The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Wrongfully Convicted Man Sued for Back Child Support
As one of the commenters on this story suggested, Dwayne Dail ought to be nicknamed "Lucky."
In summary: a man is wrongfully convicted of raping a child. After twenty years in prison, he is finally exonerated and released. For those twenty long years, he's given a paltry $360,000 in compensation. He moves to Florida. His now-adult son moves to live with him.
What happens next? The mother of his now-adult son (who now lives with him, I might add) sues him for back child support for all of the years he was unjustly jailed.
Not only that, but she asks the court to order Mr. Dail to pay for her to sue him.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wrongfully Convicted Man Sued for Back Child Support:
Posted by: John | 2007-10-24 10:52:12 PM
Hmmm, anyone want to bet that this "mother" was on welfare, food stamps and every other kind of public assistance for all these years?
She obviously has little character - and certainly no sense of right & wrong, or compassion either.
What a sicko!
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-25 6:15:17 AM
Suppose instead of child support the issue was a bank loan he had taken out and did not pay back. It's not the bank's fault he was wrongfully convicted and there is no reason to suppose that they should not seek repayment of money that is lawfully owed to them just because of his misfortune. That's just business. Maybe the state should pay him more than $360,000, but that also is not the bank's fault.
If you have obligations, you have obligations. Being a victim of a terrible wrong does not relese you from all of your duties. As a father, one of his duties is to share payment for the needs of his son during childhood. Since he was unable to pay that money while in jail, the burdon fell to someone else. Yes, the mother shares the financial responsibility for the child, but she only SHARES it. The FULL burdon fell on her due to his wrongful conviction. Now that he is in a position to pay his share of the costs already spent on his son, it is reasonable that he do it. It is just the paying back of a loan of sorts.
In this case there are (at least) three victims. The most significant one is obviously Dail himself. There is no doubt that his loss is the greatest of all by far. But his son is a victim, too, deprived of having his father and potentially denied things he needed because money was not there to pay for them. The woman is also a victim, as a financial burdon not fairly hers fell on her shoulders. Financial compensation is supposed to help Dail. Nothing can give the boy back his childhood with a father. And payment now of money that was never the mother's responsibility to pay can help compensate her. There is nothing unjust or heartless about accepting that she paid her share and so, now that he can afford it, he should pay his.
What is so terrible about that?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-25 8:00:41 AM
That would be fine, fc, if the money was earned by him the regular way - and he was avoiding his obligations.
This small sum in no way properly compensates him for his loss. And this witch is demanding part of it? She should sue the state for her share - not her poor husband. It was the state that caused her husband to be unable to work all those years so that he might meet his financial obligations.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-25 8:10:39 AM
This tabloid fodder. Western Standard can do better.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-25 8:52:59 AM
"this witch"? Do you have a pathological hatred of women? Sounds like it.
It also seems that you are confusing the claim that he owes the money with the claim that he should be blamed for not having paid it. No one is saying the latter. He is not a deadbeat dad. When he says, "I was thrown in prison. What could I do?" he shows that he, too, misses this point. He is right. There was nothing he could have done to provide for his son all those years. But this is just the same as saying to a bank "it's not my fault I did not pay back the loan." Yes, it is not your fault, but you still owe the money. It's not the boy's fault Dail was put in jail and not the mother's fault either.
Half the financial responsibility is his, he could not pay it then, but he can pay it now. No one blames him for not being able to pay it then, but that does not eliminate the debt today.
If the money he is paid is insufficient (and I agree that it is), this is also not the mother's fault. If he is owed more by the state, this is between him and the state. HE should sue the state and, if there were justice, he would win. But that is all a red herring when it comes to child support.
Think of it this way: If he had lost all his money because it was stolen and now he was getting it back, it would stand to reason that he should pay all debts - whether to banks or to those who paid for his childcare responsibilities. The state took away his income and now is (barely) giving it back. Thus he should pay his debts.
