If you’re following the Owens v. Echard case, you have probably seen a LOT of folks talking about how they want to see “Justice for Clayton!”. There’s a JFC Twitter account. There’s a JFC GoFundMe page. I’m guessing JFC t-shirts are next (idea: JFC condoms?)
But what exactly does Justice for Clayton look like? At the end of the day, all that happened here (from a legal perspective) is Laura hooked up with a guy (Clayton) who she thought was interested in her. Sadly, it turned out the feelings were NOT mutual. Sucks, but that’s life.
Laura claims she got pregnant, and she did exactly what you would expect — she tried to talk to Clayton about the situation. Yes, I know some people think she didn’t handle this very well. That’s fair and I’m not judging your harsh opinions of Laura…..of course, maybe you’d have a different view if you walked a mile in her shoes, as the saying goes.
But here’s the thing — this is a very strange twist of fate, but I HAVE walked a mile in Clayton’s shoes. Literally.
When I was in my mid-20s, I hooked up with a girl on spring break. Days later, she called and said those two words you just don’t want to hear in that situation: “I’m pregnant.”
Just like Clayton, my initial response was: “Wait a second, we only hooked up once, and that was like 6 days ago. How can you possibly know you’re pregnant that soon?”
It sounded impossible, but she promised me — it’s possible.
Unlike Clayton, my response was very different. I told this young lady first and foremost, the decision about what to do was entirely up to her. I barely knew her, but I explained IF I was the father, I would absolutely do the right thing and support her in any way necessary. As a man (even a young one), I just couldn’t imagine turning my back on my own child, no matter what the circumstances were. Who would do that? It’s not the child’s fault that he/she came into this world unexpectedly.
So the girl decided to keep the baby. Nine months later, she called again and asked me to send a picture of my ear lobe. To my shock and surprise, apparently there are two types of ear lobes — attached and non-attached, and this is apparently a reliable way of determining paternity. If the child has an attached lobe and the mom does not, that means the father MUST have the same type as the kid…because, genetics. No idea if that’s true, but Google seems to think it’s 100% accurate.
This was 1996. Phones didn’t have cameras. I probably mailed her a photo taken on film and dropped off at Walgreens.
Some time later, I got the call — you don’t have the right kind of earlobes. You can’t be the dad.
In the year 2024, maybe I would have responded differently, but in 1996, I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. I went off to law school in 1997 thinking I’d dodged a bullet.
Little did I know, 10 years later in 2006 that bullet would come back. I was sitting in my office on the 20th floor of an office building in Phoenix when the receptionist buzzed me: “Um yeah, David? There’s someone here with some papers for you.”
Papers? By this time I was a lawyer, and getting served with papers was hardly unusual. But not with my name listed as the Respondent in a paternity establishment case.
I later learned my spring break fling had some personal problems. I think she ended up applying for public health benefits for her child. When that happens, the State of Arizona asks: “Hey, why should AZ taxpayers have to pay for this kid? Where’s the father? Let’s find him and make him pay.”
So they asked the mom who the dad was, and my name was given. This resulted in the Arizona Attorney General filing a paternity action against me on behalf of the Department of Economic Security.
The allegations in the petition shocked me: “David Gingras is the father of this poor, desperate child. David Gingras has abandoned his child. David Gingras has refused to pay any support for his child.” It was harsh to see those words in a legal filing, especially since: A.) the mom told me I was not the father, and B.) no one from the AG’s office contacted me about this before the case was filed in court. Isn’t there ANY due diligence requirement?
The papers included a summons with a court date, so I showed up in court (without a lawyer). The judge (who I knew from other cases) asked me: “So, what do you want to do about this?”
That seemed like a strange question, but little did I know — Arizona law actually allows people to “voluntarily admit” paternity even if they are NOT the biological parent of the child. It’s kind of like adoption — some people just WANT to be a parent to a child, even if it’s not YOUR child. That’s what the judge meant when he asked what I wanted to do. He was giving me the option of just saying: “Yeah, I’ll be the parent of this kid, even if I’m not actually her father.”
I’m a generous person, but I couldn’t see taking responsibility for a child that wasn’t mine, so I told the judge we should just take a test and see what happens. The AG had no objection, so we did a test, and guess what? The earlobe thing WAS 100% right. I was not the dad. At least for me, that was the end of that.
So yes, exactly like Clayton (maybe), I was wrongfully sued for paternity. The Attorney General’s allegations against me were 100% false. I did NOT abandon my child. I’m NOT a heartless deadbeat dad.
But unlike Clayton, I didn’t turn around and accuse the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of “fraud!” I didn’t seek revenge. I didn’t demand JUSTICE.
The AG’s office made a good faith mistake. They relied on the best information available, and that information turned out to be wrong. Under the law, that does NOT mean I was automatically entitled to sanctions (which seems to be Clayton’s attitude). The law NEVER, EVER requires people to be 100% perfect when they file a case in court. All that is required is a good faith basis to think your claims are probably true. If you can clear that SUPER-LOW hurdle, no judge will ever sanction you just because your claims later turn out to be wrong.
That’s not a bad thing. In the old days, when people had disputes, they’d challenge you to a duel with pistols on main street at high noon. 50 paces, turn and fire. That’s how disputes were resolved. It was messy, loud, and probably not fair. But it was fast, and cheap.
Today, we have a more civilized legal system to help people solve their disputes. We want to ENCOURAGE people to come to court rather than using violence or other means to solve a dispute. And as part of that, we know that sometimes people will bring claims that turn out to be wrong.
That’s why I am SO confused at the angry “Justice for Clayton” fans who explain: “Most of us are primarily interested in how to make sure this does not happen to any more men. False accusations help none of us.”
Yeah, OK, that’s true. But in the world of false allegations, a mistaken (even groundless) allegation of paternity is one of the easiest, quickest, and cheapest to disprove. It’s like shooting someone with a Nerf dart. Any collateral damage is virtually zero. Seriously. I know, because it happened to me.
Let’s assume for a second that Laura was NEVER pregnant….or maybe she WAS pregnant, and Clayton wasn’t the father…..or maybe Clayton WAS the father, but Laura unknowingly had a very early miscarriage (which would explain a lot of the later events we’ve seen). In any of those situations, is it REALLY that big a deal? I just don’t see it that way. The only person making it a big deal is you-know-who (and his legal team, *cough cough*).
If Clayton wanted “justice”, all he had to do was exactly what I did — just take a very simple test, and let the results speak for themselves. If Laura was lying, there was never any chance that Clayton could ever fail that test. This should have taken about 5 minutes of his time, and the total legal fees would have been $0. And Laura would have lost, and Clayton would have his justice….whatever that means.
That’s why I just don’t understand this anti-Laura mob mentality. Personally, I think when this all comes out in court, people are going to realize they were COMPLETELY wrong about Laura. Like COMPLETELY.
But even if I’m wrong and Laura has lied about everything….SO FREAKIN’ WHAT? I personally have a judgment that proves beyond any doubt the AZ Attorney General brought a FALSE paternity claim against me….which took literally 5 minutes of my time and exactly $0 to disprove. It was over so fast, all I lost was maybe one hour of my time.
I got my justice in the end, and I’m fine with how it turned out.
So when I look at what Clayton is doing in this case…..all I can do is shake my head and wonder what on Earth this kid is thinking.
