digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Wrongly Convicted Man Sued for Child Support

wral.com — A man who was pardoned after spending 18 years behind bars for a rape he didn't commit has been sued for back child support.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • haonusa, on 10/27/2007, -6/+8518 years, 18 years, and on his 18th birthday found out it wasn't his...
    • MindStalker, on 10/27/2007, -24/+6nononono. Read the article again.
      His Ex is suing him for child support of a child that WAS his. The rape and this child are not the same. He should have paid child support.. BUT.. he was in jail. His time in jail was compensated.. It does make sense in some ways.. I'm not sure though.
      • r2pro, on 10/26/2007, -2/+15You're mistaken. It makes no sense at all. Seeing how that man lost the best years of his life, the child support suit needs to be thrown out. I concur with DeskFlyer below. There is no gray area here.
        • MindStalker, on 10/27/2007, -10/+0So his obligation to his wife hangs on what the State did wrong? Sue to State for child support maybe. But his obligations don't end just because he is in prison, wrongfully or not. Personally I don't know the financial issues of this women she could be deep deep in debt from singly supporting this child on her own. Should she and the child suffer because of him being sent to prison?
        • r2pro, on 10/27/2007, -0/+22The kid is already grown up and will be 18 soon. The money will not go to benefit the welfare of the child. It will go to the Mother. Also, the child is living with the father already. So she's just a money grabbing ***** that has no moral compass.

          You can debate the finer details of the law until you turn blue in the face, but some things are just not right. This suit is one of them.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3"Should she and the child suffer because of him being sent to prison?"
          No, but should he suffer for the blatent mistake the state made? No. If the mother truely needs the money, she should contact the state and have the state pay. It was their fault that he was legally unable to pay such child support.
          His obligations may not end, but he sure as hell should not be forced to comprimise his already fleeting condition so his ex can have over half his compensatory money. That is just wrong and immoral.
    • troye, on 10/30/2007, -11/+3I feel sad for the guy, but that was pretty funny.
    • ToadLeg, on 10/27/2007, -1/+35He should be found responsible for the back child support. Then, because the state was responsible for what happened to him, it should have to pay the back child support.
    • shark615, on 10/27/2007, -2/+17why is the above being dugg down? the child in question is from a different woman not related to the rape... it syas so in the article. do diggers read this ***** anymore?
    • kingvik, on 10/26/2007, -0/+10Prenup, we want prenup
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/26/2007, -1/+6Aren't child support payments usually a percentage of your income? Even if this guy worked on a chain gang, those guys only make like 5 cents a week...
    • binnis, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger. But she ain't messin' with no broke...
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/27/2007, -4/+282That woman is a ***** *****.
    • Ajajadude, on 10/27/2007, -1/+70He should turn around and sue that money-grubbing whore for the "mental anguish" her lawsuit is putting him through.
      • max420, on 10/25/2007, -2/+15lol, He should, but that would just prove how terrible the legal system in the united states is. there are SO many frivolous lawsuits.....
        • bingobongony, on 10/27/2007, -10/+1IT would proven how ignorant you are, since no court would accept a lawsuit filed by someone solely becuase that person was sued himself
          • Ajajadude, on 10/25/2007, -0/+7Hi! Welcome to America.
          • bingobongony, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2WRONG. That is my point. Dumb ***** like you and max420 THINK that this would be allowed, but it is not. The law...US LAW...is very specific on this. It is not considered mental anguish if you are sued. Even if you win the lawsuit.

            Do I have to say it again? In terms of developed nations, the US is in the MIDDLE of the pack in terms of lawsuits per capita.

