Posted by LKT/CA on 1/29/11 10:13pm
Msg #370566

What a headache!!!

Received a call today regarding a notarization I completed three months ago (general notary job). The young lady whose signature I notarized didn't have ID. She claimed she was waiting for her new ID from the DMV to come in the mail but needed a letter notarized. I advised her to wait a week to see if the ID would arrive in her mailbox. She calls back a week later to say she contacted the DMV and they have no idea when the ID would arrive - could be weeks away. The young lady, I'll call her "Suzie", said she really needed this letter notarized. I said okay, and explained getting two credible witnesses. We set an appointment and Suzie was there with the two credible witnesses.

The letter was an agreement between Suzie and her toddler son's father, something about which weekends each parent would have the child - a letter that she drafted. Today I get a call from Suzie's mother informing me that Suzie was a minor and did not have her permission to make any agreement. I informed the mom that Notaries in CA can in fact witness the signature of a minor and NO, she did not need to be present for this to take place. I also explained what notarizing a signature means - it curtails fraud, yada, yada, and does not make the document legal.

Suzie mother claims *she checked* and minors cannot get anything notarized. I asked her where, or with whom did she *check* because that info was incorrect and she needs to *check* with the California Secretary of State to receive correct info. This woman was insistent that it was my responsibility to KNOW that Suzie was a minor and that I need to write a letter voiding this agreement Suzie made with her son's father.

I tried to tell her Notaries are not responsible for the content of documents and that I didn't make the document legal so there's nothing I can to do *unmake* it legal. If her daughter was a minor at the time of the agreement, the document - on it's face - is void. I told her to just shred the paper and the notary certificate or she could use a Sharpie and write VOID over my seal and signature. She wasn't hearing it.....said she I was uncooperative and argumentative and that she was going to have "someone" call me. I said that was fine because whoever called me would hear me tell them exactly what I told her. Then she said she'd have her attorney call. I told her attorneys don't necessarily know notary law - I networked with two that didn't know - I had to inform them of certain codes and statutues.

Then, I get a call from Suzie's uncle. Told him the same thing - he seemed to "get it". Hopefully he communicated that info to Suzie's mother. I was on the phone with a friend, then another call came in - it was the uncle's number but I couldn't switch over fast enough, so I hung up from the friend and called back. It went to voicemail but I didn't leave a message. He didn't call back.

I was so annoyed by that woman's call that I vowed to ONLY notarize for people with ID - then had to retract that thought because in CA, we cannot refuse a legal request and if a person with no ID has the two credible witnesses (with their ID), and their paperwork is in order and they have the fee, then I cannot refuse their legal request - darn it!!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/29/11 11:04pm
Msg #370569

Lisa, it sounds like you did everything right. Too many people are under the impression that a notarization is a legal blessing of some kind.

I had a similar call a week ago... the lady called and said that she and her boyfriend were trying to conceive and they wanted to write up an agreement that the boyfriend would not be legally responsible for the child.... and asked if they had it notarized, would it be legal?

I had to explain the purpose of notarization, from the beginning and suggested she contact a family law attorney, and I gave her a few names/numbers. She seemed annoyed with me because thought a notary was an alternative to going to court.

Lots of people, including many notaries, seem to think that notarizing for a minor is illegal. It isn't. It is true that, legally, minors cannot entire into certain types of legally binding situations. However, that has nothing to do with notarization. If a document was illegal before notarization, it will be afterward, as well.

Besides, not all documents that are signed by minors are "illegal" for them to sign.

As far as notaries are concerned, it's none of our business --- we should never be telling somebody that a minor signing something is illegal or not. And yet, I hear all the time from people who were refused notarization because the signer was a minor and they were told it was illegal.

Reply by Julie/MI on 1/30/11 5:49am
Msg #370574

Good thing they didn't come to me, I would have given them a lecture on getting married first.

Depending on the off the wall requests I get from time to time, I simply explain notaries are like a bouncer in at the door of a bar, we just check the id to make sure you are who you are, and what you do inside the bar is your business.

Thankfully, I can decline to notarize for any reason.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/30/11 8:30am
Msg #370578

Good luck with that, evasive father.

*they wanted to write up an agreement that the boyfriend would not be legally responsible for the child.... and asked if they had it notarized, would it be legal?*

Of course I would not tell a signer this, but in Texas a mother does not have the power to absolve a known father of parental rights and responsibilities; the father cannot even do that. It's a court matter.

