Reversal of a Paternity Judgment is Rare because most average or poor people do not have the finanacial or emotional resources to fight the corrupt system of the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS).  Kevin Gesson's Court History by Date for Reversal of the Paternity Judgment is as follows:

Kevin's actual Paternity Fraud and court history started in 1997, when a woman secretly filed paternity papers for child support and withheld that information from Kevin.  Kevin did not know he was a "default" father until his paycheck was garnished.  The first attorney was hired in 1998. Kevin's paternity fraud battle for justice lasted 9 horrible years.

      December, 2004, we hired attorney Linda Ferrer, who represented Manual Navarro in the landmark paternity fraud case that went to the appellate court level.  This landmark case was the Los Angeles County vs Manual Navarro and is exactly like Kevin Gesson's case and was won at the appellate level.  Once the case was won, the L. A. County tried to get the case depublicilzed.  That means they (the county) does not want anyone else to take advantage of this new law.  The depublicization of case means other men who have DNA proof that they are not the father, cannot be financially responsible for other "deadbeat dad's".  

      February, 2005, we had our first court hearing to turn around the fraudulent judgment.  The judge continued the case because the child support services attorney did not have time to get prepared for the case.  The child support attorney requested that they will have to contact the mother and serve notice to the mother of the request to vacate the judgment.  (The child support attorney is well-aware that the mother has admitted with a written document that she knows Kevin is not the father and that he should be removed from the child support system.  But they are stalling to make it more difficult for other men to get their judgment overturned, just for the money and to make it is diffucult as possible financially for anyone else to get their judgments overturned.  If you are poor, you will know you cannot afford an attorney for a long trial).

      May 3rd, 2005, the next court date, the child support services attorney said they could not find their client, the mother.  This turned out to be a lie.  Attorney Langevin, DCSS attorney, was withholding the information, which she admitted in court a year later.  The child support attorney requested that our attorney file a motion with the judge to publish a judicial summons for her.  Child support attorney said the mother has not been in contact with their office since 2001.  They admitted that clearly the mother doesnít live in this county anymore, so the burden should be on the father (Kevin) to serve her with a copy of his notice of motion.  Attorney Linda Ferrer states that her client (who is not the father) does not know where the mother lives and apparently the child services department knew where she was located in 2002.  The judge granted a request for Kevinís attorney, Linda Ferrer to request a written motion to serve her, the mother, Lisa Burns, Gretzner, Pierce, by publication.  The case was then continued to August 2nd.

     August 2nd, 2005, there had been so many responses to the publication of service for Lisa Burns, that it would have been impossible to find and serve over 50 responses to women who had answered the publication as Lisa Burns.  Attorney Linda Ferrer asked the judge if the service could be done by publication, and for his suggestions.  He agreed to service by publication and the next court date is November 8th.

     October 25, 2005, the County of San Bernardinoís district attorney filed a responsive declaration to attempt to further delay the motion to vacate the judgment.  The Countyís declaration is that our service by publication is invalid.  The service by publication was done exactly as agreed to by the court.  Countyís declaration is that the DNA genetic testing is unreliable.  Kevinís DNA testing was done by a legitimate and recognized laboratory.  Kevin in entitled to a court ordered testing by the lab the County recognizes, but they cannot find their client, Lisa Burns, so how can they do further testing in a lab of their choice?  The county has requested for a written statement of decision.  Maybe they ran out of district attorneys to show up at court and embarrass themselves?

      November 8th, 2005, Kevin finally got his life back, when the judge vacated his child support judgment based on the Navarro case.  However, our attorney would have to jump through many more hoops before the case would be finalized and Kevin's driver's license be reinstated and the arrearages for child support payments be erased.   The child support services attorney said our DNA test is not valid and wants a court ordered DNA test done again.  The reasoning on this issue is simply mind boggling because the child support services cannot find the mother, Lisa Burns-Gretzner-Pierce, anywhere.  They insisted she is part of this case, which she is not, because we already have one valid DNA test done.  At the time we took the DNA test, the child support services department was recommending the DNA facility that we used.  Lisa is not a part of the case because Lisa told Kevin that the father must be the guy she went to Las Vegas with who must have gotten her drunk and raped her.  Then she told Kevin to never contact her again.  We have a signed note by Lisa Burns (that I was witness to) to the child support services to take Kevin's name out of the child support system; and that he is not responsible for child support for Austin Burns.  We have no objection to another court ordered DNA test, except the county has used all their tools and resources and cannot find the mother anywhere.  Now they want us to find her.  We've already published for her to appear in court and we cannot find her either.  Since this is new law, the judge doesn't know what to do either.  

