Think we don't have debtors prison in these enlightened times? Well, think again.

Not only are deadbeat dads routinely imprisoned, but via Dr. Helen, I just learned about an incident in which the "dad" went to prison for a child that wasn't his:

Frank Hatley, 50, spent 13 months in jail for being a deadbeat dad before his release last month. A judge ordered him jailed in June 2008 for failing to support his "son" -- a child who DNA tests proved was not fathered by Hatley.

Last week, Cook County Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins signed an order stating, "defendant is no longer responsible for paying any amount of child support." The order permits the state's Office of Child Support Services to close its file on Hatley.

"We're satisfied with the result for Mr. Hatley, but still troubled by the state's monumental lapse of judgment in this case," attorney Sarah Geraghty with the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights told CNN in a written statement. Hatley did not immediately return a call from CNN Tuesday.

His story dates back to 1986, when Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison, who gave birth to a son. According to court documents, Morrison told Hatley the child was his, but the two ended their relationship shortly after the child was born. The couple never married and never lived together, the documents said.

When the child turned 2, Morrison applied for public support for the child. Under Georgia law, the state, can recoup the cost of the assistance from a child's non-custodial parent.

For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning in 2000 that the boy might not be his. A DNA test that year confirmed the child was not fathered by Hatley, court documents said.

As to the nature of imprisoning people for debt, I'm curious about the theories of immorality. The idea behind debtor's prison was that it was a form of dishonesty to promise to pay money and then not pay it. I can see that, although it's a bit weak, because many people get into debt because of circumstances unforseen at the time of the obligation, and if the result is economic ruin, they can find themselves unable to pay. Also, it takes two to create debt, and while you can always say the borrower did a stupid job of running his affairs, it's also stupid to loan money to an obviously bad risk. If I lent $500.00 to a homeless wino I met on the street and then expressed surprise when he failed to pay me back as promised, most people would rightly consider me more foolish than the wino.

It also takes two to have a child, yet for reasons which have never been clear to me, only men are treated as the responsible party. Let's compare the creation of a child support obligation to the creation of ordinary debt. Unlike most borrowers, who read and sign documents before credit is ever extended to them, a baby results from sexual intercourse between two people, usually in the heat of emotional passion, and often when the parties have been imibining in mood-altering substances of one form or another. They do not know with any degree of certainty that a baby will result; in fact the vast majority of coital acts do not result in pregnancy. By what standard, then, is the failure -- especially by a non-custodial parent -- to honor the obligation to support a child so much more morally egregious than the failure to abide by a legal contract entered into at arm's length? Simply because there is a child? If that were the case, then why isn't the mother also obligated to pitch in? Furthermore, the mother is legally entitled to get out of the entire obligation -- either by abortion before the baby is born, or by adoption afterwards. The father has absolutely no say, and a non-custodial father has less than no say.

But let's assume that the insemination of a woman (if it happens to lead to the creation of a child) is more culpable than the signing of a loan document. How do we get from there to it being a criminal offense with imprisonment as the penalty? Any why only for the man, who had no right to ameliorate the situation by offering the child up for adoption, and who likewise has no right to participate in raising the child? It's as if it's his child only for the purpose of paying the state, but for no other purpose, while the mother always gets to be the mother, gets money from the state, and owes the state nothing in return.

Little wonder that some men consider that monthly check the mother gets to be partially theirs. After all, if it weren't for their contribution, the child who creates the income stream wouldn't exist!

On a last but only peripherally related point, notice that the state took the mother at her word as to the father's identity. No doubt he is listed on the birth certificate. People do lie about such things, and they form the basis for government records. How many people know to a scientific certainty that their mama didn't lie? How many readers have had their DNA tested?

(I can't imagine why I would think such a silly point is worthy of discussion, though....)