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.
John,
I see nothing in the article that says this guy is petitioning the court to terminate his rights.. which in fact would not involve the woman at all.. she need not be in a courtroom or even involved directly.. You as a parent want to give up your parental rights, you do so in a legal action that would not involve any of this. This guy has not asked for his legal right of father to be revoked, he's asked not to have to pay. HUGE difference.
He can have his parental rights terminated at any time if he so choose, it wouldn't release him from his child support obligations, but it would release him entirely legally in all other manners from having any involvement or say in this childs life... He has not, and nothing in this article suggests he desires to do this. He just doesn't want to give her the money.
Now, if his goal is to remove himself of responsibility, surrendering of his parental rights could be done at any time.. and the financial burden could be passed on to the biological father through simply suing him for the money he is required to pay. So yes, technically he will have to spend the money, but he wins his case against the guy who actually impregnated his wife, the money is really coming from the biolgical father with this guy acting as a middle man.
Petitioning the court to have your child support removed is not a hearing to surrender parental rights... thats a wholey seperate matter, and would not involve the wife at all... Its basically saying I no longer claim any legal responsibility going forward for this child.. because the payment order is already there it does not go away, but he would no longer have any say in this childs life legally, and it would be free to be adopted. That's not what's going on here.
"And he should. as well as for the death of his marriage. the adulterous guy should be made to suffer unendingly"
Well just a little reminder..
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,
but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written.
Vengeance is mine;
I will repay, saith the Lord.
For one who proports to Christian teachings.. you seem obsessed with behaviors and actions that clearly bely those principles.
agreed. any woman that cheats and has a child and lies to the husband is reserved a special place in hell IMO. Besides politicians, serial murders, and rapists there aren't much worse examples of human beings
Not obsessed. I just have a very strong respect for marriage and a desire to see our institutions protected. If we protected our families by making those who attack them (such as adulterers) suffer then we'd see far fewer adulterers breaking up our families. What you subsidize you get more of. Right now we subsidize adultery
Now when Jesus says that we (as individuals) are not to seek vengeance He never says that our society is not to punish evil doers. In fact His word says that the sword is given to the ruler to execute wrath on the evil doer (Romans 13:1-6).
Your statements in this thread have not been about justice or punishment. Desires to make folks suffer for their sins for the rest of their days is not justice, nor is it punishment.
You and I are not the ruler... and I'd say that's fortunate for all.
Unfortunately, your story -- growing up without your loving father and because of your mother's decisions -- is something I've also spent many years' involvement with.
You've neatly described the classic "divorce wars using children as pawns"; and in this case, you were not free to celebrate your joy with your father for fear of retribution by your mother.
Thank you for sharing your story. I fervently uphold the view that children do best with both parents, mother and father. A child gets to experience the truest form of "diversity" in such a household.
When I was a child, my parents did not have such a great marriage. At that time, the liberal mantra was that to raise children amid a "less than perfect marriage" was unhealthy for children -- and that if the parents didn't truly love each other, they were raising their children in a "lie".
My dad's response to such bilge was: "What overeducated boob thought that one up? Where's my wallet?"
And my mum's response was: "There is no such thing as a perfect marriage -- you make what you have work, and work for your family."
What did I and siblings learn from this? "Don't sweat the petty stuff, it'll be over and done before you know it". And my siblings and I are each yet in long-term first-time marriages.
Being raised in such a household, and with both parents refusing to buck and be seduced by modern "conventional wisdom" is what encouraged siblings and I to recognize and stand by our core goals and beliefs. And to not consider our pledged-before-God spouses as "disposables" - subject to our moods and phases in life.
At this point, no doubts, some person will blithely pop into this post and ask: Oh Yeah? What if DOMESTIC VIOLENCE was involved!
Oh My! The Dire, die-by-a-bloody-hanger question.
If someone is so inclined to ask: I suggest you don't.
How can anyone NOT see that the ready-divorce-culture IS domestic violence - is beyond me.
The problem is, IMHO, the courts are still suffering from being behind the times, tends to grant far more credence to females -- suffering yet from that ole' misnomer that "women never lie". I do think that's at crux of what this article is about. Obviously, the husband did not suspect the child wasn't his until after a statute of limitations ran out.
But as an asidem, I find this "statute of limitations" most curious, especially in light of recent rulings that a woman can file past rape charges many, many years after a "rape" occurred. No statute of limitations, there.
And it is also occurring with regard to "child molestations" in the private and religious sectors.
However, again, curious -- that TEACHERS in pub ed, can molest the underage and merely get their hands slapped. Females muster the largest demographic in the rape and teacher categories. A Roman Catholic Priest is not male or female -- in the eyes of the church. Curious tho', all these alongside "rulings", to me.
I'm sure you are aware that Mary did inform Joseph about the "unborn babe".
She did. And he agreed.
The mother in the article's case did no such thing.
Depends on the crime. For murder, adultery, rape, I'd say that it is both justice and punishment.
You and I are not the ruler... and I'd say that's fortunate for all.
Thank God for that. I'm woefully unqualified. Run way short of mercy and react far too quickly. I guess that's why God made me me and not king.
How can these child advocacy groups and even judges say it is in the best interest of the child to continue to be monetarily supported by a frauded party? The truth is what is in the best interest of all parties involved. When I take my children to the doctor's office, the physicians want to know a family history of disease and abnormalities. What good would it be for me to tell the physicians about a paternal history that is a lie?
And that is the problem. Rather than tell him the truth she tried to enslave him to pay for the results of her sin.
