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.
I didn't deny there were some differences, I merely asked for a substantial one, there still isn't from what I can see.
Fatherhood is a lot more then sperm donation.
Your comparison ("So, a man has sex with a woman who says she's on the pill but isn't. I take it you would say he's not reponsible for any kid that might be created?)" has two people willfully engaging in sex and creating a child, which they ARE responsible for. It is false because it lacks at least one critical element, a third party.
When you enlist, a contract is signed. I assure you, people get out all the time because they did not get what was promised in the contract.
BTTT
i concur...
This guy could be a total innocent in all of this. He can always appeal to a higher court. He needs to go in with proof that he is infertile. I certainly would not just sit back and give up. It is not right that the courts insist he pay child support for a child that is not his unless he represented the child as his after the divorce.
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.''
If this is true why in the world did he wait so long?
The child obviously thinks he is his father. Imagaine the hurt and confusion this little 7 years old is going to feel when all of this slips out.
Anyhow, end of transmission.
i agreed with the original poster to whom you posted the above... however, i do not mean to say that the duped guy deserves the ruling he got... but i simply do not have much sympathy for him... i think the ruling itself is wrong...
Ah, but he wilfully accepted the child as his own. He could have asked for a paternaty test when it was born, or before for that matter, he didn't.
In the other case, he specifically didn't want children, and didn't want to take responsibility for them, but ended up having to because the woman lied to him and said she was on the pill.
How is that 'fair'?
It's not. Life isn't always fair. But sometimes, there are more important things then fairness. Like children needing their fathers.
So, the way to save the family is to separate the bond between a child and the man who was his father.
Interesting.
Why? The DNA says the kid's not his. It was represented by his wife as being his. She CHEATED on him and LIED to him.
It is not right that the courts insist he pay child support for a child that is not his unless he represented the child as his after the divorce.
This is true IF AND ONLY IF he really thought the kid was his. Now that DNA proves the kid is not his why should he be defrauded into paying for someone else's child?
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.''
So the rule is if you get away with the fraud for a moment your victim has to pay for 11 years?
The child obviously thinks he is his father. Imagaine the hurt and confusion this little 7 years old is going to feel when all of this slips out.
And it will slip out instantly the first time the guy sees the kid. How will he feel anything towards the child other than resentment. The child becomes a painful and blatant reminder that his wife, who swore vows to him, cheated on him and played him for a fool. No matter how much the guy tries to hide it this resentment will show up. The kid is better off with this guy out of his life entirely.
Apples and oranges. I don't know about the law, but it out to say that both parties assume responsibility for protection against pregnancy. If she lied, he's still responsible because he did, after all, do the deed.
The Mother and the Father should legally be held responsible for the welfare of the child. At least let the assumed Father off the hook for any future payments. What he did for the child in the past you can call langinappe.
What part of the man not being his father are you having trouble understanding?
What part of father does not equal sperm do you not understand?
Yes, he did the deed and thus assumed responsibility.
Just like, in this case, he accepted responsibility for the kid when he was born, even if he was lied to.
Her story, while not being implausible, is nothing but what she said, she offers no proof, where is the guy she says is the father? He could clear this up if what she says is true. Meanwhile HIS story has more truth to it than hers, his DNA is not the childs, he is not the father. We dont' know the truth but the fact that his DNA doesn't match the childs lends more credence to his story than hers, until she produces the "real" father and he backs her up. She is using unamed sources just like the MSM. This is not the first case where a man has had to continue paying child support for a child he found wasn't his after the fact and this type of thing is a gross miscarriage of justice and fraud perpetrated on the false father. Oh, BTW I hope his clears up your misconception that I didn't read the article, maybe you should read it again and try to piece the truth together. His story carries more weight than hers, IMO.
It's going to come as a shock to you but guys want a child who has their DNA. Men can adopt, men can mentor, but men want children with their blood. Paying the freight for a cheating spouse's baby does not fit the bill. It should be totally the man's option about whether to financially support that baby-child, many will. But the legal system should not be putting a gun to his head
If the divorced man remarries and has some biological children, those children will be cheated by him having to support a child he was lied about, who shares no blood with him
Are you insane?
Ideas are not 'facts' because they appeal to your vanity. How the hell do you know if she's 'hot', and what makes you think 'plain' women are any better these days?
Him claiming he's not the biological father, doesn't give his story any more credence. She's admitted he's not the biological father... and according to someone else, they know who the father is.
Of course if the biological father backs her story, then all these guys here claiming the womans just a cheating liar, are going to say that this guys just a cheating liar as well sleeps with the wives of other men behind their backs and gets away scot free for it.
No matter what you do in this, you are left with a he said she said.. the biggest way to undermine the story would be for the man to show he's not infertile TODAY.. and claiming you got someone pregnant years ago doesn't do it... Like I said before, if I knew my fertility were in question, I'd have the test done very recently to present.. not play the.. well I knocked up a broad before.
The only thing that is honest is the last sentence of your post... that being his story carries more weight In Your OPINION... because that's all it is, an opinion.
This woman may very well have been running around, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. Of course, if she's telling the truth... while this might not be a topic that is discussed at dinner parties... its not the first or last time that's ever happened either.
For millenia a guy could claim the woman was a whore and deny the child was his... and the woman would have absolutely no way to prove it.. .and many a girl wound up in trouble and alone because of it. Then paternity testing helped end that.... however paternity testing alone does not negate hundreds if not thousands of years of legal precidence. If a woman gives birth and is married, legally it is presumed to be the husbands. Have guys been screwed by this? Sure..
Life isn't fair, never was, never will be. End of the day, at least from the info in this article, there is nothing more than he said, she said. If this guy is so wronged, he should go after the biological father and sue him for the money he's got to pay his ex... he'd probably win, if what he is claiming is true.... of course if its not....
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.