ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, July 20, 1996 TAG: 9607220066
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LESLIE TAYLOR STAFF WRITER
NOTE: Above
A WOMAN'S VAGUE DESCRIPTION of a guy she knew only as "Mark" led to welfare officials' demand that a Radford man prove he wasn't the father of her child.
A lawyer with the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement called Mark Callahan at his Radford automobile dealership July12.
The lawyer was looking for the father of a boy born in September 1989 - the son of a woman whose welfare benefits had been cut because she couldn't fully identify the boy's father.
The woman, a Christiansburg resident, had said the father could be a man she'd had a one-night stand with in 1988. She remembered him only as "Mark." The enforcement division's pursuit of "Mark" led to Callahan,42.
"They told me I had three choices: admit the child was mine; voluntarily agree to submit to a blood test; or, if I didn't voluntarily agree, they would take me to juvenile court and get a judge to sign a written order for involuntary cooperation," Callahan said.
"It just stunned me. I thought it was a practical joke. I am not this boy's father. I have no reservations about that at all."
The woman is one of two anonymous welfare recipients who have sued the Virginia Department of Social Services and its commissioner, Clarence Carter. The women's welfare benefits were cut off or denied for their failure to comply with the state's year-old welfare policy requiring women to identify the fathers of their children. They contend the policy is unconstitutional.
A federal judge last month issued an injunction barring the state from denying benefits to the two women, but refused to grant a request that the suit be certified as a class action.
Because the lawsuit is not a class action and pertains only to the two women, identifying the fathers would make their claims moot, said one source, who declined to be identified.
"It doesn't surprise me that [the state] would be bringing great resources to bear to try to find out who the fathers are in these two cases," the source said.
But a social services spokesman said the department's Division of Child Support Enforcement is trying to locate the father of the woman's son just as it would the fathers of any children living on welfare in homes headed by single mothers.
"The bottom line is we're going to pursue any good lead that a person would give us that would help us identify the fathers of children," Martin Brown said. "We're treating it like any other case."
But Callahan said he found the brief intrusion bordering on invasion of privacy. His initial shock turned to anger over the weekend.
Though Callahan was informed Wednesday that he was no longer being pursued as the father, he wondered just how far the state will go to track down people.
Apparently, as far as it needs to. In its quest to overhaul welfare, the state has stepped up efforts to get child support into the hands of single women on welfare whose children have no support from or contact with their fathers.
State welfare policy now requires women who receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children to provide the first and last names of the father or all individuals with whom they have had sexual intercourse who could be the father. If the father cannot be identified, despite the woman's best efforts to comply, she loses her AFDC benefits.
Brown said the number of fathers who have been identified has increased since the policy went into effect, though he could not cite specific statistics.
But it has meant all-out investigative efforts to find those fathers - efforts that might not have been pursued under the old policy. In one Roanoke-area case, a woman identified five men who could have fathered her child. Each man was pursued. None of the leads panned out.
But Brown insists that the effort to locate fathers is no different now than before the policy became law.
"There is no difference in the way we pursue the fathers, no new tactics," he said. "What we're doing now is requiring mothers to be forthright with us and identify the fathers."
Callahan said he understands the policy's intent. But, he asked, should it go to the point of disrupting an innocent man's life?
"If a person gives us a lead, we're going to follow up on that lead," Brown said. "We're not going to apologize for that. That's our responsibility. We're going to be aggressive. In order for a mom to survive and do well, she's got to have support from the father of her children. That's a must."
The woman initially told Social Services workers that her ex-husband was the father of her son. Blood tests showed he was not.
The woman identified another man as the possible father. Blood tests showed he was not. The only other possibility, she told Social Services, was a man she knew only as "Mark." She'd had a one-night encounter with him in December 1988.
The woman provided some clues into "Mark's" identity. She told Social Services that "Mark" lived in an apartment complex in Pulaski County. She said he had blue eyes and dark brown hair. He was 5-foot-8 or 5-foot-9. She said he had a daughter living with him.
What led the Division of Child Support Enforcement to Callahan? Brown said the office received a tip from a friend of the woman who knew of a "Mark" who lived in that particular apartment complex in 1988. He had a daughter who then was 2 or 3 years old.
Somehow, all trails led to Callahan. How, he doesn't understand. He insists he is not the "Mark" the state is looking for.
Callahan said he did live in Pulaski County in 1988. But not in the same apartment complex that the woman mentioned.
Callahan, who is divorced, does have a daughter. But he said she did not live in an apartment with him in 1988. Now 22, she would have been about 15 in 1988.
Callahan said he did not have a one-night encounter with a woman in December 1988, specifically, Dec. 16, 1988. At the time, his father was very sick in Illinois, and Callahan had traveled back and forth several times that October and November to see him.
Callahan, then a business management major at Radford University, had fallen behind in his classes. On Dec. 16, he said he would have been cramming for final exams before the holiday break.
Callahan said he did not frequent bars and was not in the habit of picking up women and having one-night stands.
"I do meet the height requirement; and at the time, my hair was brown - but 50 percent gray," he said. "And my eyes are brown, not blue."
Callahan said he at first was willing to submit to the blood test. But after meeting Monday with the Division of Child Support Enforcement lawyer, he considered fighting their request.
He told the lawyer "I didn't quite agree with the system and I wanted to know how many times this woman could throw out a name to keep benefits going," he said. "How many tax dollars were wasted in this process? How many other people are affected by it?''
LENGTH: Long : 124 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: (headshot) Callahan. color.by CNB