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.
Again, you go back to your personal anectdotes.. which don't prove or disprove anything. Folks who go to others for donations in this way, aren't always looking for public records of whats going on. Again, while you don't like the idea, its not something new.
All you have is opinion, as to a casual agreement... I don't know about you, but any verbal agreement between a husband and wife, is hardly casual... they may not have a written contract, but you try and break one of those casual agreements on anything that you and spouse have agreed to verbally at some point.. and you'll see just how "casual" they are.
Smoky,
I am not saying your wife cheated.. I am saying, you are saying if she did, you are going to throw that relationship with that child, completely away because you cannot control your spite?
You claim you would.. which I find very interesting. If you believe a child you have raised since birth has no connection to you, because of biology after raising you as your own... well that's quite a world view.
I am sorry about the loss of your wife, but the question is hypothetical.. you find out she isn't yours, you are going to walk away from her? That is clearly a casting of the parents sin on the child.
All your other things are really irrellevant... the one thing you did get right is this:
"Yes we are to forgive, but sometimes it's hard to forgive when your face is constantly and intentionally being rubbed in the offense."
And the answer to this is simple, no one said walking in the path of the lord was easy. If it was, everyone would do it.
I find it impossible to believe, in spite of what you write, that if you found out tommorrow your daughter was not yours through DNA, you'd be dropping her off at child welfares steps tommorrow because you would not be unable to forgive your wife and take it out on her. If you can, I can only say the lesson of forgiveness and love have not taken root in your soul.
Obviously since you fail to offer any legal justification for your expert opinion.
".....I know almost nothing, and yet, I know this much, because it's a bedrock legal principle. It's that basic."
The exact point I was making, where is it a bedrock legal principle that a person who is a victim of a crime is legally forced to make monetary restitution to the perpetrator of the crime. Just one legal principle backing this up...please.
"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."
Of course a crime has been committed in these cases, clear crimes. First and foremost we have an obvious case of fraud. Defrauding this man out of $1,200 a month, every month, based on a known lie.
Secondly we have extortion/blackmail. Pay me that money, each and every month or you will have your tax returns held, professional/business and drivers license suspended and if you really balk, I'll have you put into prison until you decide to pay up.
Third adultery is still a crime in most states. Some even have on their books adultery as a felony.
You claim the child needs a father, so I guess any man with working testicles is OK in your book? This child has a biological father. Remember the one this married woman conceived a child with? The father who is also given a free pass not to support the child he helped bring into the world.
Did you not read my reply at all?
A man has no responiblity for a child that is not his unless he claims that responsibility voluntarily and with full knowledge. If I found that the child I thought was mine was not, it would be cruel to deprive that child of their rightful place with their parents. In this hypothetical case, the mother and the guy she cheated with.
There is no relationship with the child to throw away as we would not be related.
Why are you so intent on enslaving the man whose wife cheated on him and defrauded him?
So you'd rather have the child lied to for his entire life and subjected to the resentment that the newly enslaved ex-husband (who is not related in any way to the child) will heap upon him at every thought? Why subject a child to someone who would be praying for the child's death just so he could be free of the unjust burden placed upon him? Why not find the real father and make him support his children?
I have no use for the mother who would do this to her child but you can't turn back time!
No you can't turn back time, but you also can't allow a lie to continue being told once the truth is known.
The child IS years old, NOT seven weeks old!
Irrelevant. If the child is 17 days or 17 years old the answer is the same. They are not related to the ex-husband in any way. The truth has to be exposed.
I would never do that to any woman so the question is pointless.
I have never been unfaithful to either of the 2 wives that I have been with and I will not. I know that neither would have allowed it.
BTW most of the thing post you brought up I agree these lefty women have done great harm to our sisterhood and this nation!
I am intent on nothing, I find your argument that a man would inherently take their anger at a childs parent on that child, and would not have any ability not to do so fundamentally flawed reasoning.
There is the legal world, which is where this particular case lies, and then there is the broader world, which is reality.
You have stated that no person could raise a child that wasn't their own, after finding out that the child they have raised as their own, thinking it was their own, turned out not to be, without turning the anger and resentment they would feel toward the mother of that child onto the child itself... This I have taken exception to... it happens all the time in the world.
