Child-support bill stalls

Child-support bill stalls

SPRINGFIELD — Legislation that would allow an Edgar County man to stop paying child support for a teenager who isn't his was placed on hold by an Illinois Senate committee Tuesday.

Brad Entrican of Paris told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has been paying child support for years but didn't learn until 2011, after DNA testing, that the boy, now 13, isn't his. Attempts to resolve the case through administrative procedures and in the courts failed because Entrican had not filed his petition within the two-year statute of limitations, said Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, who sponsored the bill (SB 1867) to help the Paris man.

Rose's bill would allow a man to continue to challenge a finding of paternity after the statute of limitations has been filed when there is DNA evidence supporting him.

Rose agreed to hold the bill in committee for another week in hopes that the Department of Healthcare and Child Services can resolve the issue without legislation.

But Rose said after the committee meeting that he isn't optimistic of a positive outcome because of federal regulations.

"The federal reg says you only have so long to challenge a paternity and then it's over," he said.

Entrican didn't challenge the paternity until the summer of 2011, after meeting the boy for the first time, he told the committee Tuesday.

He had failed to appear for a scheduled genetic testing in 2001, he said, because he had no reason to doubt he wasn't the boy's father.

"Texas just did a bill on this to get around that federal reg for this circumstance," said Rose, who at one time handled child support prosecution cases in Champaign County. "My hope is that (the department) will come back and find that this can all be done easily internally, and I will happily table this bill. My suspicion is that's not going to be the case based on the research we've done."

Several senators seemed to sympathize with Entrican's circumstance, noting that under the law someone who legally acknowledges paternity can move to have that overturned.

"So we give them access to this in a situation where they voluntarily sign and said, 'Yes, I am the father.' We give them that opportunity," said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. "But here we have a gentleman who didn't do that. He did not sign a piece of paper saying, 'I am the father.' He did sign an agreement saying I pledge to be bound by the results of the DNA test and then he didn't show. That's true.

"If we're going to give the person who signed the slip saying 'I am the father' an avenue to show there was a material mistake of fact, how can we not give (Entrican) at least the same avenue? And surely the DNA test that shows he is not the father is a material mistake of fact."

Even the administrator of the state's child support services section acknowledged the situation seemed unfair.

"Do I think that Mr. Entrican should be personally and financially liable for a child he has seen two weeks out of 13 years, and who is not the biological father? We all have common sense and common sense would say that that does not seem to me to be a fair and just outcome," said Pam Lowry of the Department of Healthcare and Child Services.

"There is a point of law here that is bigger than this particular issue. Finality, the idea of what a parent is. We adults make children and we make decisions about that and sometimes they are very poor ones. At some point we have to think that there is a child involved here."

But Righter argued, "I appreciate the principle of finality. It's an important one. But as the law that we're referencing demonstrates, finality at some point surrenders to a newly discovered truth."

Sections (2):News, Local
Location (3):Local, Paris, Edgar County

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

rsp wrote on March 06, 2013 at 4:03 am

Even the administrator of the state's child support services section acknowledged the situation seemed unfair.

The state has a vested interest in leaving things the way they are. They have someone who is paying the bills. They aren't going to change unless they have to. On the other hand, you have a guy who sees a child once in 13 years. A child he believed to be his son. For 13 years he has rejected him in spirit. Now he that he has laid eyes on him he is rejecting him in fact. I can only imagine what that boy is going through because his "father" didn't take care of his responsiblities sooner. 

sameeker wrote on March 06, 2013 at 6:03 am

The mother should be in prison for fraud and paying him restitution. The dovorce laws are antiquated and need a complete overhaul The responses are going to be fun to see. Women get obsessively bent out of shape when somenone even mentions divorce reform. The state also needs to start enforcing visitation rights for free, the way that they do child support. Of course, they don't make money for doing that, and they could care less about the child being raised by both parents. Children are just a chas cow for women and the state.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 06, 2013 at 8:03 am

Wow. Sexist much?

sameeker wrote on March 06, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Nope. Just fair. Quit apologizing for the scum.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 06, 2013 at 5:03 pm

"Women get obsessively bent out of shape when somenone even mentions divorce reform."

and

"Children are just a cash cow for women and the state."

