Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Another wrongful-paternity case from hell:
When Walter Sharpe received the certified letter on Feb. 6, 2001, he knew the complaint for child support was a mistake.
Andre Sharpe had a different date of birth, a different Social Security number and different previous addresses.
Andre Sharpe also had an 11-year-old daughter with a woman in Harrisburg, and Walter Sharpe knew he had been to Harrisburg only once, to register a car. He also knew he hadn't fathered a child to a woman named Terri Jones on that trip.
So he ignored it.
Big mistake.
A court entered a default judgment against Sharpe, and for the next six years, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania hounded former trash collector to collect child support for the girl. He lost his job, paid more than $12,000 in support and fines, became estranged from his family (he has four kids of his own), and was jailed four times for failing to make payments. The county denied his repeated requests for a DNA paternity test (and were backed up by the courts), arguing that its domestic relations officials had sufficiently confirmed paternity "after reasonable investigation."
Walter Sharpe's attorney alleges that when he appeared in person with personal information proving he couldn't be the father, county officials merely changed the biographical information on the custody forms to match Walter Sharpe's.
After looking into Sharpe's story, the Patriot-News newspaper was able to determine the child's real father, Andrew Sharpe, in less than an hour. That's because the girl has been living with him for the last four years. The girl's grandmother (who had custody for a time) says the real father has supported the girl the entire time. The article isn't clear on where Walter Sharpe's support payments have gone.
In May 2007, a judge finally ruled that Walter Sharpe isn't the girl's father. But last October the same judge refused to reimburse Walter Sharpe for any of his past payments, much less all the damage done to him by the mistake. The county's arguments are incredible:
In court papers, the office stated it repeatedly advised Walter Sharpe to file a "petition to disestablish paternity" and he failed to do so for three years, so he is at fault.
It still claims he can't prove he is not the father because there are no DNA tests to show that, despite the fact the agency repeatedly opposed his requests for DNA testing.
"Furthermore, [the Department of Public Welfare] has experienced grave injustice as a result of [Walter Sharpe's] failure to address this matter in a timely fashion," a joint answer filed by Domestic Relations and the state Department of Public Welfare states.
The agency claims that because of Walter Sharpe's delay in challenging paternity, it is unable to recoup support payments from the real father.
"As a result of [Walter Sharpe's] delayed actions in this matter, DPW is forced to suffer unfair and irreversible injury."
I don't know if the office is correct about Sharpe failing to file a petition to disestablish paternity, but the court papers do seem to show the office really has no idea what's going on with the girl, given that she has been getting support her biological father all along, including him actually raising her for a good portion of her life. Meanwhile, Sharpe's own kids not only weren't getting the money Sharpe was spending on wrongful payments and legal fees, the mess made it fairly difficult for him to be an actual father for them, too.
Matt Welch wrote about this problem for Reason back February 2004. Welfare reform laws require mothers to name a father in order to get benefits. State bureaucracies then hound whomever the woman names for child support. The problem is that there's little incentive for the agencies to get paternity right. Miss that first chance to challenge--even through no fault of your own--and prepare for years of hell trying to get your life back in order.
Related: A Canadian court ruled last week that a Toronto man must keep making child support payments to his ex-wife despite her admitting that her 16-year-old twins aren't his.
Comments
His crucial error here was ignoring the initial suit papers. Never, ever, do that. Protesting your non-liability after judgment has been entered is pointless unless you do it through a court with some explanation for your failure to act when you had a chance.
I'm going to guess that his payments have been going to reimburse the government for welfare payments they made on behalf of the girl.
I'm not saying that what happened to this guy was right, but I've heard too much grousing over the years from people who claim they don't owe money but only after they ignored court papers for no apparent reason except that they hoped that the problem would go away if they ignored it.
Posted by: Doug | January 12, 2009 1:36 PM
Personally, and I obviously IANAL, but I would think that Walter would stand an excellent chance of winning a lawsuit since the original article notes that DPW changed the details of the case.