            This notion that the US is lawsuit happy is nothing but ***** repeated by the extremely ignorant.
          • ThndrShk2k, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3It is considered mental anguish if a lawsuit is part of a series of harrassing actions towards a person. But there has to be more than 1 occurance of purposly tactless behavior
            Law also works wonderfully on technicalities.
        • Harrius, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2That's not necessarily true. If he can get her suit dismissed, he might be able to sue her for malicious prosecution (yes, this claim can generally follow from a baseless civil suit as well as a criminal prosecution).
      • RyukShinigami, on 10/25/2007, -0/+12Yeah, he should flip it, go topsy-turvy on that *****!
      • DivisibleByZero, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1He should sue the girl who wrongly accused him...
        • spectre_25gt, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Dude, she was 12. Probably scared ***** and you can bet they were all pressuring her to point the finger at someone.
      • xike, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Now see, that's the problem with America these days: all these lawsuits. What happened to the good old days when people just offed each other?
    • DangerCollie, on 10/26/2007, -1/+37What a greedy *****. She found out about the money he got for being wrong imprisoned and wanted to get her some. Nevermind that's all he gets for almost 20 years of his life.
      What a *****.
    • Tralobyte, on 10/26/2007, -31/+4Looks like another story where diggers get the facts wrong. It appears the woman suing him is not the girl he was accused of raping but a woman he actually had a kid with. She seems broke and jobless, and she wants some money after raising a kid 18 years. So she's suing. But he is certainly entitled to do what he wants with the money. From another article: "'I don't think he's very locked in at all,' Mrs. Benton said. 'The state says if a person is incarcerated, child support abates.'"
      • Tralobyte, on 10/25/2007, -18/+3Someone please explain to me why the parent comment is getting dugg down. It's stating facts instead of sensationalistic BS.
        • bingobongony, on 10/25/2007, -2/+18Because you are assuming that the other comments are wrongly thinking that the rape victim is the one doing the suing. No one thinks that.
        • daEvan, on 10/25/2007, -3/+0Because you're a dumbass
        • daEvan, on 10/27/2007, -4/+0Curse this comment system. Digg this down >.<
      • Ghengis, on 10/27/2007, -1/+15RTFA: "Heekin, who said she filed the suit last week, works in the same law office as Don Strickland, the former Wayne County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Dail for rape." Hardly "broke and jobless".
        • Tralobyte, on 10/25/2007, -4/+2Heekin's the lawyer. Ms. Michaels is the one suing. You please RTFA.
        • djdole, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Regardless, it's still a conflict of interest. They prosecuted him, and now they are still out for blood.
          It just goes to further show that the lawsuit isn't being filed for the benefit of the SON, which is exactly what child-support is meant for.
          It was the state that hurt not only the Father, but also the mother and son by his wrongful imprisonment. So it's the STATE that should be reimbursing her for the child support that they wrongly forcibly denied him the opportunity to work to pay for during those 18 years.
    • metric7, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3Get a jorb!!!
      • binnis, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1There may not be enough 'jorbs' to go around.
  • Stettenbauer, on 10/26/2007, -19/+3pwned
  • Error601, on 10/26/2007, -14/+4A repeat of a repeat of a repeat of a repeat of people that don't understand finality if judgment in civil cases.
  • degron, on 11/01/2007, -1/+181If she wins that case the justice system would have failed that guy twice... Could you imagine what that guy went through being in prison labeled as a child rapist and now this bitch wants to sue him!?!? That gold digging whore saw the $360k payday he was getting and wanted a piece of it!
    • troye, on 10/26/2007, -3/+23Yup.
    • kaelyiesta, on 10/27/2007, -1/+29Honestly, even wasting one more moment of this guys time in legal concerns would be a failure. I know there is procedure that needs to be followed, but surely there is some sort of advance screening process that throw cases like these out before it give the guy any more problems to deal with. Seriously, in any decent society, the bitch wanting money for her kid(who now left her to live with his father by the way) would get smacked for even suggesting it. And 360k for 18 years of life in jail as a child rapist? He is entitled to much more. I say we start by taking it out of the people responsible for putting him in jail for nothing more than child testimony and some ***** hair that 'looked like his'. This man has lost roughly a third of his ***** life to a hellish cage, and the worst those who imprisoned him will get is their error published in a few news articles.
      • bingobongony, on 10/27/2007, -11/+2Yeah, you are going to win a lot of intelligent debates by twisting facts into "some hair that looked like his".
    • czeman, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1With the ironic code of ethics in prison, he's lucky he made it out alive!
  • degron, on 10/25/2007, -10/+4Oh, and did anyone else think that guy looks like Nick Cave?
    • natedouglas, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2The bastard child of Nick Cave and Huey Lewis, maybe.
  • johndi, on 11/01/2007, -4/+104It is called child support, not gold digger support. It's no wonder the kid chose to live with his father.
    • LocalDocal, on 10/27/2007, -0/+8You really have to wonder about the kind of message this woman is sending out when she files a child support lawsuit after the guy gets imprisoned for twenty years and uses a lawyer from the same office as the other lawyer who put him in prison.
      • ThndrShk2k, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Easy, the message is that she wants results. They got results last time, why not this time? It's obvious the guy does not stand a chance against the people from that firm.