I say that's sexist, you say "Quit apologizing for this scum." I can only assume that you mean all women are scum. Yes. Sexist.

sameeker wrote on March 06, 2013 at 9:03 pm

If I lied to you and stole thousands from you. I would bet that nothing short of a long prison sentence and restitution would make you happy. I have lived it and see it every day. Women get away with crimes committed in the name of teh children.

rsp wrote on March 07, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Child support for one child is 15% of income. This guy didn't show up for the first test. The kid is almost a teen and he never bothered to try to raise him. Never tried for custody, visitation, nada. A child he believed was his son. But the mother who was there day in and day out is scum? He had opportunities to find out the truth and to be a father. That was too hard for him.

sameeker wrote on March 07, 2013 at 3:03 pm

If I read what rsp has to say, then I gues it is alright for me to defraud her of money as long as I can keep it hidden from her for a while. How about the women who play games with the visitation order and are never punished? Why isn't there a cure for the "every other weekend sickness" that afflicts so many kids of single mothers? Since the mother is the one getting the cash, the burden of proof as to paternity should have been on her, not him. She should have to pay him back everything, compenstaion for emotional distress, and punitive damages. After that, she should go to prison. It is downright laughable how people rationalize even a clear case of fraud to excuse the actions of vengeful mothers. Custody should first be awarded to the parent that can raise the child without charging the other parent. As for child support being only for the children, then there needs to be reforms to make sure that it is. Both parents could pay in an equal amount, and the mother gets a card similar to a link card, that can only be used to pay for things clearly for the child. If the father pays in on a three bedroom house, then he should have equity when the kids are grown and the house is sold. The divorce system is terribly unfair and rewards too many women for bailing out on their committment to their family.

rsp wrote on March 08, 2013 at 2:03 am

How did she defraud him? Conceal it? He didn't show up to the test when the kid was a baby. A parent can lose custody for refusing to allow visitation. They can also be arrested. Almost every day the local police departments get called because someone not allowing visitation and the other parent (the father) is pressing his case and laying the groundwork for prosecution and custody change. I've known fathers who've done it. It's only fraud if he can show that she knew he was unlikely to be the father from the beginning. If he had been a man from the beginning and went to the test he wouldn't have had to pay a penny. So you want a kick-back if any child support is spent on the house they live in? Are you also willing to pay extra to maintain that house? So the kids will have a roof over their heads? Or are you just worried about lining your own pockets?

Just for the record regarding paternity tests, about 30% of cases are found to not be the father. 

sameeker wrote on March 08, 2013 at 5:03 am

Why does the father have to pursue visitation enforcement out of his own pocket when the mother get her child support enforced for free? The mother should also have to pay more since she has the privilage of having the kids with her nearly all of the time. The lady knew that someone else may have been the father so she should have spoke up and had him tested too. I would bet that she convinced this guy that he was the father, without a doubt, by playing on his emotions. She likely went after him because he had more to pay. As for the house, sure the kids get a roof over their heads, and then mom gets thousands more when the house is sold. Everybody claims to be so fair untill it comes to child support and divorce, then it all comes down to money. Of course, that is all right when the mother is the one splitting hairs to line her pockets.

rsp wrote on March 09, 2013 at 5:03 am

The state provides free child support services because most of these kids end up on welfare. Those are the mothers using the free service. Women with money are using a private attorney just like I did because you get better results and faster. I really don't understand why men think they should get a refund on taking care of their kids, re the house. If it's part of the divorce settlement to be sold after the kids are grown that's another story. Kids are not an investment that's going to pay you dividends in cash. It takes work and effort and being smart. There have been successful suits against the other parent for legal fees in cases of interfering with visitation and also fraud in cases where it was proven the mother knew someone else was the father. In this case, He had 11 years to see the child, to raise questions, etc. There was even a test scheduled but he couldn't show up for that. 11 years.That's 572 weekends by the way.

