Posted on 01/09/2006 12:19:01 AM PST by RWR8189
A former Broward County man has been ordered to continue to pay child support for a child he did not father. He said his wife cheated on him; she denies it.
Richard Parker said he never suspected that his wife had been cheating on him when she got pregnant seven years ago.
When the Hollywood couple divorced in 2001, he agreed to pay her $1,200 a month in child support.
But less than two years later, when his son was 5, he says he learned the awful truth: The boy he had raised as his own wasn't his.
Parker sued his ex-wife, Margaret Parker, claiming fraud. He wanted to terminate his child-support payments and recover the money he had paid out. His court battle, so far unsuccessful, raises delicate questions about fatherhood and men's rights in an age in which it has become relatively simple to prove -- or disprove -- paternity.
For the most part, courts say the bonds of matrimony trump biology.
A Broward County judge dismissed Richard Parker's claim of fraud in January 2004, and an appeals court in November upheld the decision, effectively ending his quest for return of the child support he had paid to his ex-wife. Moreover, Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in support.
The court said Richard Parker should have questioned the blood line sooner -- within a year of the divorce -- if he had any doubts.
''It could have been over, and I could have been in control of my money,'' the 55-year-old dental implant salesman said of the dismissal, an outcome that didn't surprise him.
Margaret Parker, 41, insists that she never deceived her husband. She said they had trouble conceiving, so she had sex with a ''mutually agreed upon individual'' in order to get pregnant.
''He is the fraud,'' she said, describing her ex-husband as a louse, eager to dodge his responsibility.
Richard Parker, who now lives in Boston, said he didn't question his son's paternity until someone else suggested that there wasn't much of a resemblance.
''When kids are all really little, they all look the same,'' said Parker, a man of Irish and Italian ancestry. He said that both he and his son have dark hair, and that the boy has dark eyes shaped like his mother's.
But when his child was 5, his girlfriend's 90-year-old grandmother looked at a photo his father was carrying and told him that the child was certainly not his.
Parker confirmed the elderly woman's hunch with a DNA test he saw advertised on a billboard.
In June of that year, he sued his ex-wife.
In a petition before Broward Circuit Judge Renee Goldenberg, he said Margaret Parker intentionally misled him to believe that he was the father, and he asked the court to make his ex-wife pay him damages to compensate for past and future child-support obligations.
Goldenberg rejected his claim without wading into the issue of whether Richard Parker had been deceived. In late November, an appeals court upheld the decision.
`A TIME LIMIT'
Time was not on Richard Parker's side, said Joanna L. Grossman, a professor at Hofstra Law School in Hempstead, N.Y.
''The law provides a remedy for fraud, but imposes a time limit for raising the claim,'' Grossman wrote in an e-mail. ``Since his wife made the representation about the child's paternity during the divorce action, that proceeding was the appropriate time for him to raise any concerns he might have had.''
His lawyer, Scott A. Lazar, questioned the fairness of such a time limit, considering, as he alleges, that Parker was duped into believing he was the father.
''No one's going to tell you they are having an affair,'' Lazar said.
But Margaret Parker said she wasn't having an affair.
She said her ex-husband was infertile, a claim he called a ''a total lie,'' adding that, in fact, he has impregnated women in the past.
As part of her ruling, Judge Carole Y. Taylor of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach acknowledged that Richard Parker might feel victimized by the court's ruling. But she said the child's needs are paramount.
She said that the father's appeal could trigger ``psychological devastation that the child will undoubtedly experience from losing the only father he or she has ever known.''
Moreover, Taylor noted, cheating is hardly rare. Quoting from a law article written by Temple Law Professor Theresa Glennon, the appeals judge wrote:
``While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present. . . . The law should discourage adults from treating children they have parented as expendable when their adult relationships fall apart.''
Andrea Moore, executive director of Florida's Children First, a statewide advocacy organization based in Coral Springs, applauded the court rulings.
PUTTING CHILD FIRST
''Why would society allow a child to suffer for the mistakes of the parents?'' Moore said. ``If you look at it from the child's perspective, the child needs parents who consistently provide and care about them. That should come first. I am not so sure the youngster would care who the biological father was if the man had acted like the father.''
The child, now 7, still believes Richard Parker is his father, both parents said. His name has been withheld to protect his identity.
To be sure, Parker said he still wants to help the child. He said he would like to control where the money goes, and added that he and his current wife are already starting a college fund.
Miami attorney Gerald Kornreich said that courts sometimes order an accounting of such payments, but added that it's not standard because the amount -- in this case, $1,200 a month -- is based on a guideline stemming from the parents' combined salaries.
''Disgruntled dads often say, `I am giving all this money and the mom is using it to go out at night or use it with her boyfriend,'' he said.
''But usually it's too little and not too much'' support.
Biology isn't everything, conceded Parker, himself a child of adoption. He said his son should know as much as he can about his biological father's health history.
''Let's find out who this guy is,'' Parker said.