        //sarcasm
  • saiyanate, on 10/26/2007, -2/+44These frivolous lawsuits are bringing us down. They are self-indulgent abdications of personal responsibility.
    • seraph582, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3AGREED, sir! American justice becomes a farce more and more with each passing day!
    • kubedawg, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Well, hopefully he studied law while he was in jail. Counter suit filed against the cust of a wife because it's the state's fault he was incarcerated, not HIS... ***** idiots.
  • Error601, on 10/26/2007, -22/+5Okay, here's how it works:

    If you owe money in a civil judgment, that judgment is final and you must pay even if evidence comes up later that it was wrong. There's too main points that related to this story and ones like it:

    1) A judgment should not be a liability to the winner. The winner should not have to worry about holding onto the money in case it is reversed later.

    2) Someone that doesn't pay on time doesn't get any special consideration, so #1 still holds even if you haven't paid yet.

    • Error601, on 10/26/2007, -12/+3If you're going to dig down, at least have the balls to argue why this cornerstone of the legal system from before the US even existed is wrong.
      • Ajajadude, on 10/26/2007, -0/+21What you wrote just confuses the ***** out of me, so that's why I dugg you down.
    • phufufoo, on 10/26/2007, -2/+5I guess you're right. People are just angered by this because he might have paid if he wasn't put in jail wrongfully. So he gets compensated for 20k a year. They also need to pay for the child support because its their fault he couldn't pay it off. 20k a year for him and I say 500 bucks a month for 18 years for the kid. Sounds fair enough to me.
      • Rodman930, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5By 'they need to pay' you mean the state right.
    • eryximachus, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4If there is one we can learn regarding the British conception of justice is that the legal system is fundamentally flawed. Justice should prevail WITHOUT regard to law. What people like you don't understand that today, there is massive perception amongst the people that the law is unjust. We are already reaching a point where the people are increasingly disinterested in following the law for this reason. There comes a time when the state must step beyond the letter of the law and do what is right.

      This is no different than Jesus and the hypocrisy of the Rabbis. Your logic fails because it represents the inflexible creed of a long dead empire, and a current dying one. The purity of justice will always shine through in the end.

      The legal system does not matter if no one gives a ***** about it. Remember that.
      • notque, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2It's legal for the jury to do whatever the hell they want in any case, and justice should always be followed like that.
        • eryximachus, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2I'm all for it, but until judges inform the people they have that right, nothing will change.
  • Bukowsky, on 11/01/2007, -0/+103so, he only got $20,000 for each year he was in prison? thats it?
    • Jeffmr1, on 10/27/2007, -0/+41Id call that lucky. There are numerous people, especially in the south, who get nothing...and have to sign away their right to get anything, before the governor will even consider a pardon.
      • troye, on 10/26/2007, -0/+22OMG.
      • metric7, on 10/26/2007, -1/+6In the south *****, an accused rapist in georgia got over 1mil for 21 years in the joint. DNA set him free.
        • Jeffmr1, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Wow in one state, find me examples where pardons are involved in at least 2/3 of all states that make up the south and the wrongly convicted was awarded money, then we'll call it *****.
      • Bukowsky, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3Some guy in Houston got a large amount just a few weeks ago.
    • scecilio, on 10/27/2007, -27/+1Hmmm $20,000 disposable income per year in addition to food and boarding expenses paid by the state. I wouldn't say no.
      • Scienceisfun, on 10/26/2007, -0/+22So you'd willingly take $20k/year to live in jail for 18 years of your life?
        • shark615, on 10/26/2007, -12/+1outside of the possible ass rape. all your food, lodging, entertainment is paid for. thats basically 20,000 cahs in hand
          • LocalDocal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6You mean outside of the rapes, gangrapes, beatings, possible solitary confinement, possible stabbings, and etc. Also, I suppose getting free food, lodging, and entertainment is great for 18 years while the outside world, including your friends and families, go on without you. After all, they'll be the exact same people two decades later.
          • shark615, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Not saying that ***** right just that it wasn't 20,000 a year it is 20000+ loding etc.
        • Zarokima, on 10/26/2007, -0/+8"Hey guard, can you unlock the cell? I wanna go out clubbing."
          "Sure, and here's a change of clothes; you can't go out in your prison uniform. Oh, and say hi to Marty when you pass by."