The guy has been fucked by the system, but to say that "this witch" should pay some of the cost of that is to shift the burden unjustly. He's not a deadbeat dad, but he does owe back child support.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-25 8:54:26 AM
"This tabloid fodder. Western Standard can do better."
No. It can't. It never does
Posted by: Fact Check | 2007-10-25 8:55:18 AM
The witch should sue the state for the losses she incurred. That is who is responsible. She is a witch for not seeing that - and you are a Leftoid metrosexual for siding with her.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-25 9:00:28 AM
These people are obvious trailer trash ... who behaves this way other than big fat idiots who sue McDonalds for making them fat.
This is tabloid and I say again ...
Posted by: John | 2007-10-25 9:34:22 AM
I'll bet that Fact Check is a !@$%*$ lawyer.
Posted by: Zog | 2007-10-25 10:47:12 AM
Sounds like a plan. Since they're all Peeing in the one pot, they all stand to gain.
Low life forms for sure. We all pay for dregs like this.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-25 11:02:03 AM
I agree with you Zog. Either that or a banker.
"This tabloid fodder. Western Standard can do better."
No. It can't. It never does
Posted by: Fact Check | 25-Oct-07 8:55:18 AM
Then wotinell are you doing commenting???
Posted by: Larry | 2007-10-25 11:21:42 AM
FC- I note that you claim victim status for all the parties involved. That in itself speaks volumes to your mindset.The fact is, the incarcerated father was the victim of a miscarriage of justice-that is all.
To revisit this sad situation and assess the father for something that was beyond his control is just adding further insult and injury to an already victimized person. There is absolutely no compassion (or common-sense)to your assessment.
Posted by: atric | 2007-10-25 11:31:22 AM
The motivating factor is greed assisted by a degenerated legal system. I would not be surprised that there is one or more legal leeches behind it all.
FC's logic does not wash. Child support is money for the child not the mother. As this is not a child, it has no meaning now. For the sake of argument let us say it is to pay the mother back for what she spend raising the child, and at that point obc's statement kicks in. Without a doubt she received government money during the time, so she should have to repay every cent along with compounded interest.
Bottom line is that she should sue the government and not him.
The only reason I see this as newsworthy is as a reminded that the American justice system is in great need of an overhaul.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-25 11:39:06 AM
Yes, but trial lawyers - led by the Breck girl, John Edwards - are in the back pockets of the DemoRats, so torte reform has failed over & over again.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-25 11:42:30 AM
obc, yes I know and all the more reason for the need. The system has been highjacked by the legal leeches which equates to perverted justice.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-25 12:15:22 PM
The justice system has been hijacked by the Feminists. This began in the '70's with the Family Law Reform Act followed quickly by inequitable division of property and onerous child-support orders. It then invaded all aspects of Criminal and Common Law.
Posted by: atric | 2007-10-25 12:34:21 PM
I don't understand you GUYs ganging up on FP. Why is FP a "lefto" or "metrosexual" because he/she dares to disagree with you obc?
As for FP being a lawyer - highly unlikely. I AM a lawyer, and I can tell you that FP has it legally wrong. A parent's obligation to pay support is based on his/her ABILITY to pay. The father in this case, had no ability to pay support while wrongfully incarcerated, so he cannot be made to pay support for that time period. His compensation after the fact does not retroactively create an ability to pay. However, he CAN, and legally he must, pay support for his son's ongoing support needs (assuming he is still being supported). I believe that is what this case is about.
As for the wife suing the state - on what basis can she do that? Can she also sue them for wasting her tax dollars in a stupid war in Iraq? No. The state has immunity in these sorts of cases. She can't sue the state. The only person she can sue is the father.
Finally, sorry to vent my spleen here guys, as for the slandering of lawyers by the likes of obc, Alain and zog - go ahead, slander us by name. Just do us the favour of using your real names - We'll nail you're asses to the wall in court!
