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.
Follow the money on this one. It's all about extracting cold hard cash from the dupe. From the duped ex husband or ex boyfriend
ex-wife Margaret Parker
judge Renee Goldenberg
professor Joanna L. Grossman
judge Carole Y. Taylor
professor Theresa Glennon
activist Andrea Moore, Children First
Generally I am sympathetic to men in these situations, although I do understand the reasoning behind the law. And the wife's claim that this was by "mutual consent" seems a bit bizarre, but I suppose she could always produce the lover to give some testimony on that. However, this ex-husband sounds like a real dope, "all little kids look alike", the 90 year old women clued him in to the truth, from a photo, he's "impregnated" women before (where are those children? sucked down sinks, or is he supporting them too?) so I don't have much sympathy for him.
Don't you wonder if her divorce lawyer *knew* the child wasn't his and helped her craft a strategy?
Didn't fool the old woman though!
The lesson to all men appears to be this: demand paternity testing at each birth.
So the ex husband is stupid therefore he deserves to be stolen from for the next 15-20 years by the cheating ex wife and her child by another man. Reward conniving female cheaters at the expense of dumb? naive? trusting? men
Has it really? I don't suppose you have a list or know where I might find one. I'm really curious because I didn't know this type of thing had been negated anywhere. I assume what you mean is that some states have passed laws stating that non-paternity absolves the man of child support payments?
Stupid people too have a right not to be victimized and defrauded.
*Duh* They're all liberal feminists?
Agreed on all points. Paternity tests are widely advertised on radio down here, South Florida. They pitched to these exact situations. Trust but verify these days
That's not reasoning: it's rationalization.
However, this ex-husband sounds like a real dope, "all little kids look alike" ... he's "impregnated" women before (where are those children? sucked down sinks, or is he supporting them too?) so I don't have much sympathy for him.
Huh? You're a woman, aren't you?
>>>Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?<<<
That's unequal treatment under the law - unconstitutional.
So why should a man be made to suffer because of the sins of a woman? If a man is *innocent* of the charge of fathering a child, why should he loose a significant chunk of his paycheck for someone else's act? It is insane and immoral to me that a man should have to pay for another man's actions.
And what about his *true* biological children? Do they not loose part of their quality of life from their father's reduced income? Why should they have to suffer?
This is the ONLY place in US law where a person has to pay the penalty for another person's crime. Disgusting.
As far as the child in question goes; it is his *mother's* responsibility to either locate the true biological father or provide for her child on her own. (My mom did it.)
Heck, the Libs have a fit about the idea of forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want. Where does the rights of the child trump the rights of the mother in *that* situation?
The problem is that society has changed, and men and women are whoring themselves at rates that were unimaginable 100 years ago.
Bastardy is no longer a social barrier. So, reversing this doctrine would have a kind of logical consistency to it given the overall deterioration of the morals of society, but I am not commited on whether this would be a good thing overall or not...
The duped husband ought to go out and find the real father and take it out of his hide.
Whether any other pregnancies with other women ended with live children, miscarriages or abortion is irrelevant to the ex-wife's fraudulent behavior.
You understand the reasoning? It's founded on highly outmoded philosophy for a modern world of "equal rights" and DNA.
On one hand legal opponents are saying "too bad" because the child will be traumatized. On the other hand legal opponents are saying "too bad" because he should've said something earlier regardless of the child. It's nutty.
Has it really? I don't suppose you have a list or know where I might find one. I'm really curious because I didn't know this type of thing had been negated anywhere. I assume what you mean is that some states have passed laws stating that non-paternity absolves the man of child support payments?
Recent court cases show a lot of hope (Maryland Ohio and more) With new laws being passed and precedent setting cases being decided in the duped man's favor
Thanks! Looks like a lot of info on that page.
It might be possible for him to hire an investigator to attempt to locate the guy but how is he going to the man to offer DNA for paternity testing, get her friends to cooperate to find this fellow, etc. The law is not on his side. Worse, five+ years on she might not know who the guy was or he might be deceased.
A sperm-donor that actually screws the recipient.
Riiiiiiight.
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.