share.triangle.com - Should Dail have to pay? - Comments

Correct me if I'm wrong but

Visitor — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:13:48 -0500

Correct me if I'm wrong but the "child" is 18 years old and is therefore not a minor at this point. Child support is paid to support minor children. Dail's income over those 18 years of childhood was more than likely $0.00. He owes no child support.

More than likely, we the taxpayers already helped pay for the child with WIC, food stamps, etc so PLEASE stop saying the state should pay her back child support. The child in question is no longer a child.

There are alot of us single parents that raised our children without looking for someone to pay us to do so. She should not be allowed to even file suit against the state or government to be paid to raise her child.

Thank you for your comments,

Dwayne A. Dail — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:46:15 -0500

Thank you for your comments, and I agree that I am by far not the only one who suffered from injustice. Many others did as well.

Lori and I were never married, so she did not re-marry, and no one adopted my son. Lori chose to not give my son my last name.

And, honestly, this has nothing to do with money. This is all about a woman who feels scorned. I have my son with me now, and he is well provided for and will always be well provided for. He is an extremely impressive young man, and I have full faith that he will be a great man. His education comes first and foremost, and he is looking as forward to that as I am.

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

Dwayne A. Dail

You are probably correct

RickW — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:42:55 -0500

But unless the state pays for the legal battles, Dwayne will still have to go to court and prove all of this. His time, his new clothes, his transportation, and his legal fees will make a dent in his "windfall". I just hope it's a small dent.

No support is (legally) due

rtowson — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:19:39 -0500

In our state, there are two methods (that I am aware of from my experience with the system) for calculating child support payments. At the bottom of both of these methods is a calculation of a ratio of incomes. So for two people, whose incomes are A and B, the first is responsible for A/(A+B) and the second is responsible for B/(A+B).

So if the first person’s income is effectively zero, that person’s responsibility is 0/(0+B) or…zero. This, by the way, is one of the flaws in our current child support system – means-based division disregards the fact that it actually costs real money to raise a child. That one or the other party doesn’t have the money doesn’t change that fact.

In any case, back child support can be obtained in the event that an existing judgment for child support is in place, based on the parties’ incomes, and one party fails to make those payments. In Mr. Dail’s case, this is hardly the situation. The relatively miniscule amount he is being compensated for being imprisoned in error is not in the form of back wages. It clearly could not have been part of any child-support agreement. Therefore, I can’t see any reason why a suit for “back child support” should succeed.

It is, however, all the way around a pretty awful situation for everyone. I wonder what would have happened if Ms. Michaels had called up Mr. Dail and said “Hey, I hear you got a bag of money. How about tossing some my way for, you know, taking care of the kid all these years?” (Mr. Dail was quoted this morning as saying he wished she had just asked).

Or alternately, I wonder what would have happened if Mr. Dail had called Ms. Michaels and said “Hey, I got a bag of money. Thanks for taking care of the kid all these years – how about I toss some your way?” (Although I’m not sure of the timing of things – based on the reporting it seemed as though he might not have had time to get to a phone before the suit was filed).

But as far as the law is concerned, it appears to me that he owes nothing.

Dwayne Dail

Visitor — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:07:27 -0500

Three people suffered in this mistrial of justice at no fault of their own. Dwayne lost 18 years of a life of freedom; his son lost 18 years of a normal father/son relationship; Lori was left to raise a child for 18 years without Chris's father to share all the day-to-day parenting responsibilities.
Dwayne was reimbursed $20,000 (ha!)for each year the state took from him. If Lori had to resort to welfare, this had to be humilating for her and for Chris. I don't know how she spent those 18 years - did she work, have family support, actually go on welfare? Evidently she remarried to a Michaels who adopted Chris??
Final Opinion: Dwayne should use the $360,000 as he pleases. But Lori deserves some compensation from the state - a fair amount toward the child support that Chris was unable to provide. And finally, Chris should receive a tuition-paid college education!

Dwayne Dail

Visitor — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:41:42 -0500

Three people suffered in this mistrial of justice at no fault of their own.
Dwayne lost 18 years of a free life.
His son lost 18 years of a normal father/son relationship.
Lori was left to raise a child for 18 years with no helpmate to share all the day-to-day parenting responsibilities.

Dwayne has been reimbursed $20,000 (ha!) for each year the state took from him.

If Lori was forced to resort to welfare, this had to be humiliating for her and for their son.

I don't know how Lori spent those 18 years - did she work, have family support, go on welfare? Evidently remarried (to a Michaels who adopted Chris??)

Final opinion: Dwayne's money is his to do with whatever he wishes.

But Lori should receive some fair amount toward the child support that Chris was unable to provide, and since none of this was his fault and he stood to lose the most, the state should compensate Lori as well.

he's been nailed enough

thumtax — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:16:05 -0500

Please, don't victimize this guy any further. His child's mother obviously survived Junior's childhood and raised him without Daddy's absent resources. Kudos to her.