          Yeah...no.
      • reyoo30309, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Not to mention that because you are labeled a child rapist chances are you will be someones bitch.
    • throop77, on 10/26/2007, -1/+19You have to think of what you would accept from the state for each year of your life taken from you. I wouldn't accept $360,000.00 for one year, let alone 18.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/26/2007, -8/+1Well, they also covered his rent and bills for those 18 years. I wish my job paid enough that I could put $20,000 into savings each year.....
    • meachen, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5also considering he has a permanent goatse as well
  • GRTWHT, on 10/26/2007, -7/+57The sad part about this? She will win.
    • Ajajadude, on 10/26/2007, -0/+15Well, luckily, there seems to be a trend of not automatically finding in favor of the mother in cases involving children.
      • JJCDAD, on 10/26/2007, -11/+3Since when dumbass? Or did you forget your /sarcasm tag?
  • superfusion, on 10/26/2007, -4/+30digg this and put that lady to shame.
    • rock774, on 10/26/2007, -3/+31you mean "digg this and put that bitch to shame" :)
    • brianbb98, on 10/27/2007, -0/+44Yeah... Cause shes gonna come on here and be like OH SNAP, I GOT TOLD!!
    • metric7, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2She has none
      /obviously
  • Flushnasty, on 10/26/2007, -3/+67I say we take the peace prize from gore and give it to this guy for not killing someone.
    • NeoCortex, on 10/26/2007, -1/+18How about we just give him a Get Out of Jail Free card. He can do whatever he wants once and gets to walk away.
      • chiefbandit2200, on 10/26/2007, -3/+15and then he can really rape the girl who wrongly got him convicted ;)
        ...if you're going to be convicted of a crime, you might as well do it, right?
        • Vitrophyric, on 10/25/2007, -9/+3Of course, he might as well since there's nothing actually wrong with raping girls. :-/
          The peace prize comment is funny. Your ***** is not funny.
          • czeman, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1Wow...I guess most diggers really are sick, perverted jackasses that get off on rape. I can't believe he got dugg up for his comment and we got dugg down for ours!
        • czeman, on 10/25/2007, -3/+2Why not the ex while he's at it? /sarcasm
          Rape isn't funny.
      • darkstar949, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2"You can use your time served to either steal a car, or kick me in the nuts..."
    • metric7, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2he hasn't killed yet
  • sfacets, on 10/27/2007, -0/+79Maybe the government should be sued for back child support? Just a thought.
    • gmiley, on 10/26/2007, -2/+10That sounds nice - unfortunately, due to sovereign immunity, the government has to allow you to sue it. :(
      • psyjoniz, on 10/25/2007, -1/+5um, what?
        • gmiley, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Look up sovereign immunity It basically means the government/ruling body cannot, collectively, break its own laws. The government has to give you permission to continue with a lawsuit.
    • throop77, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Very good idea. She should have just sued the state instead, or maybe he can now.
    • freefoodisgood, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1The court would just rule that the child support money should be taken from the $20k/year that the State awarded him.
  • AriaStar, on 11/01/2007, -0/+115A friend of mine spent five years behind bars and almost 20 more as a registered rapist for a rape even the girl said he didn't commit. He was released from jail and charges overturned, yet ordered to remain on Megan's List with his photo online. Finally, this past summer, the state ordered him removed from the list.

    Another friend of mine has been ordered to pay child support for a girl not his. She lives with both of her biological parents, and my friend has never even seen a picture of the girl. He's also ordered to pay child support for the daughter who IS his and who he has sole custody of.

    Men are ***** according to just about every law governing sex crimes and child support/custody. That's why I'm an advocate for men's rights. Equal is equal, but you men aren't treated it, and that's wrong.
    • thespudmall, on 10/26/2007, -1/+25YEAH!!! Men have rights too!!!!
      • dartmanx, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2No we don't.
        • AriaStar, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2You don't, but you should.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Men don't have rights if they're spineless bastards who don't defend them.
          Seriously, are you going to put up with this ***** like a boy, or are you going to fight for them like a man?
    • OffPiste, on 10/26/2007, -14/+7Dude you need some better friends.
      • AriaStar, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3It's douches like you I fight for. Why try to give me reason to hate men?
    • Godlike, on 10/26/2007, -3/+13How did we even get this system in the first place? Why is there no room for error in the laws? Why is nobody held accountable for fixing them when they are obviously broken and hurting innocent people? Why do the state employees who know this is going on continue to pursue these things? Why doesn't anyone ANYWHERE in the whole damn chain down to the accused ***** do something?

