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.
Consider what the ramifications of your position - it's better to have a child whose father knows he isn't the father continue payments for 15-20 plus years? And the non-father is expected to be happy about this? And keep it all a secret? I will grant you there are a few saints out there, but given the acrimony of the average divorce, I daresay the average stuckee will end up taking it out on the child sooner or later. And all the while the actual father who should be the "bad guy" in all this, is what, snickering away in the corner wihtout responsibility or blame?
In a perfect world, or at least one far, far better than this one, your answer might make sense. In this one, I disagree.
He has not petitioned the court for termination of parental rights... he just doesn't want to be paying his ex. Has he said he wishes no further contact? No rights to make decisions relating to teh childs life?
There is a HUGE difference between asking to no longer pay child support, and having your rights as a parent terminated.
If he was cuckolded, that truly sucks for him.. but in case you missed it LIFE AIN'T, NEVER WAS, AND NEVER WILL BE FAIR. He wants alleviation of the financial burden, he should further sue the guy who is the father for damages... then the whole issue of whether it was a running around, or a voluntary and known impregnation will be decided by the courts... and he can be made whole financially.
The biological father should be responsible, unless he has a signed document showing that both of the married partners consented to him impregnating the wife.
The courts are completely bonkers. Common sense has gone out the window.
Who said that? Make the mother and father pay, it's their responsibility for the child being born.
But I guess it's easier, as in this case to: Make ANY man pay, they're all so male.
Yep, that's my whole point; the husband accepted the child as his under false information. Adopting a child that's not one's own is going into such a situation with eyes wide open. That's not the case here.
AntiGuv, this isn't really directly aimed at you but it seems to me that most of this thread has really missed the point.
Being a 'Dad' has nothing to do with biology. We don't really know if Mr. Parker is still or has ever been a Dad to the child or not. Certainly, if he has been and wishes to continue to do so that is laudable but not really what I see as the point here.
This is about fraud and money. If she committed fraud then she should be liable for that. If the fraud was committed in order to gain financially, then there should be some financial consequence.
Perhaps an answer would be for him to continue to pay child support and to continue to enjoy visitation rights, but to recover from her an equal amount as damages due him because of the fraud.
To me that is different. If a man knows it is not his child and assumes responsibility by marriage and quasi-adoption, an argument could be made for child support after divorce.
I completely agree with you that being a 'Dad' has nothing to do with biology, and I'm sure I'd feel I was a rather awful person if I raised a son as if I'd sired him and then ditched him just because I found out I wasn't the biological father (although the mother would surely be bounced out the door ASAP!) For that matter, I am hardly some paragon of virtue and have plenty of things to regret about my own conduct over the years.
But my ultimate principle in all this is that responsibility sits with those who are in fact responsible. Above all else, I see no justification for making him accountable for his ex-wife's adultery and for another man's child if he was the one deceived and violated in all this. If he chooses to take part in the child's life anyhow then I'd say that is great and commendable, but he should not be forced to do so if he is not even remotely at fault for these circumstances.
And finally, if a man doesn't want to be a dad in such a situation you can't very well force him. At most you can force him to be a wallet - and a rather surly one at that. If he's responsible, then he should be accountable anyhow, but if he's not, then force the one who is responsible (the adulterer) be the accountable one. I've always taken responsibility for my own actions and find it perplexing that anyone would argue that this guy should be accountable for the actions of others.
You've passed two bar exams and you don't know about the principle I was speaking of?
Good grief, remind me never to let you argue a case for me. I'd rather a competent lawyer.
Yah, except for the law is literally hundreds of years old, back from before women could even vote.
Hey smart guy, I wasn't claiming to be a legal expert, and if you paied attention, you'd realize it.
The point of pointing out that I've taken two pre-law classes was to say the exact opposite: I know almost nothing, and yet, I know this much, because it's a bedrock legal principle. It's that basic.
And like several others before you, you are yet again assuming a crime is being committed. It's not. This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and everything to do with a child that needs a father.
What the heck are you talking about? She has no less responsibility for the child then the father does.
Why should her husband have to pay for the child?
Because he took responsibility for it, and the child needs a father.
Why not make the child's father pay?
Because he's not the child's 'father'. He's the seman factory that was used. There's a lot more to fatherhood then that.
Well, it hasn't done that for the hundreds of years it's been in place, so your arguement is rediculous.
You are missing the point. I'm not talking about who's sperm created the child, I'm talking about the actual father. There's a lot more to fathers then sperm donatioin.
"To me that is different. If a man knows it is not his child and assumes responsibility by marriage and quasi-adoption, an argument could be made for child support after divorce."
It's not different!
Did you even read what I posted?
Explain to me why my comparison is false. You haven't yet.
It might well be, but a child is involved now, and he didn't do anything, and still needs support.
Life isn't always fair. You don't always know all the consequences and details of the decisions you are making. That's life. It doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities.
Again, back to the example you may have missed. What if a man has sex with a woman who says she's on the pill but isn't? Since she lied to him, should he be absolved of responsibility since she lied?
Here's another example: Military recruiterd WILL lie their a%%e% off to get you to join. They do it all the time and nobody who's ever been recruited that way will tell you anything different. Does that mean you should be able to walk out of the military any time you want? Of course not. You made a decision, as imperfect of one as it was, and now there is something larger at stake.
Yes I did.
The difference is the man in the article was lied to, it was not his child he was supporting. In the other scenario the man knows it is not, but assumes responsibility nonetheless.
"Again, back to the example you may have missed. What if a man has sex with a woman who says she's on the pill but isn't? Since she lied to him, should he be absolved of responsibility since she lied? "
The difference in that case is that the child would in fact be his child.
It don't have a damn thing to do with a case where the child isn't that of the man being forced to pay.
I think most everyone else in the world can see a difference, you seem to be lost in a world all your own.
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.