named / identified as being entitled to the support of my disabled husband. That didn’t stop the court from extorting money for the support of a John Doe bastard of a different race than my husband and the mother.
    I’m betting that Billy Mason did not have a guardian ad litem or even a lawyer looking out for him when the court screwed him over too.

  7. havaprayer says:

    I guess it’s fine that they want someone to pay to help support the child. But it shouldn’t be Billy Mason any more than it should be you or me. If the government wants the child supported outside of what the mother can provide, then the government should pay for it. If that practice was widespread, you’d see a real backlash, which is why the child support system is what it is in the first place.

  8. ericbmohr says:

    Just another way a guy gets the shaft. This is not a loop hole, it is a crime committed by women with the full and active participation of the courts and the scum judges. If the women does not have money, just get some slob of a guy get you knocked up. Then you are fixed for tax free money all you want.

  9. wanito says:

    This is just one of the many reprehensible injustices carried out against men by the oppressive domestic relations system in the U.S.. It’s unconscienable how the court does not take into account how a man can simply be lied to because of his natural tendency to believe the woman he’s with and, then make decisions based on that belief. U.S. Business law would provide better protection to a man than U.S domestic relations law. If two business partners had an agreement and one of the partners misrepresented himself and, the other partner could prove the misrepresentation with a DNA test, no court in the land would bind the other partner to the agreement. I realize that this isn’t business and that there is a child involved here but, there are lots of problems in this world, child support being one of them. This still does not give the government the right to arbitrarily point the finger at a man and say “we chose you as the scapegoat to solve this problem for us.” We all know without doubt that put under any reasonable examination, this policy is unjust and wrong. But, the US domestic relations system can be seen as a corrupt house of cards that has been built up over the years. They dare not set precedent law by making a decision in favor of a man, no matter how absurd or unjust the claim against him might be or, it’ll be just like pulling the one card out that brings the whole house down.

  10. TheDeenster says:

    It’s their way of saying “In the best interest of the children.” It comes full force no matter whether you the bio dad or not. Like Kevin Merck said . ” WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO TAKE THE PROFIT MOTIVE OUT OF SINGLE FEMALES IN ORDER TO EXTORT MONEY FROM THE PROSPECTIVE FATHERS WITH THE FULL COOPERATION OF THE COURTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.”

  11. Patrick N. Perger says:

    Simple solution!!! If the harlot cannot name the father or if they cannot find the father, rather than forcing some poor, hard working, innocent slob to pay support, order the judge or the prosecuting attorney to pay. They make more money and could afford the harlot and the child a better life style. Who in the hell are these judges to abuse their power and force some innocent man to support a child that is not his. I HATE THIS M_ _ _ _ _ – F_ _ _ _ _ _ SYSTEM. THIS COUNTRY CAN GO TO HELL!!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.