Curious

[agooddad]

What is the name of your state? NC
What do you make of this situation? What is the dad legally responsible to do?
D. was cleared in August of the 1987 rape of a 12-year-old girl. The girl identified him as her attacker and hair found at the scene was similar to his. But DNA evidence found on a fragment of the girl's nightgown years after the trial proved Dail wasn't involved in the attack.

Gov.pardoned D> two weeks ago, making him eligible to receive $360,000 from the state – $20,000 for each year he spent in prison.

D, who now lives in Florida, was served Tuesday with a lawsuit by ex, the mother of his son, who is seeking back child support. The suit does not specify how much money she wants, as is normal in North Carolina, but asks a "reasonable sum for the care and maintenance of the minor child." D. did not provide while he was in prison.

 

[Ohiogal]

Dad is legally responsible to support his child.

 

[nextwife]

Dad is legally responsible to support his child.

I wonder in these exoneration cases.

Dad was deprived of his freedom, his right to co-parent his child, and livelihood by the state for a crime someone else committed. The STATE prevented him from supporting his child. Isn't HE owed something? He is the victim, as is his family. Let's re-victimize him for something the state did TO him?

I've wondered the same in these Guantanimo stories about US residents being whisked away for years by the US, being tortured, and then the govt. admitting they were mistaken? The individuals involved were prevented by the state from supporting their families.

 

[Ohiogal]

I wonder in these exoneration cases.

Dad was deprived of his freedom, his right to co-parent his child, and livelihood by the state for a crime someone else committed. The STATE prevented him from supporting his child. Isn't HE owed something? He is the victim, as is his family. Let's re-victimize him for something the state did TO him?

I've wondered the same in these Guantanimo stories about US residents being whisked away for years by the US, being tortured, and then the govt. admitting they were mistaken? The individuals involved were prevented by the state from supporting their families.

nextwife, I agree with what you are saying however the state is still going to force him to give some of this money in support of his child. Is it fair? Look at my recent posts on child support. A lot about the child support system is NOT fair.

 

[LdiJ]

nextwife, I agree with what you are saying however the state is still going to force him to give some of this money in support of his child. Is it fair? Look at my recent posts on child support. A lot about the child support system is NOT fair.

In this case though, I thinks its fair. They are giving him money to compensate for the money he could have earned if not in prision (or at least that's part of it). Since he would have had to support his child had he been free...its reasonable for some of that money in support of his child.

 

[nextwife]

In this case though, I thinks its fair. They are giving him money to compensate for the money he could have earned if not in prision (or at least that's part of it). Since he would have had to support his child had he been free...its reasonable for some of that money in support of his child.

Sure he should owe a percentage of what he gets, as if he got that money during the incarceration. But he shouldn't have to be imputed and income based on what he could have earned if not incarcerated, for example. And he shouldn't get socked with a huge interest penalty. And, oh yeah, is HE going to be entitled to back visitation? Mom was deprived money and he was deprived of his kid. Seems like each one had an equivilant loss.

 

[qurice]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/733184.html

Was there an order before? Is the child in question still a minor? From the article I found he had a son born shortly after he was incarcerated, and after 18 years of being in jail he has to be close to majority age.

 

[qurice]

I just happened to run across an update to this.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/14854106/detail.html

 

[peppier]

I was really glad to see that. I don't know it just seemed like more punishment. I understand he had a child that he was responsible for, it was the state that took away his ability to step up to the plate, not to mention a chance to know his child.

 

[Ohiogal]

Truthfully I see both sides. But I understand where the Court was approaching. It was NOT his CHOICE or decision that makes him responsible for being in prison and at a zero income. So therefore he was INVOLUNTARILY unemployed for that time. That does make legal sense.

 

[2Mistakes]

Just for poops and grins

This was strictly for poops and giggles, because too much is unknown.

It looks like NC is a shared-income state. So, this guy is not getting $20,000 a year for the 18 years he was INVOLUNTARILY and WRONGLY incarcerated. That equates to $1666 per month gross income.

Not knowing what mom's income was makes it impossible to calculate what his child support obligation would have been, but for poops and grins, lets say that mom's gross monthly income was $2333 (or $28,000 per year). Leaving daycare and health insurance premiums at $0, his basic CS obligation would have been $111 per month.

Multiply that by 216 (the # of months he was incarcerated), and his total CS for those 18 years would have been $23,976.

She is looking at getting $11,000, which is just slightly less than 1/2.

I think that's pretty fair. After all, it's not his fault he couldn't support his child. He didn't choose not.

 

[fairisfair]

Sure he should owe a percentage of what he gets, as if he got that money during the incarceration. But he shouldn't have to be imputed and income based on what he could have earned if not incarcerated, for example. And he shouldn't get socked with a huge interest penalty. And, oh yeah, is HE going to be entitled to back visitation? Mom was deprived money and he was deprived of his kid. Seems like each one had an equivilant loss.

Yes, but MOM did not deprive Dad of his visitation. The state did that. Why should Mom pay the cost?

 

[haiku]

Yes, but MOM did not deprive Dad of his visitation. The state did that. Why should Mom pay the cost?

maybe not only should the state should pay dad, they should also pay THE KID for depriving him of dad...and MOM for having to support the kid by herself!

 

[fairisfair]

maybe not only should the state should pay dad, they should also pay THE KID for depriving him of dad...and MOM for having to support the kid by herself!

I like it. So ordered.

 

[Ohiogal]

I concur! Fair and Haiku are correct. Order upheld. No appeals allowed.