      Why doesn't he sue the bitch for wrongly accusing him?
      • DivisibleByZero, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Because the NOW has a very powerful lobby.
      • AriaStar, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2The Tender-years Doctrine laid ground for children to be the woman's property.
    • max420, on 10/26/2007, -2/+31Its amusing how 100 years ago women had no rights, and now men have less right then women in some cases. What ever happened to EQUAL rights?
      • WolverineBlue, on 10/26/2007, -0/+10Well, by the mean value theorem there must've been SOME point in time when we had equal rights.
        • natedouglas, on 10/25/2007, -0/+6That point in time could be infinitesimal, though.

          "YAY-- dammit."
      • DivisibleByZero, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Not necessarily since rights are generally measured in a discreet quantity. Suppose men have 15 rights and women only have 4. It would be possible to sign one law that took away 7 rights from men and simultaneously gave those same 7 rights to women. Now it's 8 to 11.

        Even with rights being transferred one at a time... if the total sum of rights was an odd number, they could never be equal.

        OK. that's enough nerdyness for me.
    • Identity4, on 10/26/2007, -0/+8No MA'AM ftw
      • AriaStar, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2No you would be against me because I'm a woman? Just so you know, the best ally a man could have is a WOMAN saying her gender has too many rights in comparison.
        • nonperson, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1i believe he was referencing the show Married With Children...
        • Identity4, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Nonperson gets the cookie :)
    • TrogdorSmash24, on 10/26/2007, -2/+14***** Megan's Law.
      • AriaStar, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4It started with the right idea, and turned into a monster.
    • nreynolds, on 10/26/2007, -2/+9"He's also ordered to pay child support for the daughter who IS his and who he has sole custody of."

      Who does he pay support to? himself?
      • psyjoniz, on 10/26/2007, -0/+16and its taxed!! ;)
      • AriaStar, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4To the girl's mother. I guess you don't realize you can be ordered to pay support to the non-custodial parent.
        • nreynolds, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3oh, well... on that hand, that's *****. law sucks...
        • ThndrShk2k, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3you... pay suppport... to a parent... who does not need money... to support... the child?
          wtf
    • bingobongony, on 10/25/2007, -6/+1You hang out with a lot of winners. (And no, don't give me any ***** about them being innocent. They may not have done anything this time, but they are not just picking completely great upstanding human beings outof thin air.)
      • nazadus, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2And you know this how?
        Have you met them?
        Other than a single comment, can you back your statements with evidence?
      • AriaStar, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3As a fathers' and men's rights advocate (I'm on the board of directors), a lot of men who have been wronged come to us seeking help. So I am in a position where I'm far more likely that you are to come into contact with extreme cases.
      • czeman, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1You're an ass. You don't know these people! My uncle knows a guy who had a successful pediatric pratice until he was accused of rape. No, it wasn't one of his patients. He was cleared once the D.A. found out the entire story. The sad part is that he lost EVERYTHING and still has to register as a sex offender. Go figure that one out.
    • wstrucke, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1your friends need to start using condoms
  • brianbb98, on 10/26/2007, -29/+7It's cause he's black. ***** justice system taking another brotha down...
    • Zarxrax, on 10/26/2007, -0/+16What? Did you even look at the pic of him in the article?
      • asskey, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5I think that was sarcasm.
        Dugg for sarcasm.
        I hope that was sarcasm.
  • OffPiste, on 10/26/2007, -1/+18So did the mother/daughter support the dude while he was in prison or did they shun him?
  • DetroitJay, on 10/26/2007, -5/+46This is ACTUALLY why I only ***** woman that like it in the ass!
    • natedouglas, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5I'm not sure the women you ***** have much else to work with, orificially.
  • pijiu, on 10/26/2007, -1/+8The government should pay child support for the period he was in prison for a crime he did not commit.
  • mr_bako2, on 10/26/2007, -2/+14One thing's for sure, that woman needs to be shot many, many times...
  • skews13, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3hell would freeze over before a dime of that money was paid.if i found out after an 18 year sentence that i might go back.her life wouldn't be worth a dime.
    • bingobongony, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Why would you go back to jail? Are your under the moronic impression that the United States has debtor's prison?
      • nazadus, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1He meant he might kill her and be put back in jail, I think.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/26/2007, -2/+8Is she ***** nuts?
  • chicoer2001, on 10/26/2007, -1/+22What happened to the rape victim? A false accusation ruined a guy's life.
    • gonzoblair, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5Sort of although it wasn't false, it appears there was a rape, she just identified the wrong guy. Hard to say what happened there without more information.
  • Falldog, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2So what, I can't read Digg and Fark anymore without seeing the same stories on the front page? Christ...
    • blaket, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Fark's a dying ship trying to sell itself to someone before it dies, abandon it!
  • felidaeus, on 10/26/2007, -4/+20The worst part about it, is that she is a *lawyer*, at the same office that wrongly prosecuted him.
    Any bets that this woman does NOT need money?
    Also, where the hell was she when he was in prison? She's a lawyer and he needed to get another attorney?
    • rharris, on 10/26/2007, -0/+15The mother's name is Lorraine Michaels. Her lawyer's name is Sarah Heekin. Sarah Heekin works in the same office as the former prosecutor. The article isn't the best written, but it's not that bad.
    • felidaeus, on 10/26/2007, -0/+11I read it again, and caught it, but you can't edit after a minute. My up diggs are simply proof that people skimmed the article even worse than I did.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/26/2007, -10/+6you know what I took away from this article....Bush sucks

