Fact Checking Ben Carson

Earlier this week, I posted an essay on the implications of Ben Carson’s story about a bogus paternity action that he faced a few years ago.  My point was that Carson’s mistrust of state-ordered DNA testing, and the consequent potential for wrongful convictions, should also lead him to oppose the death penalty.  In this post, I will discuss my fact checking of his underlying narrative.  Carson’s account mostly checks out (with a couple of dramatized exaggerations), but I continue to think that he drew precisely the wrong lessons from his encounter with the legal system. 

Here is how Carson described the case in a 2014 oped for the Washington Times:

Several years ago while I was in the operating room, I received a call from one of the legal offices at Johns Hopkins University informing me that the state of Florida was trying to attach my wages for child support.

I was quite shocked at such an allegation and informed them that I had three children, which I already support very ably. They said a woman in Florida was accusing me of being the father of her son, and that she had proof of our relationship. The proof turned out to be knowledge of where I went to high school, college, medical school, and where I served my internship and residency. To top all that off, she had a picture of me in scrubs. I said anyone could obtain such information. However, the paternity suit was pursued, and I had to involve my personal lawyer.

As the case advanced, I was asked to provide a blood specimen to facilitate DNA testing. I refused on the basis of the incompetence of any governmental agency that was willing to pursue a paternity suit on such flimsy grounds. I said that level of incompetence would probably result in my blood specimen being found at a murder scene and me spending the rest of my life in prison.

Shortly thereafter, the suit was dropped with no further ramifications. I’m virtually certain that the woman in Florida erroneously assumed that someone who travels as much as I do was probably engaging in numerous extramarital affairs and probably wouldn’t even remember all the parties with whom he had been involved. Under such circumstances, she assumed that I would be willing to fork over the money to avoid public embarrassment.

What she didn’t know is that I did not have to scratch my head and try to remember which affair she represented, because I knew that the only woman I have ever slept with in my life was my wife.

First, I have no reason to doubt that the paternity claim was as unfounded as Carson says it was, and I won’t delve any further into its merits. 

Now let’s consider the likelihood that the Johns Hopkins lawyers actually called Carson in the operating room.  While at first this might seem highly improbable, it turns out to be plausible.  I posed the question to Kim Hoppe, the director of the Johns Hopkins Medicine office of public relations, who replied: “Our lawyers would only be calling the Operating Room if they are responding to a page or if they call the cell phone of a provider who happens to be in the OR.”  I also consulted several health care attorneys, one of whom confirmed that he had actually, if inadvertently, reached doctors via cell phone in the operating room, although the calls had typically been taken by a nurse. 

Still, it does seem odd that a surgeon would go ahead and take a call from a lawyer mid-operation.  I therefore consulted a neurosurgeon, who told me that it is unlikely but not impossible.  “Not every moment in the OR is life-or-death, there is downtime,” he said.

Ultimately, I continue to wonder whether the detail of the operating room wasn’t added for dramatic effect, as one of my informants suggested.  Imagine the outrage.  Not only was it a phony case, but they bothered him about it in the operating room.  Nonetheless, such things happen and I would not rule the story out.

Which brings us to the substance of Carson’s complaint.  According to Carson, his first notice of the suit came when the state of Florida was already trying to attach his wages for child support.  That was not possible.  Under Florida law, a wage attachment may issue only following a judgment (or admission) of paternity and an order of support, which cannot occur in the absence of personal service.  In other words, as explained to me by Robert Kohlman, a Miami lawyer who specializes in family law, Carson would have had to receive service well in advance of any attempt to attach his salary.  Lawyers may wonder whether he could have been served by publication, but the answer is no.  Except in rare circumstances, not applicable here, a finding of paternity, and a subsequent order of support, require personal service under Florida law.

So what actually happened?  It appears that a woman filed a Petition to Determine Paternity naming Carson as the father of her son.  In addition to the “flimsy” information mentioned in Carson’s oped, the petition would also have included the child’s birth date and the months in which she claimed to have had sexual intercourse with Carson.  According to Florida family law practitioner Jordan Davis, she needed only to “allege ‘sufficient facts’ (i.e., that she had sex with the alleged father around the time she conceived the child)” in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.  At that point, Carson would have received notice of the petition, and given 20 days to file an answer.