Rape and Fraud are two different classes of crime.. just as murder and embezzelment are. Both are crimes, but they are not the same.
I see no point in trying to fight the gender war, men have been wronged by women, women have been wronged by men.. and either one of those parties holds animosity toward the other....
This judge didn't set the statute of limitations for various crimes, the legislatures did. To throw this on as evidence the courts are inately biased based on gender is neither accurate nor fair.
Now you wish to get into child molestation, simply put, as far as I am concerned, those crimes should be placed into the same classification as murder, and subject life imprisonment or death if convicted. However those are not the laws, and the laws are made by the legislatures, and the legislatures in this nation are by and large made up of men. It seems unbelievably curious to me that such hatred of the male gender has been codified into law as some grand conspiracy by a bunch of men.
As a matter of law, that goes back long before this nation existed, a child born to a married woman is legally viewed as the child of the father.. whether or not biology makes that true or not. Now, what do you suggest? That every child born be required to be DNA tested for paternity by the state, before fatherhood is granted??
I find it amazing that folks here are really suggesting that the government should be jumping into all this mess. This guy may be getting screwed, but you know what, the potential for this comes, and has always come when you say "I DO" at the alter...
Pleanty of men have abandoned there wives and offspring over the years for other women, or for other reasons.. hardly is being wronged by a spouse somehow a territory of exclusivity to men.
Here, you and I most certainly disagree. Murder is QUITE different from rape and molestation. The murdered haven't even the chance to tell their story of heinous mistreatment.
When the feminists began their rant overlong past that Rape was somehow worse than murder, I began counting my fingers to be sure they were there at the ends of my hands.
The bogus, conniving, ridiculous, absurd reasoning that rape is somehow THE SAME as MURDER is as ridiculous a statement as asserting that "water also runs uphill".
The original "hate crimes" putative test case, IMHO, was when "rape" was accepted publically as seriously as a "murder".
Absurd.
As a matter of law, that goes back long before this nation existed, a child born to a married woman is legally viewed as the child of the father.. whether or not biology makes that true or not. Now, what do you suggest? That every child born be required to be DNA tested for paternity by the state, before fatherhood is granted??
No, actually, you are not quite clear on this concept. If indeed ANY child born to a wed couple is considered as the "offspring" of each of the spouses -- why then is child custody, in divorce cases, handily, if not automatically granted to MOTHERS in over 80% of all cases?
And no! I am not at all for "mandatory" DNA testing of offspring.
I find it amazing that folks here are really suggesting that the government should be jumping into all this mess. This guy may be getting screwed, but you know what, the potential for this comes, and has always come when you say "I DO" at the alter...
This is ALSO NOT true. All a single mother need do is put ANY MAN'S name down as "father" on most forms at most hospitals -- and leave the rest to a rigorous DA, in nearly all states. Usually then a "mandatory" DNA test come into play upon orders by a rigorous DA ("deadbeat dads bureacrats").
One doesn't need to "wed" the woman in order to be on the receiving end of a summons to pay child support for up to 18 years, if not longer. California is especially rigorous in these matters.
Up until recently, the courts, upon orders as you correctly in post assert as merely following orders of the legislative body, did not have the DNA process -- and many men were simply found "GUILTY BECAUSE WE LACK A PROPER METHOD FOR ASSERTING VALIDITY of woman's claims". Perhaps this is the "marriage" umbrella you are thinking of in your post to me. Back when DNA tests were Unavailable.
Problem is, one didn't need to be "married" to the female claimant in order to STILL BEAR the burden of "financial responsibility" for the child. He, single, just needed to be named by the mother as the "father".
The ultimate He Said/She Said argument. No wonder so few women enter the sciences. It just perhaps doesn't "work" for them.
I don't think my mother realized that she was a bully and very controling being...
everyone walked around on eggshells around her including grandma her mother!
At the time I did not realized it just my mission was obedience, but it hindered my freewill and courage and she had blinded my mind to cope in the world with out extreme take on things either a church mouse or when angry did not express myself in an authoritative matter but in an immature way, so for years I just exsisted with out purpose!
I had very little contact with children my age only during school time, and was keeped by the yard most of the time I had nothing to compare notes with for I was forbidden to discuss what went on in out family!
It was not until many many years later this was idenifies as abuse it never entered my mind I just thought it was discipline.
I will always thank Dr Phil for giving insight to this!
His type of program can give people awareness and one should follow up with a counciling with a theraphist who believes in God!
She seems to be bipolar most of the time angry and should she be pleasant sometimes one tread carefully for fear she might go off!
Today she has disowned me which she threaten when I was around 4 years old it is a sickness which she is not capable to recongized!
She is like a hit and run driver or one with road rage!
I think this is where the rubber meets the road an if you are a person who strives to walk with the Lord and this situation occures in your path that your child was not your blood are you going to say all bets off?
or would you be one in anguish who had this unconditional love for this child, and how were you going to deal with the mother without making the child feel unwanted and asure them they did nothing wrong?
Little children minds can not process things like adults all they know they were involved an so it must be their fault!
So who are you John O?
The guy who feels enslaved?
You know Joseph was not the bio Father to Jesus yet he had unconditional love for him!
Are you that stupid? Mary told Joesph. She didn't lie and say it was his. What do you suggest. Tell the child a lifetime of lies? If you want to protect the child tell them the truth of what Mommy did and that it was not the child's fault. I think you would be surprised by what children can understand if presented the facts. Children are not stupid.
I was not rude or unkind here go somewhere else to vent your anger I have a choice to whom I will play with and it is not you!
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.