    I don't know how but I did.
  • aznhomig, on 10/26/2007, -4/+11Only in ***** America will this happen.

    Home of the brave, land of the free, and all the tort lawsuits you can see.
    • MrWhite7, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Two options to protect yourself from others !) Let the government protect you by taking your rights away along with the tortfeasor 2) Tort litigation. I'll keep my rights thanks.
    • gudnbluts, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I don't know about that. Britain's "Child Protection Agency" has one hell of a ***** record for this kind of stuff. Why do you think "Fathers For Justice" keep dressing like Batman and climbing Buckingham Palace? Not that that wouldn't be fun, of course.
  • Saea, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1Chris Mumma: I thought the reporter was a retarded hick for a second.

  • imbetterthanu, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5If she's entitled to anything it should be $5 per month. That should work out to what....17% of his monthly salary while in jail? This is local news in Raleigh and I get sick every time I see this story in the paper or on television. People like her make me lose my faith in humanity even more.
  • McHoffa, on 10/26/2007, -0/+12I know from experience that the child support system in NC is absolutely horrible... I've paid for years for my 8 yr old daughter that I have had about 70% of the time most of her life. Just because the papers said her mom had custody, it didn't matter if she was actually physically with me or not...
    Finally got just got custody though, maybe things will change... MAYBE
  • albotas, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6For the justice system to remain just, they should pay that guy AND his baby's momma' for their screw up.
    • psyjoniz, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1well, they did pay the guy..
      • djdole, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1...for his wrongful imprisonment.
        They didn't reimburse the mother or child for forcibly denying them the support of the father.
    • bingobongony, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1IT took several dozen comments but you are hte first person in this entire thread to make sense. People calling for the mother to be murdered, and *****. And Diggers consider themselves to be bettter than the average person. Amazing.
      This woman lost out too. She had to sacrifice a lot tfor the kid. Do I agree with her suing the guy? No. But calling her a gold digger bitch and saying she should be "shot many times" is absurd. Through no fault of her own, the quality of her life was DRASTICALLYreduced as well. Shje should get some money. And you are right. The money should come from the state. Not as much as he got, but some.
  • tomis, on 10/26/2007, -0/+8The kid is 18 now and living with his father by his own choice. It's clear who should be getting the child support money, the father. The state should pay him back child support and force her to pay it. It's very suspicious that this woman works with the DA that prosecuted the father of her child. It would seam she's has some grudge against him for a very long time.
    • djdole, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5I agree
      I hope the son gets a say in this. The fact that he moved to live with his father shows that even though he was imprisoned, he's still the preferred parent by the child.
      Which says a LOT for the character of the mother. :-
  • sljepi, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1What a ***** luck...
  • treylane, on 10/26/2007, -11/+4Alright, not that she's the nicest woman in the world, but let's look at this from the other side ...

    You get your girlfriend pregnant. Presto, you're a daddy and you're partially responsible for the financial burden of raising a child, you can seek custody, that kind of thing.