In other words they committed fraud. In more other words they stole his money.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | January 12, 2009 1:45 PM
This isn't similar at all to the Toronto case. In the Toronto case the man in question stayed married to the woman and supported the children for some time apparently knowing they were not his biologically.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | January 12, 2009 1:51 PM
...and that means he should have to continue supporting them ad infinitum?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 12, 2009 2:00 PM
"This isn't similar at all to the Toronto case. In the Toronto case the man in question stayed married to the woman and supported the children for some time apparently knowing they were not his biologically."
I believe the article said that he had reason to suspect they were not his twins but DNA testing only proved it recently prompting his efforts to recover some of the previous payments.
I heard about this case on Friday and I've been trying to imagine myself in his shoes. If I found out today that any of my children were not actually my children I can't see myself wanting to do anything to change my relationship with them. Their mother, sure, but not them.
At any rate the Toronto case is not in the same league and the hapless Mr Sharpe. I hope he sues the bastards.
Posted by: Blondin | January 12, 2009 2:07 PM
Blondin writes:
From the article:
But the judge pointed out that Mr. Cornelio knew at the time of separation [ed. 1998] that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone named Tony, who may have fathered the twins -- but he sought joint custody regardless. He only began pursuing the issue after Ms. Cornelio began seeking increased child-support payments, the judge noted.
Posted by: Dave S. | January 12, 2009 2:26 PM
His crucial error here was ignoring the initial suit papers.
IANAL, but the initial papers were for ANDRE Sharpe, not WALTER Sharpe. The way I see it, this means that, in fact, he ignored initial papers mistakenly delivered to him which were, in fact, for somebody else who merely had the same last name. Now, yes, I agree that it was probably a bit dumb for him not to contact the senders straight away to say, 'this isn't me', but, when he did this later, all they did was alter the information on the forms to match his.
Posted by: Smidgy | January 12, 2009 2:30 PM
IANAL, but:
According to TFA, he was "served" by registered mail. Step one: if registered mail isn't addressed to you, personally, then return it unopened as undeliverable ("no such person at this address.") If nothing else, this avoids the messy little matter of a Federal offense involving intercepting mail addressed to someone else.
Step two: if someone claims to have a default judgment against you and you never opened the mail (and were careful to return it and kept proof) then you have at least a chance to bring up the minor matter of never having been served.
Step Zero: always get a real lawyer. Don't take my word for it, don't guess.
I've been involved a couple of times with registered mail sent to my address for someone else, and although it's a minor nuisance it's never been hard to clear up.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 12, 2009 2:53 PM
That, aside from the fact that the injustice was largely self-perpetrated, and despite the fact that said alleged injustice occured as a consequence of that agency's perpetration of a grave injustice upon their alleged victimizer.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 12, 2009 2:56 PM
Gretchen:
"In the Toronto case the man in question stayed married to the woman and supported the children for some time apparently knowing they were not his biologically.
...and that means he should have to continue supporting them ad infinitum?"
Yes. In many jurisdictions biology is irrelevant. If a person has acted "as if" he was the parent -- no matter why -- he "becomes" the parent. And in some places he may even be subject to a court order prohibiting him from telling the child that's he's not the biological parent --or at least so I'm told by folks who work in the family courts.
Posted by: Jeff Chamberlain | January 12, 2009 3:29 PM
IANAL, but with regards to cases like the one in Toronto, generally the courts will decide based on what they believe to be in the child's best interest. For 16 years he's been assuming the role of father to the children, so the courts aren't likely to just let him off the hook, especially if it will bastardize the children. They call it "in loco parentis", or basically 'acting as parent', and it does carry a lot of weight in the courts.
It also goes both ways though, and protects a non-biological parent's right to a relationship with the children. If the mother suddenly decided she didn't want the father in the children's lives anymore (for whatever reason), she can't pull out a paternity test, prove he's not the "real" father, and send him on his way. Even though he's not the biological father, the fact that he's been acting as their father for 16 years gives him rights to maintain his relationship with them, and the courts won't generally take it away unless he's somehow unfit, or a danger to them.