Why,that's mighty generous of you to think that way.Does this mean that *you* will be sending a $1,200 check to the kid every month for the next 11+ years?
No,I didn't think so.
Interesting that Judge Carole Y. Taylor finds an inherent woman's right to cuckhold her husband. Marriage in this country is broken beyond repair.
There is no such thing as an iron-clad agreement for a man if it's with a woman.
I was reading through the thread and happened upon your post. I was in agreement with you until one thought occurred.
I'm not a legal mind or trained in legal issues, however, since the father accepted the child as his own, he was accountable for his share of the child maintenance. I guees the similar situation would be in the case of adoption where a someone take legal responsibility for a child from another marriage and then divorce happens. The new father is now responsible for the child, not the biological former parent from the first marriage.
Howver, since this is appears to be a case of fraud with the mother, then I think the rightful outcome would be to find the real father and make him pay going forward, provided the story about the conception issues isn't true.
Pennsylvania also sticks the husband if the wife strays and becomes pregnant by another man. You married her? You are stuck if you are not divorced when she fools around.
This is not right ! If the child is not his (different donor such as person having an affair with), then the father should not be obligated to pay and the mom should be charged with fraud.
Well, around here my word is as iron-clad as it gets. I'm a woman, and an honorable one at that.
LQ
There have actually been a handful of cases both in the U.S. and in Europe where a sperm donor has been required to make child support payments.
Just in case anyone wondered why men won't marry, I present Exhibit A.
Love all these comments, so many are tongue in cheek. So male.
The little sweeties of the 80's and 90's who think they bare no responsibility if a woman becomes pregnant just so long as they are 'satisfied'. The little package that occasionally comes along with uncontrolled sex is not their fault. Why should they have to pay.
This is what the sixties 'if it feels good do it' generation has given us. And it just keeps growing and growing and growing.
Make the child pay, it is their fault for being born.
She said that the father's appeal could trigger ``psychological devastation that the child will undoubtedly experience from losing the only father he or she has ever known.''
The child will begin soon to wonder who they are, who there real father is, and when they find out what the mother has done by concealing the identity of the real father, then the child will grow angry, becoming engrossed with feelings of having been deceived and rejected. Unless the mother can put on a good show of sweetness, the child is destined towards hatred of the mother.
The only way out is for the mother's chosen victim (the court imposed father) to show inordinate amoounts of fatherly love showing at each turn how proud he is of his 'adopted' son. But the mother's deceit has already overwhelmed her former husband with anger and her lifestyle and spending decisions are only further infuriating him.
The mother is the problem here.
``While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present. . . .
So a man is supposed to suspect his wife of infidelity according to the law, unbelievable.
Andrea Moore, executive director of Florida's Children First, a statewide advocacy organization based in Coral Springs, applauded the court rulings.
PUTTING CHILD FIRST
''Why would society allow a child to suffer for the mistakes of the parents?'' Moore said.
The child may already be damaged goods by the mother. The mother appears to have smoothed her way into marriage with the court imposed father. She may have been a very smooth con artist. When Parker presumably discovered her true character, it was too late.
The child will become an adult filled with anger because the mother is a con artist.
To be sure, Parker said he still wants to help the child. He said he would like to control where the money goes, and added that he and his current wife are already starting a college fund.
Parker and his new wife should fight for custody of only to get the child away from the mother.
Biology isn't everything, conceded Parker, himself a child of adoption. He said his son should know as much as he can about his biological father's health history.
Parker is wise. It's also interesting to note that all the judges quoted or referenced in this report are women.
Allowing the mother to succeed here will create a thousand more such cases. Is this one child worth more than the other 999?
No disrespect to you Ma'am. I know there are honorable women out there. I married one myself.
That being said, if your experience is anything like hers, you know there aren't many of you out there. In fact, the ethical flexibility that seems to be the norm for women has really been getting under her skin here recently.
The question is, who should pay for the child? Why hasn't the real biological father figured in any of this? Maybe you should pay for it, since the child carries as many of your genes as the poor guy being forced to pay for it.
That's what he gets for marrying the 'hot' one instead of the stable, honest, average one.
Red herring sold here! The adoption scenario is a knowing commitment to raise another man's child. There is no fraud involved.
Whether or not this is a long-standing "legal principle", the ruling is absurd. If the wife stole money from a bank and the husband unknowingly used some of that money to buy a car, does the husband get incarcerated for theft? He probably would lose the car, but he shouldn't be sent up the river for doing nothing more than trusting his spouse, right?
Punishing the husband does NOT protect the child. It only punishes the father and rewards the deceitful mother.
Yeah, there was a thread here not too long ago about a pair of lesbians burning the donor for child support when the happy couple broke up.
Sounds as though the anti-father, anti-family, anti-men stance of the court system is still alive and well. This is at least the second time I have heard of this. Coming out of leftist-controlled Broward county, I'm not surprised, however. Still, I'm enough of an idealist to demand that our judicial system does something more to make itself represent actual justice.
I've seen clown colleges that can do better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.