sameeker wrote on March 09, 2013 at 9:03 am

Any woman can use the free child support system those who get lawyers do so because the guy winds up paying for that, and the lawyer makes money too. If a guy is lucky enough to have a pro male lawyer, he can fight the visitation abuse at his own expense. This is usually a long a protracted battle, and the courts are loathe to punish a woman that is using the kids as a human shield. Making this guy pay on a technicality is as bad as keeping an innocent person in prison on a technicality. Any way you slice it, the woman is a liar and a thief who needs to be in prison. The real father might also have a claim against her also. Child support is like the preacher who says "send the lord a thousand dollars" but gives you HER address and name to send it to.

Cstraight wrote on March 11, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Thankyou rsp!!! sameeker is a scorned man who obviously pays childsupport! Mothers can spend they're childsupport on whatever they want! why? because they TAKE care of they kids that they BOTH made and they shell out all of their money too AND they do all of the raising of the kids.

 

Let me leave this story because this is making me "tight" LOL

anotherparent wrote on March 11, 2013 at 1:03 pm

I don't know that I would have wanted anything to do with this women either and that is required to contact the child.  SHE LIED FOR 13 YEARS AND SCREWED AROUND IN THE FIRST PLACE!  How do you not see that she was wrong first.  He can not be a bad father if HE IS NOT THE FATHER.

Cstraight wrote on March 11, 2013 at 2:03 pm

How do you know she lied???? Maybe she didn't know who the father was! And he screwed around too! See it takes 2 people to concieve a baby!!

Folks comment on things that they know nothing about! A child support is only free to families who walk into a public aid office and apply for MEDICAL, CASH or FOODSTAMP benefits. The state offers NOTHING for free! You all should know that by now. That's IT!

Cstraight wrote on March 11, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Wait!

So because HE didn't show up to establish paternity waay back when he had the opportunity to do so, she lied and should go to jail??? You need to stop smoking what ever it is that you're smoking. ahahaha! They give non-custodial parents YEARS to come forward and contest or whatever and he didn't take advantage of the opp. then it's HIS dumb fault! Now that he's proven not the father, I don't think that he should have to continue to pay but everything that he has paid already is HIS dumb fault. 

 

You know, I've never understood people who do that.  If I get a letter stating that I have a child in question and I didn't want to support a kid, you'd better believe that I would be on the first thing smoking to see if the baby was mine. LOL

PCLEMSC wrote on March 07, 2013 at 7:03 am
Profile Picture

What's sexist is that courts nationwide, give custody to the mother in 90-97% of cases. That's because divorce, custody, and child support laws were intended as an entitlement for women.

STATISTICS TAKEN FROM: CHILD SUPPORT & ALIMONY, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, (and) CUSTODIAL FATHERS, MYTHS, REALITIES, AND CHILD SUPPORT POLICY, U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF INCOME SECURITY POLICY

88% of all divorces are initiated by wives.

Mothers are awarded custody of children 90-97% of contested AND uncontested cases.

                                                                                                                                                                                              

► 80% of non-custodial fathers are ordered to pay child support                                                

► 29% of non-custodial mothers are ordered to pay child support .

     (26%  of fathers are in total default of ordered support)

     (46.9% of mothers are in total default of ordered support ) 

    ► COLLECTION EFFORTS ARE EXCLUSIVELY AIMED AT FATHERS

►10.2% of mothers pay more

►22.5% of fathers pay MORE than ordered,

►66.2% of single mothers work LESS than full time

►36.8% of single fathers work less than full time

.►     7% of single mothers work more than 44 hours per week.

►24.5% of single fathers work more than 44  hours per week

►46.2% of single mothers receive public assistance.