Posted by: Adrienne | January 12, 2009 3:58 PM
Jeff Chamberlain said:
Good god, that's the most disturbing thing I've heard all day. If true, it means that no person dating a single parent should ever act in a parental way toward that person's children, else run the risk of being drafted into a permanent parental role whether they want to or not.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 12, 2009 4:38 PM
The guy sought joint custody. We're not talking about taking the kids to a baseball game.
Posted by: t | January 12, 2009 5:04 PM
Gretchen, you would most likely have to have been married to the child's parent, and the other biological parent would have to have been absent from the child's life before you would be considered an acting parent. Even then it would depend largely on the exact circumstances. Dating a single parent, or even living with one doesn't make you an acting parent; far from it.
This guy was married to the mother when the kids were born (and for six years after), and he's basically the only father the kids have ever known. He's not just some guy she dated for a little while.
Posted by: Adrienne | January 12, 2009 5:05 PM
Gretchen: Look for the silver lining. This also means that children in Same-Sex Partnerships are protected from the possibility of one of their "parents" being permanently barred from their lives. Think about the Vermont/Virginia suit Ed has frequently discussed. A little money in child support is worth a continued relationship with your child.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 12, 2009 5:13 PM
Arienne said:
It was my impression that people chose to adopt or not adopt the child of a person they marry to make this exact distinction. What we're talking about is basically involuntary adoption.
kehrsam:
That doesn't justify forcing non-parents to pay child support against their will.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 12, 2009 5:32 PM
Um, given that it would be trivial to show that this latter part is due to negligence on the part of the relevant authorities, and was attempted...
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 12, 2009 6:12 PM
Regardless of why, "ad infinitum" is a helluvan exaggeration. They're 16. Two years at most. It may or may not be right, but it's not unending.
Posted by: The Ridger | January 12, 2009 9:05 PM
Well, there is one tiny, apparent reason: That the guy they're after isn't you. Yes, I know you could call it optimistically naive, but expecting the bureaucrats to do their jobs is not irrational -- unlikely, perhaps.
Every bureaucrat involved should be fired and be forced to pay the salary they collected during this time to Walter Sharpe.
Posted by: itchy | January 12, 2009 9:47 PM
Gretchen, in the Toronto case, the man had been their father for 6 years prior to the separation, for 4 years after the separation, and finally he had agreed to joint custody for the last 6 years. If that's not voluntary adoption, I don't know what is. He is the only father the children have ever known - and they're well into their teens now. The wife sounds like real scumbag, but the husband can't simply flick off the father switch as a remedy. Imagine sending the message to a child that you'll be their parent, but only so long as you are in good with their mom. That really they're ancillary. If it doesn't work out with mom, so long kid. Good luck with your next dad.
The judge's mandate in this case was not to offer up some remedy to the guy, anyway. Her job was to rule in the best interests of the children. Suppose the father was allowed to stop support payments, and the children were threatened with destitution. Clearly, that is not a solution. To those girls, that's their dad. What would bringing back this Tony guy after 16 years accomplish? He's a complete stranger.
The Supreme Court case to which the judge referred stated that if you take on parental responsibilities while married, you can't simply abandon them if the marriage dissolves. You need to provide some sort of material and emotional constancy. That seems perfectly reasonable, and quite desirable to me.
Posted by: Nick K | January 13, 2009 12:09 AM
Always check the paperwork, because you can bet the people who are supposed to...haven't.
Although apparently you have to check other peoples paperwork now as well.
Posted by: Richard Eis | January 13, 2009 6:30 AM
So basically, the government SENDING THE INFORMATION, doesn't have to check if it is correct. Nope, of course not. They also don't have to check if the child is actually being taken care of/receiving funds. Nope, nope. It's up to the CITIZENS to make sure the GOVERNMENT is doing their job, right?
That's how a few of you are going about it.
Fuck that noise.
The GOVERNMENT should take responsibility here. Period.
Posted by: marilove | January 14, 2009 3:06 PM