You can see how if that happened (and it still goes under the radar in various ways), this could be a nice little means for income. "Let's have a baby. I will say that I absolve you of all parental duties and I'll get funding from the government. In the meantime you can work, I can work and our fatherless baby will get government support! How smart is that!"

Telling a signer this would be like practicing law. So, I'd perform a lawful notarization, if possible.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/30/11 9:57am
Msg #370579

Re: Good luck with that, evasive father.

The case in point seems to be one in which a father wants to maintain access to his child -- you know, like we keep telling Dads we want them to do. The young mother is willing to provide it, but the grandmother wants to keep him out of the picture. Hardly an "evasive" father.

In Texas, a spiteful or avaricious mother doesn't need luck. She can deliberately decline to tell the father that he is, indeed, a father, and in fact can even lie to him about it, thus denying him any experience as a parent, even if he is anxious to parent. The mother can then wait until the child is 18 and sue the father for the child support he did not pay during that 18 years. We've had cases where 12-year-old boys were seduced by adult babysitters, who got pregnant as a result, and the kid was sued for child support -- and had to pay.

One case -- not in Texas -- the social worker for the woman <advised> her to wait till the statute of limitations had run out on the statutory rape, and then sue for support. The woman won an award.

It is so easy to bash fathers with ill-considered descriptives like "evasive." There is almost always another, and often far darker, side to the story.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/30/11 2:54pm
Msg #370600

I am not a father basher, so get over that.

I daresay I know a bit about fathers' rights myself and the rights and the wrongs of suits affecting the parent-child relationships both from a professional involvement and a personal one. I know about ex-wives who torment good fathers up close and personal.

You said: *The case in point seems to be one in which a father wants to maintain access to his child -- you know, like we keep telling Dads we want them to do. The young mother is willing to provide it, but the grandmother wants to keep him out of the picture. Hardly an "evasive" father.*

Hugh, if you will notice, I quoted Marian. I did not quote Lisa.

There's no reason to take a false opportunity to make remarks directed toward me and my correct usage of "evasive".

Reply by HisHughness on 1/30/11 3:53pm
Msg #370602

Re: I am not a father basher, so get over that.

***Hugh, if you will notice, I quoted Marian. I did not quote Lisa.

There's no reason to take a false opportunity to make remarks directed toward me and my correct usage of "evasive".***

You are correct; I applied your comments to the OP. My mistake; it was a mischaracterization.

You are incorrect when you contend your usage of the term "evasive" is proper. The prospective mother and the prospective father are attempting to achieve something that the mother wants to achieve -- something she could achieve, though at far greater expense, by going to a sperm bank. That hardly renders the father "evasive," and hardly justifies your application of the term, regardless of whether you "know a bit about fathers' rights." The implication is that he is doing something wrong. He is not; at least, there is nothing in the posting to indicate such.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/30/11 5:01pm
Msg #370607

Re: I am not a father basher, so get over that.

No problem. But, they wanted to write up the agreement, right? Two parties did and not just her?

Okay, I won't use evasive. Rephrasing.

Whether or not I know a bit about fathers' rights, I will say "Good Luck, guy who will agree to take no responsibility for a prospective child."

Better?

Reply by HisHughness on 1/31/11 12:25am
Msg #370619

Re: I am not a father basher, so get over that.

Yeah, Brenda, it's always the prospective father's fault. Male victimizer, female victim.

The woman, according to the posting, was asking him to impregnate her. It was one of several alternatives she could choose: Sperm clinic, one-night stand, marriage, friend.

He had the option to refuse. She chose to ask him to continue, and as an inducement, told him he would have no responsibility for the child. You were correct initially: I suspect in every state he would not be permitted, in the face of an enforcement action, to avoid responsibility.

My problem with your posting is casting the prospective father's action in some kind of negative light. There is nothing in the original post to indicate that he is seeking to evade anything or that there is any coercion involved. He was asked to do something, and was prepared to oblige, provided a condition was met. I'm puzzled as to how that make him some kind of bad guy.

He will find out soon enough, I suspect, exactly how valid his disavowal was.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/31/11 6:43am
Msg #370624

Re: I am not a father basher, so get over that.

*My problem with your posting is casting the prospective father's action in some kind of negative light.*

It is negative. And, so is her behavior.

