The infamous fifth amendment, besides being used by many to not "self incriminate", also contains a section that is just as important, if rarely quoted:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Now what is "Due Process"?  The sixth amendment addresses that in part:

to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

This seems to be straight forward.  You have to be told of your crime, and you have the right to confront the accuser and submit evidence (and witnesses) in your own defense.  At least one would think so from a reading of the Constitution.

But this is not the case if you are male, and a woman, either with malice aforethought, or through ignorance, accuses you of fathering a child.  For it seems in that case, you can be judged guilty, have your life and property forfeit (at least the freedom part of life) based upon an accusation, unfounded as it may be, without any legal protections afforded by the Constitution.  And proof of innocense is no guard against such seizures.

While the stories of the "runaway" dads are numerous, and the circumstances in some of those cases are deeply troubling to most people, there is a growing number of cases like the man in Florida, where the only accusation of parentage appears to be coming from a rogue court that has nothing better to do than collect money.  Money that is not due the state, the mother, or the court, but is rather being illegally garnished from an innocent man for the simple reason he was convenient.

By the story, we learn that he was accused, tried and convicted of fathering a child - with no evidence other than the word of a woman who said he was a lover many years ago.  So he was not allowed to mount a defense, since the state apparently did not try very hard to find him, before a court, unconstitutionally, tried him without allowing him his basic rights.

We hear a lot about Miranda, and constitutional rights in serious criminal cases, and based upon those rights, many a criminal has walked free because they were not granted.  But in cases of fatherhood, there are no rights.  And a man is judged guilty by hearsay, and a lack of evidence, and by a system that does not try to find him, but rather would hurry the trial to conclusion (at least that right was not taken from the male) in order to pad the state's coffers with ill gotten lucre.

This man, and so many others like him (like the Police officer in Tampa) are having their property confiscated, with no compensation by courts that seem to not care about the Constitution.  We often hear about how the executive or legislative branches of the government are acting unconstitutionally, or passing laws that violate the constitution.  When are we going to hold courts to the same standard?

Criminals are protected by a constitution that apparently does not apply to males accused of fatherhood.  They are the new slaves of America.