Until now. Stop your gold-digging.

The guy didn't spend 18 years in prison as an innocent man so you could win the lottery. Honestly, how much of the money do you plan to spend on Junior? I thought so.

As you drift off to dream at night, what's your last thought? "Golly, I sure got banged by the right guy!!" ?

back child support

Visitor — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:38:52 -0500

had dwayne not been imprisoned, he would have been ordered to pay support. since this is money that he "earned" during those years, he owes her just as much as he would have been paying her had he been working for the money. Even though she had to raise the child by herself, she did not get pregnant by herself. He knocked her up, and he should have to pay.

Is Lorraine aiming for another handout?????

Visitor — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:54:19 -0500

Dail should ABSOLUTELY NOT be tapped for back child support. In fact, what he received from the state is insufficient recompense.

I would be curious if Lorraine Michaels has been "tapping" the welfare system during the son's 18-year childhood?

If she has -- then she already received child support.

If she hasn't -- then any cause of action she may contend is against the state that WRONGLY INCARCERATED -- NAY KIDNAPPED -- Dail.

I am sure is was infinitely easier for her the last 18 years than it was for Dail.

Dail

Tom Riggleman — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:25:26 -0500

Sure Dail should have to pay child support. The child is still a child and has likely suffered financially for 18 years with a father in prison. I don't think you can ignore the child or the mother's needs in raising the child just because the State made a horrific mistake. So...Dail was compensated $20,000 per year. What would a judge award a single mother for a child who's Father makes $20,000 per year? $200.00 per month perhaps? That's $2400.00 year for 18 years. Pay the woman $43,200 out of his $360,000 and after she pays taxes on that she may be able to buy her child a nice used car or the first year's tuition at a university. We should assume she is going to use the money for her child, right?

Dail

Ignorant Bastard — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:13:15 -0500

I cannot believe that this woman would want to sue Mr. Dail for back child support. The man has already suffered enough at the hands of the state and to make him pay child support would probably send him off the deep end. I saw the television news piece on last night and he was not a happy camper. He said that his son was abused and wasn't taken care of as he should've been. Obviously something was wrong w/the mother/son relationship because as soon as Mr. Dail was released the son moved to Florida w/him. She's a gold digger plain and simple and I hope she gets nothing.

Dail

Visitor — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:27:32 -0500

The poor man has been through more than enough in one lifetime. He owes nothing for child support during that time, especially considering the circumstances. If anything the State of North Carolina and the county government that allow this travesty to occur are responsible for payments. I think a few hundred thousand dollars for 20 years of illegal imprisonment is a joke. He should get millions for this injustice. That is not even close to what he deserves. I look at him and see a very well adjusted man--extremely balanced considering what he has been through. I do not think I would have any where near the composure or restraint that he has under the circumstances. I hope that some fair and reasonable businessman sees the importance of helping someone like Dwayne. I wish him the Best of Luck. Do not commit another crime by taking away his chance to start a new life.

Dail

Marcia Hume — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:10:36 -0500

The money that Dail got from the State is HIS money for wrongfully spending that time in prison. Would Lorraine Michaels have asked him for money, for back child support if he hadn't gotten the money from the State. NO ! ! she shouldn't get any money.

Do the right thing

Visitor — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:16:45 -0500

The State should pony up the money for child support. It is OUR responsibility to attempt to right a very, very serious wrong.

No, the state should pay the back child support

Visitor — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:58:09 -0500

This is ridiculous. The state or the prosecutor or the person who accused him should have to pay the back child support, or Mr. Dail should be a able to sue the state for whatever he has to pay or the money be taken from the victims fund and given to the gold digging individual (I would use another word to explain how I feel but this is a public forum). This man has suffered enough and shouldn't be subjected to further humiliation, and legal raping. That's right the victim here is Mr. Dail and he has been RAPED by the legal system and it is getting ready to happen again. Justice is definately not blind and this sounds like double jepordy. Why don't the state TAX one dollar from all the child support payers made on one day and give it to the woman, that way no one feels it. If raising Mr. Dails son was so bad why didn't she give him up for adoption. She should sue the state not Mr. Dail. I hope Mr. Dail gets justice, but I'm not counting on it.

Should Dail have to pay?

mwilliam — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:31:47 -0500

Dwayne Dail went to prison for a crime he didn't commit. Dail's been pardoned by the governor and is due $360,000 — $20,000 for each year he spent in prison. Now, the mother of his 18-year-old son wants some of that money as back pay for raising the boy alone. Should he have to pay the child's mother for raising their son while he was in prison?

Dwayne Dail went to prison for a crime he didn't commit. Dail's been pardoned by the governor and is due $360,000 — $20,000 for each…