    Freak legal screwup happens and you get thrown in jail for "two life sentences, plus 15 years" ... That kid is still around, and someone has to raise it... so now your ex has to work two jobs and drop out of school or make whatever sacrifices it takes to raise YOUR CHILD as a single parent with no support. You're pretty clearly incapacitated, so there's no point in hitting you up for your share of the financial duties. Suddenly they let you out and you're capable (whether from getting a job yourself, or from your settlement with the legal system) of owning up to some of your responsibilities, and repaying some of the financial burden incurred as YOUR CHILD grew up.
    • treewood, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4The point is, that the child is already grown up. It's an adult. Child support is supposed to do exactly what it says: help support the child. Since the child is already grown up, the mother no longer needs money to help support the child. What she is actually seeking is damages, which were incurred by the legal system for wrongly convicting the man. See why it's wrong now?
      • MrWhite7, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1What she's actually seaking is child support arrears....which he owes her as his share of supporting the child when it was growing up. She paid his share prior, now she's entitled to collect.
        • yournightmare, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2It doesn't say she's seeking arrears. In your above post you used the word "tortfeasors" so I assumed you were a lawyer, but now I think that you're not. The article clearly states that she is seeking a "reasonable sum for the care and maintenance of the minor child." This means that in all likelihood, this is the first time the child support issue has come up in court. For there to be arrears, he would have to be behind on previously ordered child support and there would be a specific amount of money that he would owe, and both she and the state that ordered the child support would know exactly how much was owed. Because there is no specific amount of money listed, it is more than likely that there are no arrears. Furthermore, the fact that he was sentenced to life in prison before his kid was even born means that the mother more than likely didn't bother suing for child support.

          So she's NOT seeking money that he "owes" her, because no court has previously ordered child support. She is seeking to have a court say that he owes her the money.

          Also, I believe that in a majority of states, a person in prison owes no child support and cannot be forced to pay back child support upon release, even if child support had been entered before the incarceration began. And I'm pretty sure that a person in prison can't have an action for child support brought against him in those states. Not sure about whatever state she lives in, though.
    • earther, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2***** happens. If the reverse were the case and the mom got tossed in the slammer, would she be responsible for support after getting out? Do you think the man would bitch and moan about having to work two jobs, etc?
  • 0livero, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Just curious... would the 360,000 he was payed be taxed? Personally I think he should be allowed to retire now and live as happily as he can the rest of his life. He should -NOT- have to deal with this.
    • darkstar949, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3Unless there is a special law covering cases like this - lump sum payments are taxed at 20%.
    • Reese268, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3I'm sure it's taxed. The government taxes everything. They have to have their cut of your money, don't ya know?
  • onegreyhair, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2this guy has to have something good coming his way soon...i hope
  • KingBunny, on 10/26/2007, -0/+11Pff, I could have got more money if I spilled some McDonalds coffee on myself.
  • htan, on 10/25/2007, -3/+4does wayne brady have to choke a bitch?
  • firebringer, on 10/25/2007, -3/+3Whilst sympathetic to the guy who wrongly served time I find it hard to understand the hatred being shown in comments towards the mother of his child. Nowhere in the article does it suggest she was his accuser. She raised his child. Why shouldn't he be expected to pay towards the cost of raising his own child.
    • diggomaniac, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3Um...because he was in jail?
    • earther, on 10/28/2007, -0/+5She raised THEIR child. ***** happens in life and sometimes you have to make sacrifices. What if he were in an accident and had been in a coma for 20 years? Would she still be entitled to sue him? Why is it that only men seem to be the ones responsible for child support? What the ***** ever happened to equality?
      • MrWhite7, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3Men tend to be the one's that abandon the mom and the child for one..... And for the record anyone is entitled to sue anyone else. I would iamgine state statutes exist for protecting the incapacitated coma victim, but I'm not sure. It's obvious that there needs to be a statute for this situation as well, but if there's not, the rules are the rules and it will get sorted out in court. Default case is YES, the parent who took care of the child is entitled to child support form the one who didn't, irrespective of gender.
      • wotp, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Supporting a child takes more than money, and that is still valuable. And it is not only men.
    • czeman, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1It was THEIR child. He was in prison. The child is now an adult. I think they need to concentrate on picking up the pieces.
      I wonder if she ever believed he was innocent, or if sided with the jury that convicted him and then moved on.
    • deanjarvis, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0Oh, you're just an idiot. You can't pay child support from jail. This is not a case of some guy trying to get out of something.
  • britblogger, on 10/25/2007, -6/+5you ***** sue-hungry whore Yanks.
  • bingobongony, on 10/26/2007, -8/+1***** THE POLICE!
  • felidaeus, on 10/28/2007, -0/+20According to his lawyer, state law holds that a person in jail is not required to pay child support.

    http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2007/10/24/ ...
  • ellolollard, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5If he gets convicted (which I think is unlikely- he has a good lawyer representing him and he has a lot of goodwill right now because of his incarceration) he can only be sued for up to 3 years of child support- the years prior to when the lawsuit was filed (see Napowsa v Langston NC). I think its funny how the lawyer representing the lady mentioned that case in her brief but didn't seem to ***** realize this when she wrote that her client expects child support for the full 18 years Dwayne was in prison. At any rate, the three years he could have to pay for were probably the least expensive of all, since he's not having to pay for baby medicine and whatnot.

