Kenya N. Rahmaan
Recently, a Detroit native, Carnell Alexander, has been in the news because of a paternity fraud case established decades ago and a $30k debt that the state expected him to pay as reimbursement for welfare benefits paid to the child’s (now adult) mother. Mr. Alexander, armed with a DNA test and the truth from the child’s mother, felt confident in the state dismissing the debt owed to the government. Unfortunately, according to the state of Michigan, a DNA test excusing a man of parenthood is not always enough to be excused from a child support debt. This erroneous debt has been allowed to stain Mr. Alexander’s life due to an unfair child support law forcing a man to provide for a child that he did not father.
According to the Michigan Legislative website, under The Paternity Act of 1956, the court shall enter an order of filiation declaring paternity and providing for the support of a child in certain situations. This law makes the legislatures and judges the ultimate decider of parentage, not genetics. The circumstances accepted as sufficient reasoning to order filiation are as outdated as designating a man the parent of a non-biological child and forcing him to pay child support. The courts can declare a man the legal parent of a non-biological child, obtaining a default judgment against the man. The judicial system can determine paternity by serving the defendant (alleged father) with a child support summons, complaint, and subpoena ordering him to appear in court. If he fails to appear, the man is automatically held in default and declared the father.
The act of being served is critical in court proceedings, and the courts must follow the process to the letter of the law. Cornell University Law School defines the Service of Process as based on The Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, which prohibit courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has proper notification of the court proceedings. In other words, without good service, any court proceedings that follow are not legal and cannot be enforced against the plaintiff. A child support complaint must be served by a person not named in the subpoena, a specially appointed person, or law enforcement, but the process should be the same.
“Service” or Service of Process is making sure the other side gets a copy of the papers that are being filed (The Maryland People’s Law Library, 2010). Even in Michigan, where the state hounds Mr. Alexander for an outstanding child support debt, officials must follow the laws written in the Constitution when trying to get service on this defendant in child support cases. The Michigan courts list the following steps for a family support complaint within its jurisdiction:
After all of these steps have been properly completed, a judge can issue a child support order even without the defending party. However, if the person tasked with executing #4 fails, the subsequent three steps are void. When all of these steps happen, the case’s result will be an entry of the order (Michigan Courts). And herein lies the more significant problem in the case of the State of Michigan vs. Carnell Alexander. While it is unfair that Mr. Alexander is held responsible for a multi-thousand-dollar debt to the state, it is also unconstitutional. Wayne County violated his due process rights since he can prove that he was never adequately served all of those years ago.
We have proven that the service was improper, yet the judge refuses to terminate the court order and erase this mountainous debt. The fact that he did not father the child in question has fallen on deaf ears, and the officials cannot continue to ignore the failure of good service in this or any case. The Cornell University Law School is clear in stating when establishing child support obligations that even the federal child support enforcement office, within 90 days of locating a parent, the court must:
When the court system fails to complete service correctly, the complaint process cannot proceed, and a judge cannot order a default judgment against the alleged father. https://youtu.be/Fi99ANdOOQk
There has been new legislation enacted in Michigan concerning paternity in recent years. Senate Bill No.557 allows acknowledgments, determinations, and judgments relating to paternity to be set aside in certain circumstances (the State of Michigan, 2012). There are circumstances, including mistakes in fact or a case of fraud, which must occur for rescinded paternity. However, one step must happen before the courts can take any action. All parties involved must receive the court documents by good Service of Process to avoid violating due process laws. American citizens must hold the government accountable when executing the laws that govern the child support system and all judicial systems.
One of the most critical steps in securing a child support order is appropriately serving the child support complaint to the defendant. All subsequent actions are legally void when officials do not execute this process correctly. It is the right of every US citizen to be aware of any legal actions initiated against them, with infrequent exceptions. Caseworkers should ensure that child support orders are served correctly to parents when the agency tries to establish the child support order, even in cases where a judge entered a default judgment.
Because the defendant failed to appear, all court actions are deemed valid, even in their absence. People with such judgments should demand proof that the court officer obtained service. Suppose the clerk of court cannot provide evidence. In that case, all enforcements such as license revocation, bank account seizures, garnishments, tax refund offsets, arrest warrants, and prison sentences may have been illegally executed by the court of law. It is time to force the government to be accountable for its actions, just as it holds its citizens responsible for our legal and illegal actions.
References:
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). 303.4 Establishment of support obligations. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/303.4
Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Service of Process | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/service_of_process
The Maryland People’s Law Library. (2010, September 20). Frequently Asked Questions About “Service” | The Maryland People’s Law Library. Retrieved from http://www.peoples-law.org/frequently-asked-questions-about-service
Michigan Courts. (n.d.). Types of court cases. Retrieved from help/center/casetype/pages/familysupport.aspx
Michigan Legislative Website. (2009). Michigan Legislature – Section 722.717. Retrieved from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1wcjmnakmbqb02554lrbac45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-722-717
State of Michigan. (2012). Enrolled Senate bill No. 557. Retrieved from https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/publicact/pdf/2012-PA-0159.pdf