The main issue is that we originally asked the child support services for one DNA test and they wouldn't give us one. The child support judgment against Kevin was made with absolutely no proof and no DNA test taken.   It was just the child support services decision and their view that Kevin had already taken responsibility for the child.  How can you take responsibility as a father for child that you have never met or seen?  Now that's real common sense!  To finalize the judgment being vacated, the county attorneys are asking for 2 DNA tests to be done.  Yes, you get the picture, Kevin got a child support judgment against him and they would not allow us one DNA test.  But now they want 2 DNA tests to vacate the judgment.  Wow, that really makes common sense!

With the judgment finally vacated, our attorney asked for Kevin's drivers' license to be reinstated.  The child support services refused that request pending the case being finalized.  Our attorney pointed out that the case would not be affected in any way by Kevin having his license reinstated.  Reinstating the driver' license would have no prejudice against anyone in the courtroom, not to the County (child support services), not to the child, not to the custodial parent.  So it makes absolutely no sense that his license not be released. The county attorneys still refused the request.  That is plain malevolence on the part of the child support services to hold a person's drivers' license when it has no benefit to them.  The judge, would not be jeopardinzing his position with the county over a drivers' license, but did not reinstate Kevin's drivers' license as part of the vacated judgment.  The judge said he would consider a written motion on the driver's license.  Where is his reasoning?  It did not take a special motion or judgment to have the driver's license taken away.  It was just done arbitrarily by the child support services.  Why should it take motion to get it back?

      November 16, 2006 (a government holiday, Martin Luther King Day)  Dirty Tactics, What Do You Think?

Kevin's brother-in-law received a phone call by a man identifying himself as an employee of the County of San Bernardino.  This employee informed Kevin's brother-in-law that there is a warrant for Kevins Gesson's arrest for not paying child support.  He said they had been watching Kevin and knew where Kevin was working and he would be arrested. We don't know why this employee would be working on a government holiday, but we immediately called our attorney to report the harrassment.  She informed us that it was illegal to not inform her, as Kevin's attorney, of an arrest warrant since the case is presently being litigated.  It was also reported by Kevin that he thought it looked like he was being watched that week by two separate individuals, and it was Kevin's guess that they looked like they were private detectives.  Our attorney requested that we put everything in writing, exactly like it happened.

After Kevin's judgment was reversed on November 8, 2005, Kevin got a bill in the mail for child support payments.  The amount was for over $23,000.  Before Kevin got the results of his DNA test, he had already paid $14,000 for child support.  This recent bill included New Current Support for the months of November and December, which is after the judgment was reversed.  The New Current Support is the amount going to the mother that they admitted in court testimony, that they cannot locate her.  The child support attorney told the judge that all the money is for arrearages and she gave the judge the impression that Kevin had never made any child support payments at all.  Our question is, why are they billing for a person they cannot find?

      March 1, 2006, it actually feels like we finally won the case.  Our attorney had to put in a separate motion of reinstate Kevin's drivers license which the judge granted.  The child support judgment is vacated so he doesn't owe the county any more money.  He can actually get a paycheck that won't be garnished for something that he doesn't owe.  Now it feels like Kevin can actually, really get his life back.  Amazingly enough, the DCSS attorney, Langevin, blurted out in court the address of the mother.  She had been withholding this information all this time.  If attorney Langevin had given the address a year ago, the case would have been over.  The judge warned her about confidentiality, but she blurted it out in a pubic forum.  Attorney Langevin said that the mother had changed her address and social security number many times recently.  The mother was contacted by attorney Linda Ferrer the next day.  The mother said that was not true, she had been at this address for three years, and she had tried to get the DCSS to drop their case against Kevin, and they would not respond to her requests.  So that's when the mother signed a notarized document saying that Kevin was not the father of her child and the DCSS was ignoring her requests for years.  She would be willing to testify in court to this truth.

We celebrated for two days only, because two days later, our attorney informed us that the DCSS was going to appeal the case.  This is pretty outrageous, since the appellate court has already ruled on a test case just like Kevin's, in favor of the plaintiff.  The appellate court of California ruled in favor of Navarro vs. Los Angeles County in 2004, that the truth does matter, and if DNA prooves that a man is not the father, he should not have to pay child support, especially if he has not taken any responsibility for the child.  We think everything about our case has been outrageous.  The financial and emotional hardships for Kevin and his family has been overwhelming.  