Fortunately I can say its not happened to me, but to make a blanket statement that no person could raise a child that wasn't their own in this situation I cannot let stand without contesting. This sort of thing has been happening since humans started walking this planet and will continue to happen as long as we are. It was happening long before DNA and parternity testing... and lots of men have done just that without taking it out on the child.
If you found out your own child was not your own, the one you openly adore, and I am sure love with every inch of your being.. and are capable of dropping her off at child welfare tommorrow, if a DNA test proved something other than what you believed.. and you would be unable to stop from taking out that anger at your wife on that child... I'd say a lot more prayer may be in order.
Today there will be thousands of people around the world I am sure that will find this very fact out... or find out that their loving husband has fathered a child to someone else during their marriage.. However, not all of these discoveries will end in divorce or abandonment.
It is not nice to twist what I said that's naughty John O, I said nothing about lying I said they both had an emotional investment and if that man can dismis that child he claimed to have been in a fatherly way than is he not a phony?
This has nothing to do with his fury for the mother!
people are not throw aways like a meal you don't like!
Why subject a child to someone who would be praying for the child's death just so he could be free of the unjust burden placed upon him?
If this be the case than this man most likely would not love his own child for true love is bigger than us!
Why not find the real father and make him support his children?
I also include that in one of my post!
Dr Phil had a few of these sitiuations and the non bio father still wanted a relationship with the child some would even go to court to main their ties!
This is where the mother wanted to be vindictive because she knew it would her X's
I did not say anger. I said resentment. And I did not say they would take it out on the child. I stated that the child would know that they were resented as a result of the mother's adultery. Children are incredibly perceptive and there is no way to hide such things form a child. Not even bill clinton could lie that well
Now there may be some cases where that would be overcomeable, for instance if the mother repented. However in the case udner discussion the mother did not repent, She is rubbing her ex-husbands nose in her adultery every month and has enslaved him through fraud for the next 11 years. In such a case the man would be resentful of almost everyone, adult or child.
So, again, why do you support this man getting enslaved for something that is not his responsibility? Or do you think he should have the freedom to walk away if he so desires?
Then let me try this again. You propose that the man, who is not the child's father and never was, be enslaved to provide for this child, which is not his and never was. This leads the child to think of the man as his father, even though he is not and never was, essentially lying to the child.
Why would the man be a phony for not wanting to raise someone else's bastard? Why should he deprive his own children of what is rightly theirs in order to proivide for someone he has no relationship with and never did?
This has nothing to do with his fury for the mother!
Agreed. It has everything to do, however, with his right to provide for his own children and to not be enslaved to someone else.
people are not throw aways like a meal you don't like!
How can he throw away something that he never had? The child is not his. It never was his. Unless he adopts the child it never will be his. He is not related in any way to the child. (Is this really that hard of a concept?)
If this be the case than this man most likely would not love his own child for true love is bigger than us!
Love and resentment are not exclusive emotions.
Which is a wonderful thing. But in no case should the ex-husband be forced to maintain any ties at all.
My case is so far removed from the case being discussed that all it does is muddy the waters. There's no gain in dealing with it. (when we get to a bereavement thread vice a divorce thread you can bring it up again)
Today there will be thousands of people around the world I am sure that will find this very fact out... or find out that their loving husband has fathered a child to someone else during their marriage.. However, not all of these discoveries will end in divorce or abandonment.
In every case where the adulterous spouse is not repentant (or the wronged spouse chooses not to forgive) then the adulterous spouse should lose everything except for children resulting from the adultery.
Again you seem to be putting emotions in other peoples minds. This guy isn't trying to get his parental rights terminated.. he just doesn't want to give his ex the money.
You believe that in every situation that the resentment that you believe you would feel would be manifested toward the children. You cast the sin of the parent onto the child...
Your argument makes no more sense than saying when a wife finds out hubbies been running around she's going to take it out on her children with him, because after all they are the product of a lying louse.
People in the real world deal with this every day, and many of them don't hold resentment toward the children involved. Your assumption that they will defacto is quite disheartening.
Fact is simple, anyone who will put their child willingly through divorce is far more likely to harm a child than nearly any other corse of action, other than direct abuse or neglect. Statistically speaking the numbers speak for themselves.
I agree there is no way to hide your emotions to a child, my beef is with your assumption that those are the emotions that are going to be there and projected toward that child or children.
