California Courts Uphold Order Making Homeless Man Pay Child Support and Lose Inheritance Even Though DNA Excludes Him As the Dad

I read a case this morning that makes me feel very uncomfortable. I think when you look at the facts, you will feel the same.

Sometimes following or not following procedure as outlined in the law has some interesting results. For example, there are statutes of limitations on all kinds of claims because our society does not want people 40 years down the road claiming that they were injured by someone in their youth without the ability to fully substantiate the claim.

But, what if you could substantiate the claim?

Last week, the California Supreme Court declined to review a Court of Appeal decision that forced Hari Wilburn, a homeless man, to pay tens of thousands of dollars in child support for a child even though DNA excludes him as the dad and he never acted as the dad.

In 1991, Cathy Tate named Wilburn as the father of her five-year-old child Alexis in a restraining order proceeding. Wilburn, who was homeless, was never personally served, and there is no record of any service except by mail to Wilburn's mother's address, which is not legally proper. Nonetheless, the court found Wilburn was served, issued a restraining order and ordered Wilburn to pay child support. Wilburn was not present.

17 years later, in 2008 Wilburn's family tracked down 22-year-old Alexis and asked her to take a DNA test, which excluded Wilburn as Alexis' biological dad. Wilburn's family hired an attorney, who filed a motion challenging the support order. Alexis swore under oath that Wilburn never acted as her dad and she only saw him a few times in her life. The court denied the motion, ruling Wilburn should have challenged the order sooner, despite the fact that he was homeless and living under a bridge.