►20.8% of fathers receive public assistance.

►90% of fathers WITH SHARED PHYSICAL CUSTODY pay in full and on time

►78% of fathers with limited visitation  pay in full and on time, AND

►43% of fathers with NO CUSTODY, NOR VISITATION pay in full and on time.

 

Computer tracking techniques are NOT being used to uncover welfare fraud, as promised. Welfare rolls are not being significantly reduced (less than 3%) by collection efforts, as claimed. Child Support collection agents are paid commissions on what they collect: State is paid a commission by the Federal Government –

Profits are in the millions.

Incentives for fraud, deception, and toleration of errors, is high (error rate = 20%). Even the courts profit, receiving payments in a symbiotic relationship with the support collection agencies.

Here’s an example that exists nationwide in similar proportions  -  in Massachusetts only 3% of 85,000 child-support cases are mothers. That means 2550 Deadbeat Moms AND NOT ONE CAN BE FOUND WHO FITS THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEADBEATS POSTER!  

  WHAT IS THE CRITERIA ??????              -                “FATHERS ONLY”!!!!

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 07, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Yes, because one thing being sexist automatically means that sameeker's comments weren't? Please.

rsp wrote on March 07, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Child support is not intended as an entitlement for the mother! It's for the child. Just because the father can't still control what the mother does doesn't mean it's for her. "Oh my! She got her nails done with my money! How dare she!!!!"

sameeker wrote on March 09, 2013 at 5:03 pm

I bet that you are one of those who wants to drug test people on welfare (Ironicly, mostly women). Who are you to tell them what to do with their money? Welfare is welfare, whether it comes from the government or a man that a woman ditched so she could have her "freedom". For the record, I oppose all forms of drug testing except on the job for cause. People should not have to prove themselves innocent of anything.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 09, 2013 at 7:03 pm

Like a woman shouldn't have to prove herself innocent of using child support money for her own benefit?

Seriously, now. this is getting pretty ridiculous.

 

sameeker wrote on March 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Do you know what fiduciary responsibility is? When a person is entrusted with moeny to be used for a cartain purpose, they are required under fiduciary laws to use it for that purpose. Businesses, accountants, investment brokers, etc. are routinely audited to assure complience. If someone diverts the money entrusted to them for their own use, they go to prison for embezzlement. They should also have to pay taxes on the money. Income is income, regardless of where it comes from, or what it is used for.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 10, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Seriously, dude.

1) Re: Taxes - the taxes are already paid on the money. You should know this.

2) It is NOT income - especially if you're applying fiduciary laws to it. Pick a lane. Fiduciary laws apply to someone else's money. If it's income, then that wouldn't be the case.

3) The reason we don't apply fiduciary laws here is that the child support system is already unwieldy. Most child support recipients have no idea of proper accounting practices and procedures. That means all would need an accountant, keep receipts. And then who audits? It's just not feasible.

4) I'm not saying that NO woman uses child support money improperly. I'm simply saying that your insane stereotyping that most women do, and that women use children as cash cows (as if most child support payments even begin to cover the cost of children), and that women are taking advantage of men, and that men are screwed by their decision to have children - all of this reeks of sexism.

rsp wrote on March 12, 2013 at 11:03 am

Not counting the fact that if the father pays more towards the child's care than the mother he can deduct the child on his taxes. Just like my ex did. So if the mother pays taxes on the money the father can't claim the child at all. He no longer has an interest. 

sameeker wrote on March 06, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Another error in this user unfriendly site.

Boss Hog wrote on March 07, 2013 at 2:03 pm

As a divorced Dad in Illinois, I can tell you I was treated like I was an nothing more than ATM machine. Every time my ex-wife squealed I was supposed to shell out money until she stopped.

Sounds ilke this guy made one mistake. Hopefully he won't have to pay for it for the rest of his life.