Thus, it was almost certainly the initial petition – not as shocking as a wage attachment from out of the blue, but of course a cause for serious concern – that was served on Carson at the hospital (with notice from the Johns Hopkins lawyer, whether or not in the operating room). 

It also seems obvious that Carson’s personal attorney filed pleadings that denied the mother’s allegations.  At that point, she was entitled to seek a blood test by filing a Motion for Scientific Paternity Testing, which appears to have been denied by the court, leading to the dismissal of the case. (Perhaps the attorney submitted documentary evidence that Carson could not have been in Florida at the time of conception, which would not have required a blood test. ) 

In brief, a woman sought to establish that Carson was the father of her child, he denied it, and the case was resolved in his favor.  I have no idea why the woman brought a spurious claim against Ben Carson – whether it was a form of blackmail as he believes, or perhaps as the result of delusion – but the system appears to have worked pretty much as intended. 

Of course, Carson doesn’t see it that way.  He believes that the “flimsiness” of the case demonstrates the “incompetence” of the Florida Department of Child Support.  

But really, what was the alternative?

 The Petition to Determine Paternity would have been supported by an affidavit and the statement of specific dates of sexual intercourse at the time of conception.  What more is a woman supposed to provide in order to pursue a claim for support?  It would not be possible to order a blood test before a case is filed, which would be even more intrusive to the putative father.  Likewise, a pre-filing denial of paternity should not be enough to prevent a woman from advancing her claim.

 Given his views on personal responsibility, Carson no doubt believes that absent fathers should be required to acknowledge paternity and provide support for their children.  Whatever its flaws, Florida’s system seems reasonably well designed to advance that objective.

 Yes, there will be occasional missteps and false claims – as was evidently the case here – but that does not make the state government either irresponsible or incompetent.  (Aside:  Carson says that the case was brought “several years” before he wrote his oped in 2014, meaning that the Florida government was under the complete control of Republicans at the time, with either Jeb Bush or Rick Scott as governor, and their appointees in charge of the Department of Child Support.)

Here is the lesson I wish Carson had drawn from his ordeal:  Even when the legal system works as intended, there is always a possibility for mistakes.  That is reason enough to oppose the irreversible act of executing a prisoner.

Comments

[wreynolds]

I know a lot re paternity suits. If the mother had pursued her claim, Carson would have had to submit to a blood test, usually given by a private agency. If he did not like the result, another private test could have been ordered.

If Carson distrusts DNA testing, he has to explain why forensic DNA is reliable.

The big Q is this: Why did the putative mother drop her lawsuit against Carson?

[anon]

wreynolds: "It also seems obvious that Carson’s personal attorney filed pleadings that denied the mother’s allegations. At that point, she was entitled to seek a blood test by filing a Motion for Scientific Paternity Testing, which appears to have been denied by the court, leading to the dismissal of the case."

This is a big nothing burger. Incredible stretch as part of Steve's effort to smear a Republican, any Republican, as part of Steve's political campaign here in the FL. Nit picking doesn't even begin to describe the frivolous way this entire "inquiry" ended up.

As one who doesn't support Carson I can honestly say I find this constant partisanship to be immature and unsophisticated. Until you see the fault in the members of your "team" - on the merits, not unseemly nit picking and dumb suppositions based on the thinnest of reeds - you will never be able to see the reason that solutions are so hard to find in the present political climate.

Zealots and ideologues, however convinced of their own purity and self righteousness, don't accomplish much but destruction. We see the proof of this everywhere, but the zealots and ideologues can't perceive it. They just see their own faults in others. So sad.

[[M][a][c][K]]

Steve,

Nice post. Query, as I understand it the DNA testing is don by a private accredited laboratory, who take the DNA sample from the child and from the putative father - usually the lab has to be mutually agreeable, which means in effect putative father chooses. The state does not do the testing ... So why does Carson think his DNA could end up being used by the state to investigate him for criminal issues.

Excluding the secondary/tertiary transfer issues around LCN DNA - what is Carson so worried about?

[anon]

See how it works, Steve?

"what is Carson so worried about?"

From your pov, well done. Mission accomplished.