       March, 2006, Kevin recevied a delinquency notice from Connie Brunn, Director of Child Support Services, County of San Bernardino, stating that Kevin was delinquent on his child support payments.  Kevin responded with a letter informing the director that his paternity judgment had been vacated almost 5 months ago.  He continues to get child support bills and he considers this deliquency notice and the child support bills as harrassment for himself and his family.

      April 18, 2006, our attorney, Linda Ferrer, submitted an Ex Parte emergency hearing for Kevin's case to be heard the next day.  It contained the requested temporary orders-relief:

           1.  The court finds that it is undisputed that respondent Kevin Gesson was exluded as the father of (name of child).

           2. Respondent's Motion to Vacate Default is granted and judgment of non-parantage is granted effective February 22, 2005.

           3.  The County of San Bernardino is directed to prepare the judgment of non-parentage;

           4.  DCSS shall forthwith refund the money collected and held in trust to Kevin;

           5.  Attorney's fees shall be ordered for Kevin, and sanctions shall be ordered against Attorney Langvin.

The Ex Parte document describes how attorney Langevin withheld the address of her client.  The case would have been closed three months into the case if she wanted to close the case  There are clear violations of an attorney's duty to be honest pursuent to B&P Code 6106.  And this conduct meets the "bad faith" threshold for sanctions against the attorney Langevin.  The judge reminded Langevin to be confidential with the client's address and Langevin blurted it out in open public court, and it is now on public record.  

The Ex Parte document contains a notarized document from the Mother in this case which is a declaration, saying that Kevin is not the father of her eight year old son and never has been.  The mother has made repeated requests to the DCSS to close its file on this matter and dismiss the action.  DCSS has been non-responsive to her requests.  She does not want her 8 year old child to do another DNA test that the DCSS is demanding her to do.  The certified DNA testing lab has submitted all the legal documents of the DNA test that was taken.  

       May 1, 2006, the judge, David Proulx, closed the case for his court room with the reversal of the child support judgment and all monies are null and void against Kevin.  Attorney Mary Langevin for the DCSS said that this present court has no jurisdiction in this case anymore, since it is filed at the appellate level.  Attorney Langevin was telling the judge that his court now has nothing to say about this case because they have already filed an appeal in the case.  That was a slap in the judge's face, since he was the reversed the judgment in November of 2005, according to the new laws of Navarro and AB 252.  The DCSS attorney is ignoring the law.  Kevin has complained to the State California Bar Association for all of her unlawful and egregious behavior.

       The most amazing thing happened on May 2, 2006.  Judge, David Proulx, scheduled and held a telephonic hearing with both attorneys to resolve the case issue of DNA for once and for all.  With both attorney's present, the judge proposed a solution for the case and a solution to avoid the appellate court. This would be a common sense solution for the DNA testing that the DCSS was holding out for.  He suggested that now that the mother is located, the DNA testing go forward and it would be resolved.  That's what the DCSS was holding out for.  Kevin's attorney, Linda Ferrer, thought it was a great idea for a solution.  Mary Langevin, attorney for DCSS refused to agree.  The judge said that this would only work if both parties agreed and had to conclude his hearing with no results.  This decision by the DCSS attorney was especially irresponsible because the Navarro and AB 252 laws are in effect.  In January of 2006, the window of opportunity for AB 252 for relief of paternity fraud closes.  So this case could have been challenged if it was introduced in January of 2006.  But our case was introduced while AB 252 was still in effect.  This rogue agency and rogue attorney do not want to obey the laws that they don't agree with.  They want men to pay for children that they did not father.  When did our democracy become this socialistic that we can pick just anyone off the computer that has a similar name and he becomes the "default" father?  Now that we are done with our case, I feel sorry for the poor men who have to face this in the future.  If they have no financial resources, they have only the opportunity to buy a new identification and start a new life.  It's a much better choice than fighting the system.  It's too costly, financially and emotionally.   Eventually the brutal tactics of the DCSS will backfire on them, and even women will know better than to file with the county to collect child support.  It doesn't take a real bright mother to figure out that if the father doesn't have his driver's license or his business license that he cannot earn a living to give her any money at all.

 BACK TO HOME PAGE