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.
$1200 per month is far more than it costs to raise a child.
I can't imagine spending that kind of money to feed and clothe my kids; even including medical care, unless there are some extremely extenuating circumstances. I'd bet that most of this money is not going to the kid. This business of making the man pay child support for a kid that's not his is wrong. He had nothing to do with this; it's the woman's bad decision, let her live with it.
No it isn't. Are you going to then suggest that at the moment of birth, the husband accuse his wife of adultery by demanding a DNA test to make sure the child is his? There is such a thing as trust in a marriage and if he has no reason to suspect his wife of adultery, there would be no reason to suspect the child is not his. Of course he's going to accept it as his; it's the only reasonable thing to do. But that is not the same as adoption. That is accepting a child that you KNOW is not yours as your own. In this case, the husband didn't know and could not make a fully informed decision.
No, he already accepted responsibility by accepting the child when he was born as his.
But now that you are at it, yes, he should think of the consequences of marrage, and he should think of his wife's character before he marries her.
Wow...this paragraph is so ironic it hurts.
If he has any doubts that he is the father, yes.
And if he doesn't doutbt it, but it proves to be true? That's too bad, the rights of the child to have a father superseed his right to live a comfortable life free of reponsibility.
It really boggles my mind, people that say they are pro-life because they believe the child has rights, yet don't seem to think it has any rights in this case.
I'm in a different situation that this guy is. My wife passed away in September. Prior to that, for the last 5 years or so, she never had opportunity (health reasons etc) to be unfaithful and never had the slightest inclination that way. We are both strong Christians and know that marriage is for life and that adultery would result in the adulterous party losing everything. So I never had any doubts that my daughter is mine. Of course she looks like me too.
So under the circumstances I'm in I could never reject my daughter, she's the only piece of her mommy I have left to hold on to.
Under different circumstances, like if my wife was not Christian and thus had run around on me and divorced me (or I divorced her for reason of adultery) and I found out that the resulting child wasn't mine, yes I'd disown her. Why lie to the child and subject her to that.
Interesting view of Christian principles you have there. Casting the sins of the mother onto the daughter....
I would not be casting the mother's sins on the daughter. Just recognizing that I have no relationship to the child. Lacking a formal adoption I am merely an unrelated person living in the same house.
And where did Jesus say that we are to raise someone else's bastard? The parent has responsibility to provide for the child. If I'm not the parent then I have no responsibility (other than the general "take care of widows and orphans" one).
Or where did Jesus say to subject people to our (natural) negative feelings when we didn't need to? Yes we are to forgive, but sometimes it's hard to forgive when your face is constantly and intentionally being rubbed in the offense.
What part of altruism is blinding you from differentiating the legal and social definitions of fatherhood?
Has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. There are no adoption papers in this case
It really boggles my mind, people that say they are pro-life because they believe the child has rights, yet don't seem to think it has any rights in this case.
And this gets right down to the heart of the matter. Where does the constitution give the child's mother the right to enslave the unrelated man to provide for her child? This situation is exactly the same as if I went after you to provide support for one of the fatherless kids here in Indiana. The child has rights. But the child has no right to this guy's money as the child is not related to this guy.
There is no relationship whatsoever between this child and the woman's ex-husband. None. Does the child need a father? you bet. Do we have any constitutionally valid way to force this guy to be that father? No way.
If the woman wants support for this child she needs to locate the biological father and get it from him. Her ex-husband is not related to the child and should not be enslaved to support a child that is not his.
I know at this point you are going to claim that it's his because he accepted it at birth. We know that the child is not his and that he was defrauded into believing it was his. If he was not defrauded he would have divorced the slut for adultery back then. Once the fraud was discovered he acted to rectify the situation.
Grow up son sometime life deals us a weird situation.
After all it is not the childs fault this man to him has always been daddy and if the man truely love that child how could he turn off his emotions now?
True the BIO father should be tracked down and have to support his child, but we also have an emotion investment by both immediate parties.
If your generation had a knowledge how things function before 1960's there were more people who had good traditions that could create stability in families.
But both your generation and mine are stuck with manipulation from the left it seem now have completely accomplish what they set out to do!
It not man vs women who gains by this breakdown, surely not, it is because we as a people have slothfullly let those who hate this country get into leadship positions.