Posted by: Pat_pending | 2007-10-25 12:49:46 PM
Atic - ahh yes, the big bad feminists again. Those feminists are the bane of every red blooded conservative man (i.e. xBOX playing heterosexual bachelor living in their parents basement).
Atic, perhaps you should trade in your hatred of feminism for some mouth wash, a new suit and a few dance lessons. Women love a well groomed man who can dance.
Posted by: pat_pending | 2007-10-25 12:59:47 PM
Well Patty, you just blew your credibility when you commented "The stupid war in Iraq".
That is an opinion only, it is not a fact. I must disregard the balance of your comments as they too may be tainted by opinion rather than fact.
Posted by: atric | 2007-10-25 1:00:07 PM
"We'll nail you're asses to the wall in court!"
. . . which is why Shakespeare was right about killing all the lawyers.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-25 1:04:04 PM
News flash Pat, lawyers are not a special enlightened class. This just confirms my belief that all lawyers need to be barred from political office.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-25 1:12:37 PM
OBC: When Shakespeare wrote about "killing all the lawyers", he was referring to a conspiracy intended to deprive Englishmen of their god given rights and freedoms. In order to do this, the plotters would first have to kill all the lawyers, since lawyers were charged with the duty of protecting the rights of the citizens. Far from being a condemnation of lawyers, Shakespeare was pointing out how vital lawyers are to the protection of freedom. Your misuse of this quote OBC, it only proves you're an ignoramus. Like I said to Alain, trade in your xbox for some mouth wash and dancing shoes. You need to get out more.
Alain, lawyers do not constitute a "class"; however, you are dead wrong when you say we are not enlightened. Indeed, we are. We are the only profession trained to understand exactly what law is and what it is not. That is why so many SUCCESSFUL politicians are lawyers - because we know how law works (although many of us disagree about how it SHOULD work). And by the way, the only thing the government can do is enact and enforce laws.
Artic: exactly how many innocent Iraqi children have to die before we call the war stupid? Yes, it is an opinion - as is just about everything else that is posted on this blog. Your point is?????? only opinions that you agree with are valid? Like I said to the others, sell your xbox, move out of your parents basement and get a life.
Posted by: Pat_pending | 2007-10-25 1:51:10 PM
"That is why so many SUCCESSFUL politicians are lawyers.."
It has more to do with the ability to lie with a straight face and to dupe people. As for knowing the law again it is more often twisting the law, and then there are those of you with a political agenda.
Actually you poor sod do see yourself as enlighten from your posts. Anyone making such assinine comments on Iraq does not qualify as enlightened.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-25 2:30:04 PM
"Lawyer", Pat_pending seems to think that he/she is an authority on family law in all jurisdictions. If Dail "cannot be made to pay child support for that period" why did legal parasite Sarah Heekin rush to file her case just before the son turned 18? She sure as hell won't be seeking support for just a few weeks!
The problem here is that the "ex" and her lawyer are drooling over Mr. Dail's little windfall. Further proof, if any was needed, that the principal function of lawyers is to protect ordinary citizens from other lawyers.
Suing the "gumint" would be a lot harder than nailing a poor uneducated schmuk just out of prison, but it could be remunerative. For example Mahrar Arar, with some very "good" lawyers, walked away with $10 mil and wasn't even required to prove that he was physically abused - much less tortured.
Posted by: Zog | 2007-10-25 2:45:25 PM
PP-No need for the suit and the dance lessons.
The mouthwash is used twice a day as always.
My wife,daughter,son-in-law, along with two grandchildren ascribe to my assessment of the situation as I presented it. You see, this family is not blinded by simple politically correct nonesense. I am truly proud to say that they have the ability to analyse, digest and critically think before coming to a conclusion.
I'd like to think that it is because of my influence but I rather think their mother was the best enabler of that, by far.
Posted by: atric | 2007-10-25 3:17:32 PM
"Heekin, who said she filed the suit last week, works in the same law office as Don Strickland, the former Wayne County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Dail for rape."
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-26 6:33:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.