Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support (Florida Supreme Court)

Tyrael · #1 9th-February-2007

Quote:

Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support

A Florida Supreme Court case raises fundamental questions about the nature of fatherhood and legal responsibilities.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA.

Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.

Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding," writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.

"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "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."

In effect, the high court is saying it's partly Parker's fault for trusting his wife.

The Parker case illustrates an increasingly contentious debate over the rights and responsibilities of divorced fathers who have been duped and don't challenge paternity at or near the time of divorce. But it also raises fundamental questions about the nature of fatherhood and the legal responsibilities that can attach to a father-child relationship – even when that relationship is the result of fraud and deception by a wife and mother.

Most states have laws that permit courts to order men who have been deceived to continue to make child- support payments even when they have no biological connection to the child. The idea is to minimize any disruption in the life of the child. In recent years, some states have begun passing laws that give deceived dads some ways to fight back.

There are no reliable estimates of how often "paternity fraud" takes place. Some findings suggest 4 to 10 percent of fathers, but no definitive study has been completed.

Unlike most duped ex-husbands in the US, Parker may still prevail in court. Last summer the Florida legislature passed a law that allows men to use newly discovered paternity evidence (like Parker's DNA test results) to overturn a court order to pay child support for someone else's child.

The June 2006 law is aimed at preventing the kind of outcome ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The policy approach taken by the Florida Legislature stands in sharp contrast to the "policy considerations" cited by the state supreme court justices.

Supporters of the Florida law see it as a major step toward justice for deceived ex-husbands. Critics see it as a potential danger to the well-being of mothers and their vulnerable children.

In addition to Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Maryland, Alabama, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona, and Wyoming have laws allowing ex-husbands to overturn a child-support order when deception or fraud by an ex-wife is discovered, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. By contrast, most other states set a one- to four-year deadline for fathers to file lawsuits challenging paternity determinations.

The idea behind the deadline is that any action taken in a marriage breakup should be completed while the child is as young as possible to avoid a major disruption during the most formative years.

"We don't want a system where a child is 10 years old and you have people who come in and undo what has been put in place many years before," says Susan Paikin of the Center for the Support of Families in Silver Spring, Md.

Ms. Paikin says that it is up to the adults in the relationship to thoroughly investigate any paternity issues at the time of the divorce.

But fathers' rights advocates say that few husbands are aware of a paternity deadline and its legal implications. And many have no idea that their wives have been unfaithful.

In generations past such infidelity might have gone undetected. But the advent of DNA testing is changing that. It is giving new momentum to a debate over how best to provide for broken families.

"There is no perfect answer," says Paikin. "There are a lot of people who will argue that it is always in the child's best interest to have a relationship with the biological parent and that should override everything else. There are others who believe just as fervently that being a parent has more to do with being caring and nurturing, and that is what makes you a father."

Part of the difficulty in paternity disestablishment cases is that once the financial contribution of the nonbiological father is terminated, the courts do not recognize a legal right to continued contact between the child and the man.

"It is the ultimate Catch-22 for my client," says Parker's lawyer, Scott Lazar of Miami. "On the one hand he has a relationship with this child and cares about this child and would probably be willing to provide money for this child, but he doesn't want to provide it to the mother to use as she wishes."

Family court judges aren't interested in fostering a continuing relationship between men and the children of their ex-wives, says Carnell Smith, who runs a DNA-testing company and is founder of Atlanta-based US Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. "The court is only concerned about financial payments."

Judges generally view the man in a divorce proceeding as nothing more than a "walking checkbook," he says.

Smith says that instead of targeting deceived ex-husbands, the legal system should investigate the conduct of the wife and hold the mother and biological father responsible for the child they produced.

"In no other area of the law do we punish the victim for the conduct of two other people," Smith says. "For me it is disingenuous for the Florida justices to turn around and say [to Parker] 'Well, it is your fault that you didn't find out sooner.' "

The Florida legislature tried to balance the law to avoid forcing children onto welfare rolls, says Tom Sasser, chairman of the family-law section of the Florida Bar. It rejected a proposal to allow ex-husbands to recover prior child-support payments. It also rejected a proposal to allow triple damages against deceptive mothers. Instead, the law allows ex-husbands to be released from future payments.

