Do you think it is wrong to order back child support from a man who was wrongly imprisoned?
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1961294/
Raleigh — A man who was pardoned after spending 18 years behind bars for a rape he didn’t commit has been sued for child support for the years he was in prison.
Should he be responsible for child support he could have been paying while he was in prison, even though he was wrongfully convicted?
If not who should pay it? Should any back child support be paid?
Related Information:
Tagged with: 18 years • child support • Rape • wral
Filed under: How To Get Him Back
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
There should be no back child support mandated. He was in prison, not his fault.
Whether or not he is compensated for his time behind bars is irrelevant. Were the children supported financially for this 18 years?
Don’t punish him twice for a crime he did not commit.
This is a clear case of Mommy wants more money. If anyone owes support for those years, it is the court.
he is most likely going to get paid for the wrongly imprisoned issue and no child support should be paid because it should have been filed years ago.
Yes , he is responsible for the child that he helped create. Why should the mother have to suffer because the man she made a baby with was in prison…
He is still responsible.
Wow. That’s a tough one. I think the state should be liable for the support on top of the financial award they paid him for being unjustly convicted and sentenced.
Actually, !! in rape case! This things like child or pregnancy can never happen! that is my belief.
If you are doing rape, Then you could not have that much control on the lady, Whom you are cherishing. It must never happen to get gestation due to rape!!
That lady is liar. Actually, That person is convicted wrongfully, Obviously, That lady is only responsible for child and child’s nourishment and appetite.
If that person is imprisoned already for 18 years, that it’s really shameful it’s injustice with him.
definitely not him…
he should be paid by the state…
Thats probly the dumbest thing ive heard. The mother of the child should had went to the government (while he was imprisoned) for help and im sure she would had gotten it! He would work on the inside to pay the child support off
Number two, after 18 years old (I dont know about other states but in Tx its 18) you are no longer responsible to pay child support for the child in question.
Ouch. That IS a tough one.
There has to be some kind of agreement that the courts could come to on this one. I don’t think that a situation like this could be settled with one side’s stance being 100% fulfilled, nor should it.
Hopefully he’ll get some help from the government — you know, because it was the thing that wrongfully imprisoned him and everything. There’s nothing that states that he HAS to pay back the child support, especially considering his circumstances.
Wow…talk about adding insult to injury. Prison for 18 years, stripped of 18 years of his life, stripped of the chance to be a father to the child in question, and now the one who holds all of the memories of raising the child wants to be reimbursed for doing their role as a parent.
No, the man has already had a large portion of his life wrongly removed. Let the punishment stop and the living begin.
Did anyone read the article at all! The son who is almost 18 and is living with him. The child is not living with his mother. He had no income during that prior time while imprisoned, and innocent no less. The state kept him from making a wage and now he’s out the boys with him. If anyone should pay it’s the state.
Child support should be based upon a persons income at the time it is owed. I doubt if he ‘earned" more then a couple of dollars a day at best. It should not be based upon what someone may get 20 years later.
There are also many questions not answered. Did the mother of this child have any involvement with his being in prison? I ask because I know of a case where a man was in prison for a murder his said he did when she knew he did not do the crime. She then tried to get child support for the years he was in prison because of her false testimony when it was proven he was innocent.
Also $20,000 a year is not much when you consider 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.
Was he able to have any involvement with the child while in prison/ This would make a difference too. If he had no contact at all, then NO he should not be forced to pay support for all the years he lost being a dad to this child.
Ren said: "Plus, just because he did not rape her does not mean he is not the father of the baby."
If he was in prison because he was suppose to have raped HER….then she should pay him big time for all his time.
It seems to be that just because a male fathers a child you think he should pay child support regardless. Well about two documented cases of TWELVE year old boys becoming fathers when ADULT women had sex with them? These boys were ordered to pay child support too, although the boys were actually raped according to legal terms. In at least one of these cases nothing was done to the woman although she was hired to babysit the boy. LOL..she was hired to PROTECT him and she destroyed his life.
No, I don’t think he should have to pay back child support. I think the ones responsible for him being in prison or the justice (or in-justice) department should have to pay for the support and also compensate him for his lost years.
This sounds like a case of insult upon injury, but it isn’t…not really. It sounds horrid to sue for back child support right after this man gets out of prison for a crime he did not commit. However, the child was not supported while growing up through no fault of the childs or mothers. It is not the responsibility of the mother to "make up" for the wrongs that have been done to Mr. Dail by the North Carolina court system.
Mr. Dail is going to be paid $20,000 for each of the years he spent in prison. Paying a portion of that to cover the expenses that Mrs. Michaels incurred over the years by raising a child that Mr. Dail helped create is not overboard considering that he would have had to pay child support if he hadn’t gone to prison.
The issue is that this article links two unrelated issues together and makes it seem like some sort of odd cause and effect. Mr. Dail and Mrs. Michaels created a child together. Mr. Dail was falsely accused of rape and went to prison. These issues have nothing to do with each other and only overlap in the media attention because it will sell. It is an emotional attack meant to elicit feeling of pity.
It is awful that this poor man had to spend 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. It is wonderful that DNA testing has progressed to the point that it was able to exonerate an innocent man. However, the creation of his child and the responsibility for helping to care for that child have nothing to do with his time spent in prison.
Why are you cloning Rio?
Actually, the state must refund him of almost every thing lost in 18 years. Even the duty and the right to be a father and grow his own children.
An unfortunate circumstance of events. He, Dail claimed that he hadn’t seen his son at all during those 18 years. His being wrongfully convicted has nothing to do with this, this is something new here. Let’s say that his son is still a minor, I would say that support should be paid up till his 18th birthday; after all what is past is past. If his son is an adult; just leave it go.
Why didn’t she make the application while he was inside? It can be done… it wouldn’t be much, but it would be some.
Getting a guilty verdict is much easier in a civil suit than in a criminal suit.
Just because he was pardoned for the criminal conviction does not mean that he will be let off the hook in a civil trial.
Plus, just because he did not rape her does not mean he is not the father of the baby.
I am very ambivalent on this particular case.
Somebody thinks that if he was not imprisoned he would HAVE BEEN paying support all that time. AND someone bore this total costs of supporting a child (for which he should have been accountable). He is going to get a payment from the state and part of that is to repay him for lost income.
So, the mother accused the man of rape, and then sued him for child support? what a convenient business! Thanks, 2nd wave feminism!
That’s such an odd question that it goes into the "It just doesn’t matter" file. Stuff like that has a way of working itself out. Wrongful conviction usually means compensation and that will be part of it. The children involved are no longer children but the mother lost 18 years. I hope she gets it, it will cost him nothing.