PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

We read hundreds of pages of links, postings, and documents that are sent to us by readers. However, as a general rule we do not post them because most of them are either defamatory or incoherent. One of our readers, however, has referred us to a knightradio.com and a discussion on Paternity Fraud.

Without going into great detail, our reader (Lilly) is the wife of a man who has been ordered to pay child support to an ex-wife despite the fact that no paternity tests have ever been administered. Lily posted some comments to the site and the moderator suggested to her that "your husband submit to a blood test/DNA if he has not already done so to prove that he is in fact not the biological father of the child."

The problem faced by those South Carolina fathers who want to challenge the paternity of children conceived during wedlock is that they are not given the right to require that the child submit to paternity testing. Historically, there were no scientific tests to establish paternity, so South Carolina, like most States, adopted legislation to the effect that all children conceived during coverture and born within a year of the death of the father were presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the husband. This legal fiction, referred to as a "statutory presumption of legitimacy" was enacted based on policy reasons, the theory being that, because no one could really be certain who their father was, it is better for society as a whole to presume that most everyone was legitimate.* With the advent of DNA testing, however, there is no sound policy basis for those who wish to challenge paternity should not be allowed to utilize scientifically reliable tests to do so.

"DEADBEAT" DAD NO MORE

Dennis Fassuliotis sent the following:

I may be the first person in Charleston County to ever succeed in having a local Family Court judge execute an Order to have the criminal record created as a result of being wrongfully charged with civil contempt and consequently incarcerated. The Order to expunge my record came after a grueling three and a half year court battle which did not end in the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Instead when I went back to the Family Court in Charleston County and asked the Family Court judge who made the mistake and was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court, I was told I had already had all the remedies available to me under the law and she could not expungement my criminal record.

That story is a matter of record and first reported by Herb Frazier of the Post & Courier in two installments. Mr. Frazier's story ends when he personally attended the hearing where the Honorable Judge F. P. Segars-Andrews denied my request for Expungement of the criminal record created by her mistake when she wrongfully held me in contempt of a Family Court Order on September 18, 2002.

Finally, after nearly four years of hearings, I received an Order of Expungement that was sent by the Family Court to the Charleston County Sheriff's office. But it does not stop there. I believe I still have a criminal record in the State Law Enforcemet Division (SLED) database, the FBI database and who knows where else.

The Associated Press has just reported that the Utah Supreme Court has ordered that a small-town judge with three wives be removed from the bench. The court unanimously agreed with the findings of the state's Judicial Conduct Commission, which recommended last year that the judge, Walter K. Steed, be removed for violating the state's bigamy law.

According to the AP Judge Steed said he accepted the decision. "I had hoped that the court would see my case as an opportunity to correct the injustices that are caused by the criminalization of my religious beliefs and lifestyle, and I am disappointed the court did not reach those issues in my case," he said in a statement.

Judge Steed has served for 25 years on the Justice Court in Hildale, a polygamist community in southern Utah. These judges are appointed by city councils or county commissions to handle misdemeanors. Judge Steed legally married his first wife in 1965, according to court documents. He married the second and third wives in religious ceremonies in 1975 and 1985. The three women are sisters.

We take no position on whether polygamy should remain illegal. But given that Hildale polygamists have been under scrutiny for years, one has to wonder how a judge managed to openly violate the law for thirty years without being caught. More important, one has to be concerned about whether anyone in this community received justice in a family court system that apparently applies a different set of laws than anywhere else in the country.

A little-known alternative to a court-managed divorce is seeing a rise in popularity in Charleston County, South Carolina. And while it may not be suitable for everyone, its advocates claim that this type of procedure is less emotionaly taxing on both parties and is significantly cheaper than a courthouse divorce. More important, supporters claim that "Collaborative Divorce, as is is called, is easier on the children.

The concept is fairly straight-forward. In instances when both sides agree the marriage cannot be saved, the parties sit down in a room where each is represented by an attorney. The couple is made to sit next to each other, "symbolically eliminating the gulf between them." Over the course of several visits, agreements about alimony, division of assets, child support, custody, and child visitation are drafted on-site; the lawyers act more as facilitators than adversaries and the fianl agreement is then submitted to the Family Court for Approval.

For more information on seeking a collaborative divorce, interested persons can visit the South Carolina Collaborative Law Association's Web site at http://www.collaborativedivorcesc.com/

The Post and Courier reports that a North Charleston Municipal Judge is acccused of demeaning a man for bringing his medical service dog to court. According to the article "The city of North Charleston is forwarding a copy of the tape of the incident to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, and the Hanahan man involved in the incident also said he will file a formal complaint against Judge George Epps."

The complainant, Bob Godfrey, went to court with a Spanish-speaking man who was facing a noise violation. According to the article, "Godfrey had been teaching the man English and thought he might be able to assist him in court. Shortly after the case was called, Epps, according to the tape released to The Post and Courier through the Freedom of Information Act, asked Godfrey, 'What is that dog in here for?'Godfrey explained that he had been in an automobile accident when he worked for the Charleston County Sheriff's Office in 1989 and that the dog, a golden retriever named Jasmine, is a medical assistant. 'If I fall, he helps me get up,' said Godfrey, who has screws and rods in his back and said his sense of balance is sometimes off."According to the Post and Courier, "Epps then said, 'It takes his little hands and helps pick you up...what does that dog do besides not supposed to be in this building? ... You ought to know better than to bring a dog into a courtroom. That just really upsets me'."

This is not the first time that "Judge" Epps who has no law degree, has been accussed of rude behavior, but it is the first time that he has openly demonstrated his ignorance of federal law. (Under federal law, medical service animals are allowed into any building.)

In October 2004, North Charleston City Councilwoman Phoebe Miller filed a complaint against Epps after accusing him of berating her at a party celebrating Summey's 10th anniversary in office. The S.C. Supreme Court's Office of the Disciplinary Counsel dismissed the complaint a month later, saying the alleged confrontation at a private party didn't rise to the level of judicial misconduct. That complaint followed one five months earlier in which Johns Island contractor Larry Low, who appeared before Epps as a witness in his son's reckless driving case, wrote a three-page letter to the Supreme Court concerning how he was treated by Epps. Low, claimed that Epps had belittled him and jailed him overnight for contempt of court for walking too slowly.

Whether Mr. Low's contention is true may never be known. However, the fact that an unqualified, undereducated, quick-tempered man can be given so much unchecked power to jail people is a scary thought. And, unfortunately, as some of the articles at The Daily Judge demonstrate, "Judge" Epps is by no means the worse offender.