And that, advocates say, opens the door for some ex-husbands to attempt to build a trusting relationship with someone new and perhaps start a family without the burden of a court-imposed financial debt hanging over his new wife and children.

Link.

Quote:

There are no reliable estimates of how often "paternity fraud" takes place. Some findings suggest 4 to 10 percent of fathers, but no definitive study has been completed.

Paternity Fraud is seriously a horrendous crime. It's tricking, deceiving men into believing that children are genetically theirs, which actually turn out to be full blown lies.

All men must have the right to know the facts and if children are genetically theirs. Men who don't perform paternity tests won't know for 100% certain if their children are biologically related to them.

The tricked, trapped and lied to men who raise someone else's children are living a gigantic lie. They pour their life's time, energy and money into raising children that are not genetically theirs.
The girlfriends, wives are completely responsible and to blame for deceiving those poor men in such insidious and utterly evil ways.

Men should not be forced to support children in any way if they are not genetically related to themselves.

This is a good comment by MasterofAbyss:

Quote:

"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "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."

Lets see how this quote would work for rape shall we?

Quote:

"We recognize that the rape victim in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "While some individuals are innocent victims of rape, adults are aware of the high incidence of rape and only they, are able to act to ensure that the safety measures against rape they may deem essential are present."

Somehow doesn't seem as satisfying that way i bet.

Rebadow · #2 9th-February-2007

I'm so sick of the "best interest of the child" excuse. Such women exploit this to the full.

"Never mind what I did, think about the child!"

If she was really so concerned about the "best interest of the child" then she wouldn't lie in the first place, now would she?

Such women use their children as their shields, as a ticket out of the mess they themselves created. Such women hide behind their children. Such women fight their dirty fight with their children.

And somehow they're being protected and rewarded for it. I'd like that judge to explain me this paradox. How is that "in the best interest of the child"?

Rebadow · #3 9th-February-2007

As long as "the best interest of the child" catchphrase will be used as a standard, men will lose 10 times out of 10 and women will always win, even tho' they fight dirty.

elzoog · #4 25th-October-2007

Since they are concerned about the possible disruption in the child's life if the father no longer has to pay child support I am wondering what disruption are they talking about? They certainly can't be talking about the father-child relationship since that probably doesn't exist (and in fact, the woman is probably doing everything she can to disrupt it). I think that the only relationship this guy has to the child is one of his banker.

**MikeT** · #5 25th-October-2007

This is just sickening.
Good old mum can't keep her pants on and her ex-partner is made to pay for that fact.
She should be ordered to give the name of the biological father and he be made to pay for the bringing up of their child.
Talk about a one-sided court system and especially one that allows fraud and lies to prevail.
Why is mum not made to get off her fat arse and support her own child instead of ordering an innocent bystander (which is effectively what this guy is) to shell out cash so that she can have a nice time at home?.
Until this sort of thing is addressed, men are always going to get the short end of the stick.

Feminist_Scum · #6 25th-October-2007

Can't believe there are men stupid enough to trust women when it comes to paternity. If I got a woman pregnant, I wouldn't support her or the child in anyway, UNTIL, I got the results back and was sure the child was mine..

I think women who fuck other guys behind a man's back, and then claim it is their child, are disgusting bitches.

YouTube - Maury: 11th parternity test, maybe he's the one?

YouTube - MAURY: YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!

You Tube

Smart men drag bitches to the Maury show and embarass these skanks in front of millions.

themanonthestreet · #7 25th-October-2007

Wow. Considering the cost of living in Florida is pretty damn low, 1200 a month seems a little excessive!

This is where civil court is a must. If you cannot win in standard (or family) court, do it the old fashioned way, sue her. At least then, she will have to publically address who the real father is for starters..

TMOTS

Holywarrior · #8 27th-March-2008

It is crap like this that makes my blood boil. Paying $14400 a year for a child that isn't even yours is bull. It is bad enough that the man was deceived and lied to for 3 years.

yohan · #9 27th-March-2008

Always when the discussion about rape is coming up, I respond to feminists with the crime of false rape allegation.
False rape allegations usually remain unpunished.

What I read here about paternity fraud makes me comparing it with false rape allegation.

