James E. Briggsdaniels - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          from August 29 to September 1, 1996, and from October 19, 1996,             
          to March 18, 1997.                                                          
               On July 16, 1996, a complaint was filed in the Superior                
          Court of California in the case of County of Santa Clara v.                 
          Daniels, No. DA051877, to establish petitioner’s parental                   
          relationship to James, Jamar, and Jeremy Daniels and to collect             
          reimbursement of child support payments made by the County.  As             
          part of the litigation, Mary Schriver, eligibility examiner for             
          the Social Services Agency (SSA) of the County, filed an                    
          affidavit stating that SSA had paid various sums of money in                
          support of petitioner’s children.  The affidavit filed by the               
          examiner states that SSA has paid, in the form of AFDC “Family              
          Grant” payments for one child, $3,588 in 1995, and for one child            
          for 10 months and two children for 2 months, $4,140 in 1996.  In            
          addition, SSA was stated to have made foster care payments for              
          James Daniels, Jr. of $20,625.86 from July through December of              
          1996, and for Jamar Daniels $5,445 in 1995 and $700.98 in 1996.             
          In an attachment to the affidavit, Katherine Swayzer, maternal              
          aunt, is listed as the “payee/caretaker”.                                   
              Judgment was entered in favor of the County on May 18, 1999,           
          finding that petitioner’s paternity was established and that he             
          was liable for child support payments for the period July 1993              
          through March 1999.2                                                        

               2Respondent objects to the judgment as irrelevant.  We find            
          the judgment to be evidence relevant to the amount of support               
          provided to the children in 1995 and 1996.  We overrule the                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011