See what pops-up on YouTube or Google when you search: Thomas Paternity Goof.

Micheal Thomas of Tulsa Sues DHS for Paternity Goof (2008)

Micheal Thomas of Tulsa Sues DHS for Paternity Goof (2008)

More often than not, when the “fog of war” has finally settled, when the nuclear (family) fall-out has finally cleared the air and the alleged-father has finally gathered his bearing enough to obtain a paternity test, more than 2 years have passed when the alleged-father realizes (finally figures out) that the child for whom the court ordered him to be paying child support is not actually his biological child.

The reason I don’t typically promote my “paternity goof skills” is because far too often the window of time has closed, and although you think you might be dealing with a “paternity goof” issue, what you’re actually facing is a Constitutional Law issue.

The reason that these types of paternity goofs are “Constitutional Law” issues and not “Family Law” issues is because there is a statute of limitations of 2-years. This means if you’ve been paying child support under the assumption of being the father and this has been uncontested for a period of 2-yrs (meaning: a lawsuit was not filed prior to the passing of the 2nd year), then you are blocked by statute from trying to claw-back with a defense of not-my-baby ~ this is under that “ancient” jurisprudence notion that it is good for children to have fathers (sarcasm intended re: “ancient”).

We should not be surprised if this type of “for the good of the children” 2-year statute-of-limitations eventually gets thrown-out for being too restrictive and unconstitutional and archaic and puritanical (and… and… and…), but fathers-beware ~ to sponsor (pay for) case litigation to change the law (“appeals trial work”) is much more costly than sponsoring a child that might not be your biological child.

However, if anyone reading this decides that they want to be THAT case and challenge the statute of limitations as too restrictive and unconstitutional (and whatever other legal theory we can throw in), then please know that I will be delighted to recommend me to be your attorney to take this all the way.

We would need to discuss the parties and specifics to figure out the venue and jurisdiction (and potential forum shopping, if possible).  Whether State or Federal I’ll charge a discount of $500/hour (normally appeals are charged at $750/hour) and we will require a $20,000 retainer to be held in trust and billed against.

If the case stays “State” (does not go Fed) then we’re likely looking at $250K on a “cheap” case but $500K in fees would be normal.  However, if there are some interstate commerce issues (and likely there are: like out-of-state father vs. in-state alleged-father vs. different-state baby vs. etc.) plus any conflicting laws between differing parties’ states and/or circuits on this issue, then we’ll likely be better-off and more successful (and in the end, you’ll be more famous) by filing it federally (otherwise it will eventually be moved federal, and it would almost be like starting over).  If or when the case is filed Federally we’re likely looking at $500K on a “cheap” case but $1M-$2M in fees would also not be out of the ordinary.

If you are facing a paternity goof and if you’ve already passed your 2-year statute of limitations, please know that any attorney who takes your money to help you fight your case should clarify to you that this will be an appeal (uphill) the entire way due to the SOL problem (that’s a “statute of limitations” problem ~ but not to be confused with a “sh!t outa luck” problem).

Nevertheless, there is Hope ~ and I’m willing to litigate in these veritably lawless waters as much as my forefathers were willing to swim across the English Channel to get away from the bloody Brits (no offense intended if you’re a Brit: I enjoyed studying abroad at your Uni Oxford and UCL during my time in law school).

If private emails can disappear from a Civil Servant, yet a federal indictment is NOT recommended, then the tide has turned for more “rule of law” issues to be disregarded.  Kicking the “Rule of Law” to the curb is not exactly my preference in the philosophy of law (jurisprudence), but it is the state of our union: if powerful elected citizens go scott-free because indictment is “not recommended” by the FBI then maybe alleged baby-daddies who really aren’t the baby-daddies shouldn’t be made to continue to pay child support to the moms who hoodwinked them, even though it took the alleged baby-daddy “too long” (statutorily) to put 2-and-2 together.

Nevertheless, if you’re the guy who can afford it, and if you want to appeal this case all the way, you will become an icon to tens-of-thousands of other guys who’ve been hoodwinked and waited too long.  If this is you, and you don’t mind becoming sort of famous for fighting for justice, then I will help you seek your constitutional justice, as there are, no doubt, less restrictive ways the state could and should act.

Semper Respectfully ~ Of The People, By The People, For the People ~

The Bulldog Fighting for the Underdog,

/s/ George William Wiland III