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.
True enough on the face of it; but, this is a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute. Evidence to the contrary can always be presented to refute the presumption. In this case, however, the court decided that the evidence was too stale and the Statute of Limitations had run its course. Despite an obvious counter argument that this perfidy was a continuing wrong (he pays every month for her continuing lie,) the court opted to abuse its discretion for the "best interests of the child." So, the cuckold pays and the boyfriend enjoys the fruits of another man's labor.
Welcome to the America of Clinton and the DNC.
The kid will find out the man paying his child support is not his father and sooner than later would be best. The child will resent his mother more than the man his mother was married to when she got pregnant with him. If I were the child support payer, I would tell the child exactly what happened as soon as he could understand it. I would also put aside money to give him when he was out of the house. As for the mother, get a job and take responsibility for your child.
I disagree that it should be MANDATORY. It's a slippery slope. Back in the 90s, the government (in Cincinnati) was trying to MANDATE licenses for parents to have children. I believe DNA tests should be VOLUNTARY.
You directed it at me, so regardless of what you have heard from other men, you misdirected it at me. In fact, if you scroll back through my FR comment history, you will find that I have even referred to myself as having been a slut in my younger years.
Yes, she did concede that and she also said that he knew it at the time of the divorce.
And he said he didn't, and the evidence suggests that she's the liar in the equation.
So I guess because she is a 'slut' she has to be lying and because the male is a 'slut' he has to be telling the truth.
There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that he is a slut. She is the one who was obviously violating her marital vows. Just because she is a slut, doesn't make him a slut by association.
Obviously but there is also no evidence to prove the opposite.
The evidence is (a) he is not sterile; yet (b) she claimed that they made an arrangement for her to go outside the marriage because he was allegedly sterile; which (c) makes her a verifiable liar. There is further evidence in the article as well, but that's the most objectively verifiable.
Or did you not actually assess the evidence but just took her word on the basis of her possessing a vagina?
Good grief, you are right, I can't image why I would think it would be the child that will suffer.
It seems patently self-evident to me why you would state that only the child would suffer when clearly the shafted man will suffer as well. And, let's be clear here, I am well-aware that the child is a victim in this situation - victimized by the actions of his mother it would seem (and perhaps also of his true father).
Isn't parenthood great.
Both parenthood and marriage is what you make of it. Parenthood is one of the greatest things around in my view.
Feminazis are fighting a rear guard battle agaisnt DNA tetsing. Things are looking up. Here's one Pennsylvania case that was decided for the deceived husband:
Court says Avoca man duped into supportThree state Superior Court judges have sided with an Avoca man who stopped paying child support after DNA testing proved the boy he thought was his son was fathered by another man.
Their decision sets a new precedent for some child support cases, one Scranton attorney said.
Under different circumstances, William Doran might have been legally bound to keep up the payments even though the boy isn't his biological son. Traditionally, the court has forbidden men who have acted as fathers in the past to later deny parentage and withhold support.
But the Doran case involved something else -- deceit. Because Mr. Doran's ex-wife, Pamela Smigiel, lied about the boy's paternity for more than 11 years, Superior Court Judges Robert A. Graci, Correale F. Stevens and Peter Paul Olszewski said Mr. Doran should not be held liable.
Luzerne County Judge Chester Muroski made virtually the same argument when he ruled in Mr. Doran's favor in June. Dissatisfied, Ms. Smigiel appealed to the higher court.
"This is certainly a new wrinkle in the child support case law," family law attorney Scott Herlands of Scranton said. "I guess what (the court) is trying to do is look at each case individually and carve out some exceptions to the rule, which, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing."
Mr. Herlands said he handles dozens of child support cases a month, representing men and women. When paternity is questioned, he said, judges usually invoke "presumption of paternity," meaning that a child born during marriage is legally presumed to be the couple's child.
Another long-held court position is that a father cannot deny "the paternity of a child born during marriage if either he or his wife holds the child out to be" his, Judge Graci wrote in his opinion on the Doran case.
Except, that is, when deception is involved.
Arguing that he didn't know about his wife's infidelity until the boy was 6, Mr. Doran claimed his wife lied when he asked her if the child was his. The couple later divorced and Mr. Doran agreed to pay support. Noticing the growing boy bore him no resemblance, he asked again.
A DNA test done in 2001 proved the child, then 11, was not Mr. Doran's biological son.
"The deception is akin to fraud. A court can't ignore that," Mr. Herlands said. "Acknowledging the (individuality) of the case and the circumstances is a fairly new tack in child support cases ... It's new case law, but won't affect most other cases."
