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.
So, after she conceived by other-than-marriage-husband, why didn't she tell him? Then. If they did have a "casual agreement" for her to find active "sperm", she should have let him know. And as a courtesy -- let the "sperm donor" know.
From the article:
The court said Richard Parker should have questioned the blood line sooner -- within a year of the divorce -- if he had any doubts.
I agree. All divorcing couples SHOULD have the DNA checked during the process. This is SMART.
And another interesting tidbit from the article:
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.
I actually know a couple that was barely above welfare/homeless level when they preemptively had a fertility consultation when they had barely even been dating for two months and were hardly even contemplating marriage. It's so simple and cheap to do and the notion that this couple was having conception problems, so they just decided that the man was infertile - as if men in general are willing to casually accept that even when it's true - and then decided that the wife was gonna go out and get laid to get pregnant, without ever consulting a physician, is pure bullsh!t in my book.
And my anecdote above is simply as a point of emphasis; I am hardly basing my view on that. My view is pure and simple common sense. The burden of proof is on the adulterous wife to prove that the husband consented to her little tryst. Or at least it should be in a just, rational world.
According to the article it wasn't a "casual agreement" but that they had mutually sought and agreed upon the donor.
Yes, he claims she lied, she claims he's lying.. you are at a he said she said. He claims that because he impregnated women in the past, that he's not sterile, yet I know if I were going to court and my fertility were at a crux of the argument, I'd have a sperm test from that week to present to the judge, not arguing I got gals pregnant before.
As I said, I don't know what the truth is here... its obvious that one of them is lying. She could have been running around or he could have been in the know all along, and now after the divorce and bitterness of all the fighting had decided to play that trump card to get out of child support, or the very least take that money away from her control.
Both are possible.. you have a he said/she said.. where is the court going to go with this?
Sorry to butt in, but no he doesn't. If there were records proving that the man was infertile, or had even consulted a physician in that regard, then it would hardly make sense for him to claim that he's fertile. If such records exist, then the wife could easily subpoena the evidence, blowing his claims out of the water. Moreover, if they had had concerns about difficulty conceiving, then she should've had some kind of medical records verifying that she had consulted a doctor in that regard.
We are supposed to believe that they so wanted a child that they would arrange for her to have an affair but that they did not even consult with a physician about alleged conception problems??
Goldenberg rejected his claim without wading into the issue of whether Richard Parker had been deceived.
They "wade into the issue of whether Richard Parker had been deceived".
There need not be a record, just because one couple gets tested does not mean another does... sure you would think they would... but does that mean they would have to? Who is the government to say, since you didn't go to a doctor to confirm you have no reason to believe you have fertility issues? Is that the place of the state?? Let alone the judiciary???
The simple reality is, is its not more than a he said/she said.. and nothing in the article gives any credence to one over the other. Now, from a gut situation, sure most folks are going to assume she ran around.. because lets face it, we don't talk about cuckolding, let alone voluntary cuckolding and childbearing in polite company.. but you know what it happens.. and you know what else? It happens, fully voluntarily by couples who aren't infertile either... sure its a minority, but it still does happen.
Seem to argue that they wouldn't got to a doctor, but would find a sperm donor is illogical doesn't wash. It might not be what you would do, or even what most folks would do, but it doesn't mean it isn't what anyone would do. We aren't talking about a case that resolves around what someone would reasonably expect... we aren't talking about some product liability case.
I'm not going to get into personal annectdotes, because you can always find one to back a point, but this isn't about what you would do or someone you know would do.
IF she ran around on her, he's getting the shaft.. if they did indeed concieve through another knowingly just to be able to have kids, and now he's trying to use that against her, she's getting the shaft. There is no "winner" in any of this... regardless of who's telling the truth and who's lying.
Maybe you want to wake up and pay attention.. this isn't a CRIMINAL trial. You are dealing with a civil matter in family court, not a criminal action.
Believing one court is the other is just going to leave you confused.. they are not and never were the same.
True enough, but Mr. Parker needs to 1) find out who the father is, and b) sue the bio-father for back payments and have the court make the bio-father pay child support until the kid is grown. What should be done to the slut mother is another matter entirely.
This path seems like an approach worth persuing.. if indeed he was not in the know all along and was slighted.
>>She said they had trouble conceiving, so she had sex with a ''mutually agreed upon individual'' in order to get pregnant.<<
What's worse? That's she's a liar, a bimbo, or she's stupid enough to think anyone would believe this?
And the simple reality is: based on the info in the article above (and a couple others I just Googled), his story is far, far, FAR more credible on its face than is hers. Period. And no matter how assertively you insist that it's a mere he-said/she-said, as if one cannot judge the credibility of the various statements, it won't make it any more true.
He accepted responsibility under false pretenses. Now I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure fraud is a crime.
AntiGuv, this is not a Criminal trial.. your attempt to portray it as such is crazy.
Its not the courts duty to dig into every domestic dispute that ever existed. End of the day, like it or not, legally if a child is born to a couple during a marriage the presumption legally is and always has been the child is husbands. This isn't something new.
This man didn't challenge his parental role, during the marriage of even during the divorce. Now after he's been ordered to pay support he wishes to reopen the issue... You contend it is the courts role to do so?
She may be lying, but so could he... is it up to our courts to go back and bog down with every charge by every ex over every issue?
This guys if she's lying may be wronged.. but the wronging at the end of the day is financial is it not? He's upset that he's got to pay her... well, the court isn't going to reopen the issue, so he should go as another has suggested, find out who the father is, and sue him for back and future payments seperately of the divorce decree.. he'd likely win provided he can indeed prove that his wife was running around, and that it wasn't a case of find some healthy sperm.
He appears to want to continue to act as a father to this child, given statements in this article... he just doesn't want to give the money to the childs mother... So, he wants to deny paternity, but continue his paternal role? Honestly what is the court going to do??
This is a non starter.
Well then as I said, this guy can now sue the biological father for the money he's shelling out, in a seperate and independent action.
Men who are not the father should be forced to pay child support for a child who is not theirs. Add this to a divorce. Oh, and don't forget the fraud. So, this guy is real hot parent material, don't you think? He's cheesed at his wife, the courts, and some nameless supposed "donor". Yep, just the kinda guy I'd want my kids looking up to as "daddy". Oh, wait, I can let the court solve that problem for me, too. I'll just tell them that he trash talks me to my kids, he's grouchy, isn't on time, and in general is a bad dad. Presto chango, the "father's" visitation rights are terminated. But, hey, keep that money coming.
In your eyes, it's all about the money. Very little has been said here about the boy's relationship with his father. His "father" is now just a check. That's just twisted and sick...and it happens all the time! Paying child support does not guarantee you custody rights.
Amazing as this may seem, civil courts - even family courts - have rules of evidence as well, and remarkably enough, civil courts - even family courts - require that judgments be made.
She may be lying, but so could he... is it up to our courts to go back and bog down with every charge by every ex over every issue?
Honestly what is the court going to do??
Here's what I think should be done. The statute of limitations on contested paternity due to DNA testing should be extended to three years after birth of a child and the option should also be provided upon settlement of divorce and custody with an explicit waiver of future contest if the man declines to contest paternity at that time.
Since this is not the current law, what should be done as someone else put it is that the court should "wade into the issue of whether Richard Parker had been deceived" and make a determination whether or not he was. If it determines that he was, then he should be absolved of child support obligations. That's what I regard as justice and I have little regard for the notion that the courts should not be inconvenienced by justice.
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.