Childless man freed after serving time for child support violations
Frank Hatley was jailed last year for falling behind on child support payments

Hatley had paid for 13 years until he learned boy might not have been his

DNA test proved child wasn't Hatley's, but court still ordered back payment

The south Georgia man was released from jail Wednesday



By Mariano Castillo
CNN

(CNN) -- Frank Hatley spent the past year in jail for being a deadbeat dad. But there's one problem -- Hatley doesn't have any children. And the "deadbeat" label doesn't fit the 50-year-old either, his supporters say.


Frank Hatley had been ordered to make back payments even after he learned a teenager wasn't his son.

After a hearing, Hatley was released from the Cook County Jail in south Georgia Wednesday afternoon, with the help of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins ruled that Hatley was indigent and should not be jailed for not being able to make child support payments. Perkins postponed a decision on whether Hatley should have to make any more back payments on child-support for a child who is not his.

In June of last year, a judge ordered Hatley to jail for failing to reimburse the state for public assistance that was paid to support his "son," who, as the court was aware, is not actually his son.

Hatley's attorney Sarah Geraghty, who filed a motion for his release, called it a case of "blatant unfairness."

Hatley is a hard-working man who demonstrated his desire to pay what the court said he owed, even making payments from his unemployment checks, Geraghty told CNN.

On top of that, "the state has no legitimate reason to pursue Mr. Hatley for child support -- he doesn't have any children," she said.

The story dates back to 1986, when Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son.

Morrison told Hatley that the child was his, but the couple ended their relationship shortly after the boy's birth, according to court documents. The couple never married and never lived together, the documents state.

When the boy turned 2, Morrison applied for public support for her son. Under Georgia law, the state can go after the non-custodial parent to recoup the assistance.

For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning, in 2000, that the boy might not be his biological son. A DNA test that year confirmed that there was no chance he was the father, according to court documents.

Hatley returned to court and was relieved of any future child support reimbursement but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 that he had owed the state before the ruling.

Latesha Bradley, an attorney who represented Hatley in that hearing, told CNN the argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments was that he had signed a consent agreement with the office of child support services. The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.

Court documents show that Hatley for the most part continued to make payments. He was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments and continued to do so even after he lost another job in 2008 and became homeless, court records state.

Last year, he again became unable to maintain the payments and was once again jailed.

The circumstances of Hatley's arrest didn't feel right to many, including Cook County Sheriff Johnny Daughtrey.

"I knew the gentleman's plight and didn't know how to help him," Daughtrey told CNN.

About two months ago, when attorneys from the Southern Center for Human Rights visited his jail, Daughtrey alerted them to Hatley's case.

I've heard various cases like this.

One that was on Montel several years back involved a man in the military. For 7 years after the child was proven to not be his via a DNA test, the military continued to garnish his wages for child support.

He made several attempts going to the courts to get the child support stopped but for some reason they kept denying it. He had never been a part of this child's life.

He and the mom broke up before the child was born and he didn't know about the child until they came knocking for child support. The mother was white, he was black. Very dark. And this child was white as white could be.

He finally ended up on Montel as part of a show where men where successfully sued for child support for children that were not theirs.

Lawyers love these stories. Lots of billable hours, trying to get that money back.

Do these people get reimbursed for all those payments made?

they should

but i doubt it

and could not the mother be charged with fraud

after all it was making false statements for financial gain

just a thought

but hey

what do i know

I agree they should be reimbursed as they owe the state nothing (jmo)

As to the mother being charged with fraud, not sure if this would be easy to prove. Did she knowingly give false info, or was she under the assumption that suchandsuch was the father.

When filing for child support or public assistance, who determines paternity? is paternity established?

lesson from this should be

do not sign paternity papers without dna evidence

as for the fraud

she obviously knew there was a possibility he was not the father

the fraud is not letting the possibility being known

yes charges should be brought imo

it matters not if she thought he was if she knew there was a chance he was not

but hey

what do i know

You're telling me these parents who turn out not to be the biological parent signed paternity papers, accepting and acknowledging these children as their own? Sorry I have no clue how this work.

Actually the def of fraud is nothing to do with possibility, but a deliberate act.

A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

A piece of trickery; a trick.

she was deciptive int the fact that she did not disclose the other party or parties that could have been the parent (maybe they were not capable of paying as much)

it is time to make an example and stop the crap

------------------------------------

from opening post

Latesha Bradley, an attorney who represented Hatley in that hearing, told CNN the argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments was that he had signed a consent agreement with the office of child support services. The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.

You and I will never agree on this issue

Don't see any deception but your assumption

she should have disclosed all that had the possibility of being the father

not to do so is being deceitful

she had no way of knowing who the actual father was

thus she should face the consequences of her actions

she should name everyone she had sex with (yeah ok) you tell me yours and I'll tell you mine

fraud/deceit is a deliberate act - there was none (jmo)

and you're taking this way off topic -
my question was does he get reimbursed?
he signed and acknowledged paternity, should he get reimbursed or not?

i believe that this court is quite cruel. i believe that he considers the child his even now, and truly is, for he has certainly paid many prices, and possibly had a major positive impact on this child's life, and possibly still does, and i'd still pay out of love if it were me, but, i'd go after the court system, and after the real father for extra help for the child, and the court needs to be far more lenient, and actually help this man in anyway possible to get on his feet, and appologize as well. seems services like that need to be re-formed, and i bet this type of thing is more common than we think. if i were him, would find other victims of this and do a class action lawsuit for fairness of victims......

The child support system is so screwed up it ain't even funny. I can't get my son's father to take a DNA test to prove paternity. Not a thing I can do bout it neither. But way I look at it, go ahead an deny him, his loss.

When she applied for state aid, the state probably looked on the birth certificate and the guys name was on it..

so, they went after him for support. The mother did not file anything, the state does this and the payments go to the state to "repay" the amount of support that the mother received.

I am willing to bet that there was no paternity test anywhere on file, they probably used the name that was on the birth certificate. At the time, he probably thought he was the father...

so, this might beg the question about having paternity established at birth...or prior to child support hearings in cases like this...

I don't know...

I think that he should not have to pay any arrears for sure...

and really, the state was supporting the mother and child, so yes, I think the state should pay him back the money...

JMO

I think there is a group in the state of WI...

Men, both fathers and people who were thought to be the father...belong and advocate for the rights of the man.

It has been very effective...I just cannot find the link to it right now...

I just think the state truly doesn't give a rat's a$$ who the biological parent of any child is, they just want to get reimbursed and don't care who pays.

when i was married to my ex hubby. i got letter in the mail that they were going garnish his wages... so i contacted them and said i didnt think you could garnish the wages sense your married... they cancel that all together...

but now i guess they can for when my daughter was still with her husband(they have been apart for 2yrs)
they got a letter as well but he had to pay the back child support..

and what was also funny was i had to get some paper work from support inforcment one yr. and when they handed me the paper i laughed for they had my ex hubby down for my daughter dad...(i dont think so) i didnt know him then.. it was just a errior but it was funny

I agree..they don't care...and if the name is on the birth certificate, the go after him period.

I think (don't quote me on this though) but I believe they can make the mother pay back the money and go after the real dad. Although I'm not sure the real dad has to pay that far back since he didn't know and someone else was believed to be the father. So basically, the mom is SOL and maybe next time she will get a paternity test ASAP