Saying “no” to feminist injustice

California’s Second Appellate District has ruled that the State can no longer reap financial gain from the child support orders that stem from faulty paternity judgments, reversing a long-standing practice imposed by radical feminist legislator Sheila Kuehl. The case is L. A. County v. Navarro, dealing with a man who didn’t respond to a court order sent through the mail in the required six months.

The court cited a law that I helped pass in 2000:

It is this state?s policy that when a mistake occurs in a child support action, the County must correct it, not exploit it. When the Legislature enacted the Child Support Enforcement Fairness Act of 2000, it declared ?The efficient and fair enforcement of child support orders is essential to ensuring compliance with those orders and respect for the administration of justice. . . .

Thousands of individuals each year are mistakenly identified as being liable for child support actions. As a result of that action, the ability to earn a living is severely impaired, assets are seized, and family relationships are often destroyed. It is the moral, legal, and ethical obligation of all enforcement agencies to take prompt action to recognize those cases where a person is mistakenly identified as a support obligor in order to minimize the harm and correct any injustice to that person.? (Stats. 1999, ch. 653 (A.B. 380), italics added.)

The County, a political embodiment of its citizens and inhabitants, must always act in the public interest and for the general good. It should not enforce child support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature?s clear directive that child support agencies not pursue mistaken child support actions, the County persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse.

The court stated that a strict adherence to child support and paternity law required them to enforce the unfounded order, but found a more important authority in AB 380.

I can’t tell you how happy this makes me, that a law that I helped to pass has actually helped someone, and stands to help many more – a lot.

But as nice as this is, we can be sure that the radical feminists who wrote the child support laws will shortly be trying to reverse this decision – probably before the legislative year is out in early September.