No mother has the right to exclude a father from a child's family pre-birth or after without just cause. It's not just about the father's rights, it is also about the child's rights to have a natural father. Every child deserves to have a father's support love and protection. Mothers don't get to decide that except under very narrow circumstances according to the law.

Bad parents come in both sexes.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/30/11 1:23pm
Msg #370592

Re: Good luck with that, evasive father.

Yeah, in that case, I told the woman I'd be happy to notarize their signatures on whatever they wanted, but what I wouldn't do is give her any kind of assurance that it would be legal. I explained to her that I was not an attorney and I couldn't give her my opinion about it. If she wanted reassurance that her letter was "legal" or would "hold up in court" then she needed to speak to an attorney.

I repeatedly told her I'd be happy to meet her, though... I mean, I don't care what kind of document it is. I just wanted her to be clear that my seal had zero impact on the legality of the document. I certainly didn't refuse.

Reply by James Dawson on 1/30/11 1:20am
Msg #370571

Both of you (I already knew it) are o so nice and patient! I would have ask her/them if it was something that I did for them? When they replied "no" I would have said then in what capacity are you contacting me? Once they answered that I would have said, California notaries can't recognize capacity and hung up! Darn it!

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/30/11 2:18am
Msg #370573

ROTFL!! You are too funny James. I'm glad the uncle understood me because the girl's mother refused my explanation. She was right, I was wrong and that's all there was to it. She was convinced I could fix the "problem" but didn't want to help her. Next person that calls me for notary service and doesn't have ID, I will send them to the DMV and have them call me when they get the new ID - unless they are elderly and housebound. I'm only explaining credible witnesses if ASKED, won't volunteer that info anymore. Marian's right in eveything she wrote. Thanks Marian!

Reply by A S Johnson on 1/30/11 12:10pm
Msg #370584

Did you, as the Notary, know the "credible witness"? Did you ID the credibale witnesses?
I fear to post this because "credible witness"in CA may have different requirements than Texas.
My understanding in Texas a "credible witness" MUST be known by the Notary thru a personal relationship before they are before you, the Notary, when you Id them.
The 2nd leg of a "credible witness" is the credible witness MUST have personal knowledge of the signer to the extent they take an oath they know the signer to be who the signer says they are.
I ask "did you ID" the "credible witness", were they old enought for you to be confortable you feel they would not be influenced to misrepresent their relationship as to who the signer is. Teen agers/young adults will do things simply because they feel it is "them against society".

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/30/11 1:09pm
Msg #370590

In California, there are two methods for using credible witnesses. The first involves using a a single individual to that personally knows both the notary and the person appearing before the notary. This doesn't happen very often. I've never done it this way. This person swears, under oath, to the following:

"1. The individual appearing before the notary public as the signer of the document is the
person named in the document;
2. The credible witness personally knows the signer;
3. The credible witness reasonably believes that the circumstances of the signer are
such that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of
identification;
4. The signer does not possess any of the identification documents authorized by law to
establish the signer’s identity; and
5. The credible witness does not have a financial interest and is not named in the document
signed."

The second method (and most common) is by using two individuals, who do not have to be known to the notary, who have proper ID and are willing to swear, under oath, to the same 5 items listed above.

Credible witnesses are ID'd and sign the journal just as they would if it were their own signature being notarized. I don't know about others, but when I issue an oath, I always remind people that they are under oath, just as if they were in a court room talking to a judge. I also read to them something from the handbook that states, if they lie about having a financial interest in the document, and they are convicted of perjury... they actually could forfeit their financial interest. (CC 1185).

I have had one person who was asked to be a CW, but when I issued the oath, she said, "No," and declined because she wasn't comfortable swearing to facts she wasn't entirely sure about. Primarily, she had no idea if the person had ID or not. She told me that she wasn't going to commit perjury just to do her neighbor a favor. She said that it might very well be that he couldn't get ID... but she didn't have enough direct knowledge of it herself to testify to it.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/30/11 12:39pm
Msg #370587

This is just me because I'm suspicious by nature

My gut reaction to this is I don't think I would have notarized this...and I think you got snookered Lisa.

If it were me faced with a young girl with NO ID needing to have a hand-drafted document notarized, and she was not accompanied by an "adult" - I would not have notarized until she had the original ID in hand. I won't even touch on the fact that the document impacts child custody/visitation arrangements and she was in a hurry ... ?? Further, I don't believe CW's fit in this scenario - it's not difficult if not impossible for her to get ID - it's just not arriving in time for her to pull off whatever she's pulling.

