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.
For the most part, courts say the bonds of matrimony trump biology.
Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?
And women wonder why men of gen x and gen y are not getting married.
What total nonsense. The courts are telling all fathers to get a DNA test at birth and/or at divorce. This is crap. Let the unfaithful sluts pay for their own offspring.
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.
Lets face it, the courts change their mind depending on which way the hormones blow. In this day and age, testosterone stocks are worthless. Boys are darling pawns until they hit eighteen at which point they become worthless in the eyes of just about everyone, execpt men over 17 years of age. There is no equal protection under the law for men.
I disagree. I don't think the lack of money is suffering. Maybe if the child say the consequenses of being unfaithful we he/she finally got married they would remain faithful
The non-father should be a $ 1200 month meal ticket for the kid's mother who happens to be a slut? Want to guess how much of that money is spent on the kid? Find the actual father, make him pay the kid's support, and jail the mother for 90 days for perjuring herself during the divorce proceedings with respect to paternity.
This is a horrible precedent. It just gives the green light for women to cheat....now they know men will have to pay regardless.
Horrible, horrible law....
But why should the husband be the one to pay for his wife's mistake and the real father's mistake?
The court ordered this man to pay for a kid not his. Why should he? Because the kid shouldn't suffer? By that logic, I guess I have to start paying for the kid down the street whose father left--I mean, the kid shouldn't suffer.
AKA It takes a village to raise a child.
Yep.
There's a backlash to be sure. Actually, there's a growing backlash movement!
But, we must ask the question:
Was the child, regardless of parentage, denied the right to vote in the 2000 Election?
Was this child disenfranchised???
This happened to a guy in Texas too
*gulp*
Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?
_____________________________________________________
An unmaried father only has to support a child IF the mother is also unmarried. So if you want a child you don't have to legal support, find a lonely married woman.
we Texans have some bad judges.... -not like that one in Vermont that sentenced a man, who had been raping a little girl for 4 years to 60 days....- but we do have bad judges.
She should be found guilty of fraud and grand larceny as well as compelled to identity the actual sperm donor for compulsory remittance to this defrauded husband and future child support. Were equality the aim in this backward "Roe v Wade" world, if she told him she was pregnant and refused to abort he should be freed of his obligations. If he didn't know, he should have a case based upon her fraud and interfering with his parental rights. (All assuming he is not otherwise unfit e.g. chronic drug abuser, child molester, etc.)
Adults should *NEVER* escape with such repulsive fundamental betrayal of a spouse simply because a child might find out the truth!
Men have no rights to reproduce (can't stop abortion of his child or destruction of his frozen embryos), to not reproduce (can't avoid child support if egg donor chooses life regardless of whether he was defrauded), or to be held harmless for any reproducing his lawful wife has engaged in (even if he's not the biological father).
Males, even children, are sexually abused and the law gives their female perpetrators a pat on the head and the victim gets an "Attaboy!" and pervert's wink from the court. Just look at the teacher/student cases with children from 9 to 13 in recent months, sometimes with abuse going for well over a year.
This is defacto proof the feminazi movement has never been about equality but rather always been about domination.
"People who depend on the courts for justice are fools."
Feminazis love these dumb antiquated laws ... just shows how corrupt feminism and feminazism are. If modern DNA technology proves a woman to be a damn liar, cheat, adulteress they don't what to know about it. Especially if it'll hurt her cash flow
DNA testing is used in all kinds of cases these days except for paternity when it will kill her and her child's (not his!) income stream from her cuckolded ex.
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.