    The point of child support laws, though, are to help support a single mother who really needs the money to keep the child alive. Since the kid lived and is living with his father now, it seems clear that the mother was able to take care of the kid fine on her own- eliminating the need for child support payments. I highly doubt this case will even go to trial- the judge will just throw it out and make the plaintiff's lawyer a laughingstock.
  • rimmel, on 10/26/2007, -4/+3It'd totally be Colt .45 time if it was up to me. That bitch would catch 7, 8 if I had my Wilson mag in... right to the head
  • MrWhite7, on 10/28/2007, -1/+7Like it or not (which I don't by the way) statutes are statutes. The harsher they are on all, the more they discourage the parent delinquency and help the children. When they find an outlier though, trust me, they screw that outlier hard. .I used to be a caseworker and this was the general jacked up scenario I tended to see:

    1)Dad goes to jail (usually minor drug felony)
    2)Mom files for TANIF from the state (cash assistance given when child is deprived of support of one parent, and the other parent is unable to maintain steady income, cite laziness, incompetence, drug use, whatever) mom draws a couple thousand
    3)Dad racks up child support arrears while in jail
    4)Dad gets out of jail, supports child again
    5)Mom skips town
    6)Dad, now single parent, gets wages garnished for child support arrears, but makes too much for TANIF because CS arrears aren't deducted from gross income.

    Dad is now ex-felon, drug-related, so can't get food-stamps, with custody of child, with garnished wages which aren't deducted from gross income test for TANIF, so can't receive TANIF. State doesn't persue mom for child support because they only have budget to pursue those who make them pay TANIF. Dad is left high and dry.

    Deviated from the article there, but I guess my point is this. If your realy dad and you want to disappear, DISAPPEAR. If that kid ain't yours, and you don't want to be paying child-support when things go to hell, DON'T sign that birth certificate, DON'T treat the kid like he's yours, DON'T give mom money for the kid. The state will support single parents, and it WILL get it's money back if it can.
  • Brianguy2000, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6For being imprisoned for that long, i'm sure he got raped in prison. he should have gotten 40k per year and the child support case thrown out since it was the state that separated him from his family in the first place. A public apology from the DA and the lab techs and the little girl that he supposedly raped would be nice too.
    • Haidoken, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1agreed, and was that woman his former wife? If it was, where was her support for him while he was in prison?
  • czeman, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Only in America can someone...
    1. Be wrongfully accused of a sexual offense, CLEARED, and still be required to register as a sex offender.
    2. Get sued for back child support after the fact when the money is longer needed to support the child.
    • MrWhite7, on 10/25/2007, -1/+11. agreed
      2, It's child support arrears. She paid his half of the support while he was gone, she's entitled to it back. That simple.
  • Crazyloc, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0"Heekin, who said she filed the suit last week, works in the same law office as Don Strickland, the former Wayne County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Dail for rape."

    So who thinks theres a little relationship budding for Heekin and Strickland...oh your ex husbands out sue his ass for back child support and get yourself something nice babe...she didn't care for him when he was in prison so why should he pay her for being in prision
  • sponeil, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1As sick as it sounds, if he was ordered to pay child support 18 years ago, she'll probably win this law suit. I pay child support, and my lawyer explained this one to me a while ago. Once a mistake like this is discovered, the person who was paying the child support is allowed to stop (although he actually has to go to court to get the court order dropped), but he is still responsible for any payments he was supposed to make while the court order was in effect. He explained this to me to drive home the point that a DNA test is necessary even if you feel 100% certain you are the father. He also explained that even if the judge wants to throw the case out, he can't ignore the laws, and these laws in particular are set up to keep the child from being on welfare.

    It's still sick, but that's the way it is.
  • ChloeMS, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I just hope that :IF she wins, the court bases its award on the yearly income during the time he was not paying child support... the years he was behind bars! She might get all of $6,409, based on $1 per day for 18 years, not including leap years.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.