Paternity fraud is 'domestic violence' by my opinion.

Paternity fraud should be considered to be a crime, but it is not.

bobx23456 · #10 27th-March-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holywarrior

It is crap like this that makes my blood boil. Paying $14400 a year for a child that isn't even yours is bull. It is bad enough that the man was deceived and lied to for 3 years.

This is another glaring example of why no man should ever allow his name to go on a birth certificate without a DNA test. The more the wife whines about "don't you trust me," the more he needs the test.

Blessings

Bob

bobx23456 · #11 27th-March-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobx23456

This is another glaring example of why no man should ever allow his name to go on a birth certificate without a DNA test. The more the wife whines about "don't you trust me," the more he needs the test.

Blessings
Bob

P.S.

Standard medical process these days usually takes a sample of fluid for lab tests several months before birth. I would be willing to bet that the samples could be used for DNA testing long prior to birth. Its never too soon to kick the lying whore out to the street.

Blessings

Bob

yesterday's Hero · #12 6th-August-2008

Australian courts uphold sanctity of adultery and deceit
It’s official. In the landmark Magill case, the Australian High Court confirmed a woman’s right to commit adultery and to lie to her husband about it. Not to be out-done, the Victorian County Court ruled that the duped husband, not the biological father, must pay for the upkeep of any resultant children. The Australian Family Court recognises this is a shocking truth …. so they have banned truth! It is illegal for a man to obtain a DNA test to establish the truth without the mother’s consent or a Family Court Order. The Family Court can deny permission on the grounds that truth is not in the best interests of the child.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...l%20v%20magill

Garak · #13 6th-August-2008

Quote:

She should be ordered to give the name of the biological father and he be made to pay for the bringing up of their child.

With this idea, she still gets rewarded for lying.

She should be ordered to give the name of the biological father so the court can give him custody while SHE pays child alimony.

Marx · #14 7th-August-2008

Seeing as they 'claim' they (the courts) do this in favour of 'the best interests of the child' (which, we know is bullshit) then I conclude the following protection for men who are proven to be defrauded by having trusted their wife...

Fine, make him pay until the child hits 18 or 21, whatever the court demands.

Then, as SOON as the child hits that age - the mother MUST pay the man back at a similar to what he paid her. And if she does not, then she must face prison just as he had.

They cannot rely on 'best interests of the child' at this stage as the child is now a legal adult.

Simple, no?

shaazam · #15 7th-August-2008

If only young men in the grips of their testosterone driven delusions about wimin could find the time to view the truth of possible outcomes for practising their fantasies - like the peonage orders decreed by the feminits courts

the current legal system for the terms of endearment between men and wimin is a crock of sh....t - er excrement !!!

and yes ! it splatters

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://antimisandry.com/discrimination-sexist-double-standards/dad-wasnt-dad-after-all-but-still-owes-child-support-florida-supreme-court-3836.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
I'm a FATHER not a CHILD SUPPORT check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Topix	This thread	Refback	19th-April-2009 01:33 AM

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ky. Supreme Court Overturns Rape Conviction	Dylan MacVillain	False Allegations	2	24th-August-2008 11:22 AM
Quest to Have Chimps Declared Persons Rejected by Austrian Supreme Court	julie	Fun and Humor	0	24th-May-2008 11:50 PM
Court: Child Support Lawsuit Frivolous	Rebadow	Fathers Forum	1	7th-November-2007 02:52 AM
Florida Man owes $10,000 in support who is not his child.	sir_iw	Misandry.us	4	13th-July-2007 05:42 AM
Bobby Brown Arrested, $19K in late child support and court fees	Tyrael	Fathers Forum	0	1st-March-2007 12:57 AM

Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support (Florida Supreme Court)

Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support (Florida Supreme Court)

YouTube - Maury: 11th parternity test, maybe he's the one?

YouTube - MAURY: YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!

You Tube

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://antimisandry.com/discrimination-sexist-double-standards/dad-wasnt-dad-after-all-but-still-owes-child-support-florida-supreme-court-3836.html

Similar Threads

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://antimisandry.com/discrimination-sexist-double-standards/dad-wasnt-dad-after-all-but-still-owes-child-support-florida-supreme-court-3836.html