It was all the slut remarks and how the male was being taken advantage of that set me off. This is all a he said she said article. Who actually knows what the truth is other than them. It is all about them, the hell with the child.
Having been divorced in a time when that was not done, having raised three children on my own with only a high school education with totally no financial help from their father who was busy living his life of globe trotting. I have a tendency to get upset when the life of a child is put into limbo because of people such as these. Unfortunately, there are far too many parents around just like these two.
Men have no say in whether or not their mate kills their offspring AND no say in whether or not they pay for said offspring.
Something is just wrong here.
Well, I guess that ends that discussion. You are of course totally right. I can't understand how I could possibly have misunderstood your posts. She is of course a 'slut', he is of course an innocent. Please forgive me. /sarc
I never said he's not a slut, or even that he's 'innocent' (in a generic sense). Maybe they're all sluts, but either way he's not the slut that sired the kid.
Yep, you are right. Guess it might have been cheaper than 'in vitro fertilization'.
It was all the slut remarks and how the male was being taken advantage of that set me off. This is all a he said she said article. Who actually knows what the truth is other than them. It is all about them, the hell with the child.
The male is being taken advantage of, how can you not see this. If the woman is telling the truth, then the guy should have a test to see if he is sterile and she should bring in the man who they decided to use as a sperm donor. That should fix this problem. The sperm donor should then be paying for his child unless there is a document confirming their agreement.
The child will hear the truth sooner or later, so the only thing child support from this guy does is foster resentment for the child by the payee. By not paying child support this woman will have to tough it out and support her child and maybe be poorer than she wants to be.
You seem to think that I am sexist. If so, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree. I have not the slightest objection to child support on principle or to relentless enforcement measures. My problem is the apparent injustice of the situation where a man is forced to pay for a child that he thought was his but that isn't. You don't seem to care about that injustice, so maybe you should ask yourself why that is.
There are plenty of irresponsible pricks and jerks out there but taking it out on someone who is not responsible for the situation isn't the way to fix that. Go find the jerk who impregnated the wife and garnish his wages or whatever. I won't have the slightest objection. If she refuses to divulge who he is, then that is still not the fault of her ex-husband.
Excellent idea, wonder if the judge thought of that? It would be easy enough to prove.
"Shouldn't come as a great surprise. I've taken 2 pre-law classes and I know that if you acnolwedge a kid as yours, even if it isn't, your stuck with it. That's classic legal principle.
I agree with it actually. The kid shouldn't be made to suffer because of the sins of it's parent. "
Well Mr. legal expert, how about showing us where in law punishment and sentencing of an innocent party is allowed anywhere except in matters of child support?
Instead of forcing the guilty party (the other man who had sex with a married woman) to make amends for his actions, you and those who hold this incredible double standard, are perfectly fine with forcing an innocent party of a crime to pay for the actions of another.
You say it's for the child and the child should not suffer. Sorry, but this child will suffer when he/she finds out that its mother can't remain faithful during a marriage and the man he believes is his father isn't.
The man who committed adultry with this mother has no responsibility for the support of this child. If he was made financially responsible, as should be, the child would not suffer financially.
Every thread that FR hosts about a man not paying his child support (when he is the biological father or not) we get this crowd screaming "He's responsible!!! Make him pay!!!"
Yet this same group is perfectly fine with allowing a father walk away, legally, ethically and morally from taking care of the child he conceived; satisfied in the notion that an innocent party is forced to do so. The double standard would be funny if not so pathetic.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Though, to be sure, although I have not the slightest objection to child support on principle, I have a serious problem with custody law and with visitation rights as the system is currently set up. There is a whole lot of injustice when it comes to that as well.
So the child will experience no psychological trauma from the fact that his male child support provider resents being shaken down for $1200 a month to pay for some one else's bastard and prays daily that the kid drops dead (along with his mother?)
I think it's awfully cruel to the child to make his supposed father into his enemy at that young age.
Yes, I did for all three but their father never did. Oh, I forgot, he did turn up on our doorstep when they were 18, 16 and 14 (the 14 year old was 6 months when we split) because he wanted to have a 'relationship' with them which I truly hoped would work out. I never bad mouthed him, when they asked where he was I always said he worked in another country. In the beginning they used to wonder why he never sent birthday cards and Christmas presents. I lied, said it was hard for him to mail packages etc. After them met him and spent a week with him they decided he was a jerk. Which struck me as funny.
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.