 

BTW - One of you said child support for one kid is 15% of your income.  It's actually 20%.  You pay taxes on it, and she gets it tax free.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 07, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Let's back up.  Fathers get custody of their children also.  One of my in-laws was awarded custody 20 some years ago of his three year old, and four year old kids when his wife left them.  She was ordered to pay child support.  He raised them by himself.  When they were teenagers, they had the right to live with their mother if they chose to do so.  They lived with her one year, and came back to their father.  During that year, the mother filed for child support.  The judge who was female ruled that the mother could receive child support only if she paid the 14 years of back (owed) child support to the father.  

My point is that it is not only mothers who get custody, and child support.  It depends on who will provide the best home environment for the children.  I have little sympathy for fathers who are "forced" to pay child support, and are bitter about it.  DNA for proof of parenthood maybe a good idea; but DNA is not the validation of being a good father.  Many of a good man raised children, or supported children that were not his biological children.  There is nothing worse than growing up in doubt of who your father is; or why he does not want anything to do with you.  Man up to your responsibilities.

sameeker wrote on March 07, 2013 at 9:03 pm

Every now and then, they give a man custody, as a token measure, or because the mother does not ask fo custody. I have no sympathy for people who side with the women all the time. Guys are constantly treated like nothing more then a checkbook. It is downright impossible to be a good father when you are only allowed to "visit" your children occasionally, and then only if the mother don't play games with the visitation. You know what you can do with the "man up" crap also. I am sick of that BS too. It is time for fairness in the game and I wouldn't blame the guy in the story if he didn't just take it into his own hands and deliver justice to his ex. Lord knows you people or the system will not provide it for him.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 07, 2013 at 10:03 pm

"if he didn't just take it into his own hands and deliver justice to his ex"?  How would that help his children?  Whether the situation is fair, or not; a man should set an example for his children.  Violence toward their mother does not set the right example.  That kind of thinking may have got him into the situation he is in now.

I have seen comments from you before sameeker.  You don't strike me as the kind of man who would condone violence of that nature.  I can understand that the story hit a nerve with you; but surely you don't advocate violence toward the children's mother.

sameeker wrote on March 08, 2013 at 5:03 am

Putting a father into poverty for life does not do much for the children either. Nor does it do any good to have them raised by a scheming mother. The fact remains that the mother lied about the possibility that the guy may not have been the father. It should not be a question of the legislature having to act. This is a criminal case and the mother needs to be charged. If I charged you money for something for years, and then you found out that I was lying to you and was not entitled to the money, you would want me in prison and paying restitution. I don't buy the argument that many are making on here that she should get a free pass for the sake of the child. Too many women use the kids as human shields.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 08, 2013 at 9:03 am

I don't think that she should get a free pass.  I don't think that the man should mete out "justice" by taking the matter into his own hands either.  There is the case that the mother was not sure who the father was due to dating more than one guy at the same time.  Poor judgement on her part, and his part resulted in children who still need support.  Being born on the "wrong side of the blanket" is tough enough for a kid.  Two adults fighting over who is the father makes it worse.  The victim is not the mother, or possible father.  It is the child.  Yeah, kids get used as human shields all the time.  Sadly, most of them end up being parents just like their "parents".  The title "Bastard" can be bestowed by birth; but most people earn it in adulthood.

Local Yocal wrote on March 09, 2013 at 2:03 am
Profile Picture

He had failed to appear for a scheduled genetic testing in 2001, he said, because he had no reason to doubt he wasn't the boy's father.

Before I can agree to sameeker's claim the woman defrauded Entrican, I'd have to know the backstory as to why he had no reason to doubt he wasn't the boy's father. How is it  the boy and the mother cooperated with a DNA test 13 years later?

"The federal reg says you only have so long to challenge a paternity and then it's over," Rose said.

So Rose is introducing state legislation to trump federal regulations. Seems all over the country there is a trend developing here: "state's rights." Always a slippery concept. State's rights to slavery? No. State's rights to Jim Crow segregation? No. State's rights to legalize cannibus? Okay.