I use the word slothfully because not many of us take the time to know the values of our traditions they were not put into place to restrain us, as much as to protect us as community where more would make choices that would benefit all, not just the fleeting moment of pleasure!
I had a hunch you'd respond that way.
Figures.
Talk is cheap dearie!
That child from the time he was born only knew that man as his daddy...and there is an emotional investment here, that should not harm the child.
I have no use for the mother who would do this to her child but you can't turn back time!
The child IS years old, NOT seven weeks old!
I haven't read anyone saying that. You are twisting this around and because you can't argue this on its merits/demerits. You are changing the nature and scope of this thread. And because it suits your agenda.
I am already an adult. And I weigh my options in life very seriously. Right now that law and courts are set to favor women to the point that false accusation by a woman is enough to send a man to prison for the rest of his life.
That does not count child support laws and no-fault divorse court rulings that turn good men into wage slave who spend the rest of their lifes living in a one room apartment at a deadend job with 60% of their wage garnished to go to ex-wife (another 30% going to taxes), all the while the ex-wife teaches the good men's children to hate him.
I'd rather die than be put in that living Hell.
Like many men, I will chose a peaceful way to destroy this corrupt system by not getting married, not having children and turning the system into an upside-down pyramid, causing the system to collapse in on itself.
When RoeVWade was forced on Americans, the privacy of the American females was invaded and intruded upon. Her children became, effectively, matters of importance to the State. Whereas, they weren't, once upon a time.
These changes brought us the Nanny state.
When no-fault divorce was wrought by feminist legal beagles, the State entered, invaded, and intruded upon the marital bedroom.
And the powers of individuals to conduct their lives were forced into the hiring of lawyers.
When the law dictates that a man MUST provide financial care for his children after a divorce, it behooves the man to be certain those children are HIS.
Feminists brought this about through all their legal wrangling. and they don't like the negative side effects. But bad laws always bring negative side effects and results.
Perhaps had the mother informed the non-bio father immediately that the child was not his, other arrangements and understandings could have been worked out.
But instead, she's using the force of law to extort monies from the "putative" father. The father in best recourse, must also resort to using the courts and law to defend himself.
The child will survive as those who discover they are adopted usually tend to adapt and survive.
This is not a life "ending" event for the child. Is it painful? Yes. Will it cause the child to question his "parents", yes. Will the child wonder why his bio-father had no interest in him? Yes.
Ultimately, if the child is raised with decent logic and reasoning abilities, he will wonder why his mother philandered and put him in this position.
Yes, fathering is more than "sperm". This has always been so, and throughout all time. But in the age of continual activist courts and laws and more damned laws with regard to children and marriages and divorce, more harm will accrue to children, than otherwise. With only the lawyers benefitting. They get more clients, and more money.
Your position seems to suggest that the non-bio father should live a lie JUST to make things "easier" for the child. This is not a position an honorable man takes. And the father IS a role model for his children.
Some posters continue to wish to bliss on by the actual point of what has caused the disruption and suffering in this child's life -- his own mother.
And what kind of role model is she for her child(ren)?
I'll wager dollars to donuts, the non-bio father loves the child. Asking him to disrobe his honor and for the pure intention of a "feel good" philosophy, is abusive.
wow calex59, you sure are not a part of the folks who agree to disagree!
There is such a things as providence even though it seems not fair that person and this child some how were thrown togather and so if we are believer than should not for the sake of the situation do the right things, I think one would be blessed for it!
And saying unkind things are you not allowing your heart to harden?
Of course calex59 you have freewill you can do the letter of the Law or the worlds way, or you could choose to do the will of the Heavenly Creator and do the rigth thing?
The father I remembered was kind and gentle the one that was returned to me was submissive to my mother as I was submissive to her will!
Before the rift I had a father who I know befriended me, and taught sweet things in those tender years, that was omitted I could never have the same relationship with my father for fear of my mother would be mad if I showed my joy with my father!
So it is easy to think child will adjust all that happen is it get suppressed until one is in there later years in the mean time this does have an effect all through ones life even though they can't identify it until one day hits them between the eyes!
Did your wife have an emotional investment with the child?
Did the child call and think of you wife as mother?
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.