But see, if that's the case then she should have filed way back when he was slapped in the pokey or even b/f if they weren't together. That way she could have collected off the .79 cents a month. :lol: I'm making light of this and I really shouldn't.
I agree ! Why isn't she due money? She raised his child for 18 yrs without any support ! Just because you are thrown in jail , does not mean you are no longer responsible for your child. Even if you are innocent when sentenced, your child is STILL your responsiblity! Should she take him to the bank ? NO, but she is also due for compensation.
Because my Mother did get public assistance she was required to press charges against my biological father in order to continue to receive assistance. That was a long time ago in a place far away from here, but could be a similar situation. Weird consequence was that about 25 years ago my new bride got a notice from the IRS that hey were holding my refund to offset my child support. I and my Mother had to prove I was not my father. That evening was a ratherr cold one. :shock:
So how did you prove you were not your father? There is a striking resemblance between you and yourself, I'm sure, not to mention the DNA would be a perfect match, wouldn't it? Actually, the law here is similar to what you describe - the state is entitled to reimbursement for assistance if the father's identity can be established.
Actually in North Carolina, he could be earning up to $1 a day, so if he had a kitchen job, didn't take any days off, it would come up to $365 a year. Since one child usually runs around 17% of the gross...when the prison sentence started..guess the argument could be made that child support would be 17% of the $360,000 minus any state assistance over those 18 years.
Here's how I see it... Yes, he was wrongly imprisoned. And if he didn't have a cent to his name, it would be like trying to get blood from a turnip and causing a hardship on a man who can't possibly catch that up. BUT...that's not the case. The guy does have money to his name. And during his imprisonment, the mother paid all the support of the child. Imprisonment - warranted or not - does not negate that fact. His wrongful imprisonment and the back child support he owes are two totally separate issues. Since he is coming into a windfall, and since she has supported their child all this time on her own, then she is right to file for the back support. It's only fair. That the kid is living with him now is a moot point, since the child is 18. And the child doesn't deserve to get the money...he didn't pay anything for his own upbringing. The mother did. She deserves reimbursement for Mr. Dail's portion of the costs of raising the child for 18 years, because he helped create that child. If she received state or federal assistance of any kind during that time, that needs to come out of the back child support she is awarded, and go back to the taxpayers.
EXACTLY!!! If he is going to receive compensation for the years he was in prison, then she should receive some part of that since she was solely supporting his child during all those years. As for the case dropped, i heard on the radio that they came to mutual decision that it was best for the kid (in other words, he probably agreed to pay her a certain amount once all is settled).
That's what I was thinking. Once the court set some limits on what she could get, I'm sure that simplified the negotiations. She certainly deserves something for doing it all by herself all those years. He sounds pretty responsible, too. I heard he is going to use the money to buy a house for himself and his son, and to send them both to college. I think that's great.
I disagree Kaci, so she had to raise a kid by herself - he did 20 years of time through no fault of his own. Maybe she could file a suit a get her own compensation.
The two are not related, Cleo. A parent's obligation to share in the costs of raising a child are not contingent upon bad luck, or unfair circumstances that occur in that parent's life. If two parents have a child and they lose everything due to a stock broker who scammed them...that's unfair. But they aren't absolved of paying the costs that arise from raising their child. If this guy was getting nothing coming out of prison, I could see not pushing the issue...but he's getting $300+ thousand dollars. He can afford to reimburse the child's mother for some of the expenses she incurred raising a son that he helped to create.