Attempts to resolve the case through administrative procedures and in the courts failed because Entrican had not filed his petition within the two-year statute of limitations,

I heard on the radio that this was the same reason used to hold Andre Davis in prison for 8 additional years after DNA cleared him of a crime he was wrongfully convicted of. I don't understand why the administrator of child support, Ms. Lowery, couldn't use her "common sense" to just make the decision the guy doesn't have to pay any further after DNA is staring her in the face. "Point of law" trumps fact and truth? Lowery could have let the Feds come in and file their case against Child Services and we could have resolved it that way through the courts, instead of Rose having to file legislation in our Senate. At some point, you would hope that somebody would have to see that the federal regs need to accomodate a DNA test done later than the "two-year-convenience-for-the-lawyers-rule." Sometimes the truth doesn't fit so neatly in a two-year timeline.

 

sameeker wrote on March 09, 2013 at 9:03 am

Any woman can use the free child support system those who get lawyers do so because the guy winds up paying for that, and the lawyer makes money too. If a guy is lucky enough to have a pro male lawyer, he can fight the visitation abuse at his own expense. This is usually a long a protracted battle, and the courts are loathe to punish a woman that is using the kids as a human shield. Making this guy pay on a technicallity is as bad as keeping an innocent person in prison on a technicallity. Any way you slice it, the woman is a liar and a theif who needs to be in prison. The real father might also have a claim against her also. Child support is like the preacher who says "send the lord a thousand dollars" but gives you HER address and name to send it to.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 09, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Bad divorce?

sameeker wrote on March 09, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Try "typical divorce for a man". This should have posted below. They really need to fix how replies are done on here.

anotherparent wrote on March 11, 2013 at 1:03 pm

The funny this is if you had just made your comment without the sexist crap in between you may have had more people on your side because what you said is true.


The system is CRAP - and I am women who was divorced in this state.  My ex-husband has been screwed repeatedly for the last 12 years because of it.  He does not have any visitation rights for no good reason and they have repeatedly overcharged him for back child support that he did not owe.  Luckily, we get along pretty well and have always worked this stuff out between us but the system needs to be fixed because that is not normally the case.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 11, 2013 at 1:03 pm

I am confused.  Are you his ex-wife with the children that he pays child support towards?  If you are the mother of his children that he pays child support towards, why does he not have visitation rights to see your children? 

anotherparent wrote on March 11, 2013 at 1:03 pm

Yes.  I am his ex-wife and we have 1 daughter together.  When we divorced they ordered him to pay child support but did not give him visitation.  I did not even realize this until after the fact.  I have ALWAYS allowed him to visit her because he is a good dad but I find it odd that the only thing in the court order is the amount of child support he is to pay and not anything about visitation. 


 

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 11, 2013 at 11:03 pm

"They" ordered him to pay child support, and did not give him visitation; but the court order only requires him to pay child support, and does not say anything about visitation?  Who are "they"?   "They" did not divorce him.  You divorced him.  What was your input regarding the visitation rights? 

rsp wrote on March 12, 2013 at 12:03 pm

They did not order visitation because it is "open visitation". In other words they are trusting you guys to be adults and work it out yourselves. You would be surprised at how often they do that. In my divorce visitation was left up to me, whether or not I believed it was safe for my kids. If there comes a time where communication breaks down you're free to go back to court and get a formal order spelling it out. Or through a mediator. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 12, 2013 at 12:03 pm

rsp;  Thank you for explaining things.  I was getting confused about "they". 

Cstraight wrote on March 12, 2013 at 9:03 am

Uh again, " he screwed around too" means that he took part in sexual intercouse WITH her. And even tho the child is not his, she didn't make that baby by herself.  And if she did sleep with multiple men, this joker still had plllllenty of opportunity from the state to keep his appointment to establish paternity.  So it doesn't matter if she slept with every man in illinois!