You keep talking about enslaving this guy, yet even if her story is not true.. he has not petitioned for his rights as father to be revoked.. he has only ask that he not have to pay. There is a huge difference. So even in this specific situation your arguments don't hold up, let alone in the general sweeping statements about all folks being bantered by you.
The question revolves around responsibility. You seem to think a child born to a woman during a marriage is not the husbands responsibility.. well legally, like it or not, it is his responsibility, particularly if he doesn't protest it.. which is how it has been since the dawn of law, both natural and man made.
The man very well be hoodwinked into raising a child that is not his own.. however you don't throw away the social law just because you find a counter to it years after the fact. If your wife screwed around on you and you didn't catch it... well you married poorly. You are free to divorce... you can challenge paternity and maybe go somewhere then.. but this case he didn't.. only years later did he... well the court isn't going to go revisit paternity in an already closed case. This isn't criminal activity here, its a civil/family law.
This guy hasn't asked to have no interaction with this child, he hasn't asked that all his parental rights be removed.. all he wants is to not pay her the $$$, by his own admission. You are mixing apples with oranges in your arguments.
This guy wants to recoup his $$$, he can sue the guy who knocked up his wife for it, and then give up his parental rights... Anyone can do this, it won't free him from his child support obligations, but it would legally allow this child to be adopted by someone else... of course it would also mean he would have no right to interact, raise, or otherwise influence the childs life.. which is clearly NOT what he wants.
This guy has remedies available to him, if his goal is to not to personally be "on the hook"... but he hasn't exercised them.
What you believe should happen is irrellevant.. world doesn't revolve around what one person or another believes should happen.
If he still wants parental rights then he should pay support. I don't see him asking for parental rights. Where are you getting that he still wants parental rights? (Did I miss something?)
From the article:
To be sure, Parker said he still wants to help the child. He said he would like to control where the money goes,
I read this as saying he wants to help the kid and if he still pays support wants to control how that support is spent (which is reasonable). But if he doesn't pay support then he has no money to control and no parental rights. I don't see him asking for visitation or anything else. I see it more as a charity type thing.
You believe that in every situation that the resentment that you believe you would feel would be manifested toward the children.
yes. The child would be a constant reminder of the woman's infidelity and the support would be a constant reminder of how the husband was raped and enslaved by the courts. I don't see how such resentment could be hid from a child. Even though the resentment is not directed at the child, the child would still feel the resentment
You cast the sin of the parent onto the child...
I still don't see where you are getting this. I can't impute sin to the child at all. They are as much a victim as the husband was. The problem is that enslaving the ex-husband only serves to continue harming the child
Your argument makes no more sense than saying when a wife finds out hubbies been running around she's going to take it out on her children with him,
Apples and oranges. Her children are still her children even if he was an adulterer. In the case under discussion it's not his child
Fact is simple, anyone who will put their child willingly through divorce is far more likely to harm a child than nearly any other corse of action, other than direct abuse or neglect. Statistically speaking the numbers speak for themselves.
Agreed entirely. That is why I do not believe in divorce except for adultery, abuse or abandonment and the one who breaks the covenant is the one who should lose all
I agree there is no way to hide your emotions to a child, my beef is with your assumption that those are the emotions that are going to be there and projected toward that child or children.
We'll just have to disagree on this point then.
The question revolves around responsibility. You seem to think a child born to a woman during a marriage is not the husbands responsibility.. well legally, like it or not, it is his responsibility, particularly if he doesn't protest it.. which is how it has been since the dawn of law, both natural and man made.
It should not be his responsibility because it is not his child. If he had known earlier he (probably) would have divorced her for her infidelity and we wouldn't be discussing this. But she fraudulently presented the child as his and he believed her. She committed adultery and fraud and yet she is getting rewarded here. Totally unjust
its a civil/family law.
Which has been designed by the feminists to punish and enslave innocent men. And that is the problem. Just because the law says he should pay doesn't make it right.
This guy wants to recoup his $$$, he can sue the guy who knocked up his wife for it, and then give up his parental rights...
And he should. as well as for the death of his marriage. the adulterous guy should be made to suffer unendingly
it won't free him from his child support obligations,
But it should. The child is not his
No. In a just world it would revolve around the truth. And the turth is that no-fault divorce is unjust. Now admittedly my voice alone won't change stuff but the more people I can show the truth to the better the chances of getting it fixed.
If you don't want to stay married for ever, DON'T GET MARRIED AT ALL.
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.