Obviously something happened as a result of this signed "Agreement" - why would mother contact you otherwise?

Also, we're lucky here that our handbook clearly states that we're allowed to notarize for a minor. I can't find that in the CA manual...are you sure you can?

"I was so annoyed by that woman's call that I vowed to ONLY notarize for people with ID" - good idea - I think that's the best way.

"we cannot refuse a legal request and if a person with no ID has the two credible witnesses (with their ID), and their paperwork is in order and they have the fee, then I cannot refuse their legal request " - I think you can refuse if it doesn't pass the sniff test - and this, IMO, does not..

All JMHO and said with respect for you and your position Lisa...

Good Luck - hope this works out for you.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 1/30/11 1:01pm
Msg #370589

Re: This is just me because I'm suspicious by nature

I'm with Linda H on this.

I wouldn't have touched this either without an ID. Thank goodness in IL, the credible witness has to be known by both the signer and the Notary. I could not have done this notarization as you describe without the ID and what are the chances that we would know someone together? Almost null.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/30/11 1:16pm
Msg #370591

Re: This is just me because I'm suspicious by nature

Yes, we are allowed to notarize for anyone (including minors) ... provided they have proper ID. Supplying credible witnesses who are willing to go under oath, are considered a valid form of ID.

We can only decline if their request illegal, the paperwork is incomplete or something similar. We can't just refuse because we aren't comfortable with the situation. Goodness knows, I've notarized a few things wherein I had the creeps about the situation, but the people had proper ID, they paid the fee and willingly acknowledged the document. Willfully refusing to do so would have meant failing to perform my duties, which is a misdemeanor in California.

Reply by Dorothy_MI on 1/30/11 2:26pm
Msg #370599

It is for this reason that I'm glad

I live in Michigan and have the right of refusal. Think even if I lived in CA I'd find a good excuse to be unavailable. Think I'd rather risk the possibility of being found guilty of a misdemeanor than possibility be party to a felony. Just because you TELL them that you are not an attorney and can not give legal advice does not mean they couldn't pull you into a suit. Having just gone through a suit (another business, not notary work), I can tell you that if the plaintiff thinks they can get money by lying, they will do it and through their teeth!

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/30/11 5:24pm
Msg #370608

Re: This is just me because I'm suspicious by nature

<<<If it were me faced with a young girl with NO ID needing to have a hand-drafted document notarized, and she was not accompanied by an "adult" - I would not have notarized until she had the original ID in hand.>>>

Thanks Linda, I respect your opinion. If "Suzie's" mother had not called and informed me that she was 17 at the time of the notarization, I wouldn't have known. She looked like a young adult of 19 or 20. Her credible witnesses were over age 21 - one said he was a family friend of her mother and both had current ID and took the oath and signed my journal.

The appointment was routine and without incident. There were no indicators or reason to believe there was any funny business going on and nothing to cause me to assume she was a minor. I think I did the right thing by having Suzie wait a week to see if the ID came in the mail. I could only take her word for it that she contacted the DMV and they didn't know when the ID would arrive.

Unfortunately, in some areas of notarizing, all we can do is take the person's word for something. Marian's correct in her assessment of when we can refuse to notarize.

The mother's misunderstanding of what notarizing means and who can have their signature notarized is the real problem - not the appointment itself. The uncle understood the explanation I gave....the mother refused to accept my explanation. Hopefully, he straightened her out.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 1/31/11 9:18am
Msg #370638

Here's what to tell the mom

To speak to an attorney re: the matter at hand.
Some states don't allow minors of 17 to legally enter into a contract.
She should consult an attorney to find out if it's possible to nullify that contract
based on the daughter's age.

Reply by Mary Ellen Elmore on 1/30/11 8:34pm
Msg #370609

I have seen these similar situations. The kids are trying to do the best they can and make the best of a bad situation.

Then the families want to get involved. They just make a mess of it all!

Suzie can get her own attorney if she wants.

Suzie MAY be automatically emancipated by having had a child--used to be that way in TN (its not now).

Suzie most likely CAN make any and all legal decisions that pertain to HER child. She is a parent and has full parental rights.

Watched a dear friend of mine loose her daughter and 2 grand children because she acted this way towards the daughter and grandchildren.

It is so sad.

More control should have been exercised some time previously.