Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay.
    #5232809 -

It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay 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.BY SARA OLKONsolkon@MiamiHerald.comRichard 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.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/13553455.htm


I guess we need to demand paternity testing at each birth.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: lonestar2004]
    #5234741 -

Yikes...I'm getting my nuts chopped off as soon as possible and I will never get married.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5234821 -

More reason why activist judges should be removed.

Nox


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: Nox1]
    #5235657 -

That ruling doesn't seem right to me. But the appeals court upheld it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: lonestar2004]
    #5235881 -

He should find out who the real father is and sue him.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #5235934 -

That horror has been law for decades. It's because of the child's interest. He should sue the bio father. How's this scenario? Pool boy and lonely wife of really wealthy man fall in love. Have affair. Make baby. Stay in love. Wife divorces rich sap. Gets awarded huge child suppport. Marries pool boy. Neither ever has to work.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5236110 -

Yep...I'm getting my nuts cut off. And if a woman ever claims that she is having my baby I am getting a paternity test the second the little rugrat pops out.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5236121 -

Yeah, that's the problem. He acknowledged the kid as his for too long. Day one test and no problem.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5236388 -

zappaisgod said:
Yeah, that's the problem. He acknowledged the kid as his for too long. Day one test and no problem.



I guess facts don't matter.

Does this logic train of yours apply to death row convicts who at one time admitted guilt and were later exonerated by DNA proof?

Nox


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5237656 -

But he was lied too. I don't think her case should have held up in any court. The biological dad should have to pay.


--------------------

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: barfightlard]
    #5238172 -

I am commenting on what the law says. I was aware of this before both of you were born. It is not news to me. I also know why the courts take the stand they do. It's for the children. A status most of you are barely out of.

Nox1, your analogy is asinine and you seem to think I expressed some support for this law. I do not. But then again I don't much like children. I'll clarify for you. If the guy had not supported the child for five years and immediately done a paternity test he would have been able to dump the whore and her child without fee. The delay is what put him on the hook.

Bellylard, to reiterate, I do not support the law even though I can understand the reasoning, which is something you do not seem to be grasping. There are three people involved in this, not just two, and courts tend to weigh very strongly in favor of the "interests of the child" no matter what adult is getting screwed. As to tracking down the bio father and getting the money back civilly, I think that is a strong case. Fucker's probably a total trailer park loser though.

My personal position is fuck whores and fuck their children. Then again, I would make abortion mandatory if you can't pass both a means and a fitness test. If the guy doesn't want to adopt and pay he shouldn't have to and the cunt and her spawn can go to the shelter. One more tiny little burden on the welfare society vs a huge burden to the poor unfortunate jackass who married a whore without the sense to get an abortion.

Nox1 Facts do matter. The "fact" here is that the law has been thus for quite some time and the reasoning behind it is clear, whether you are aware of it or not. This gets trotted out on a regular basis. Lesson for all men, get a vasectomy and you'll never be burdened with child support. Or children for that matter, the horrible little shits.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5238935 -

zappaisgod said:
Lesson for all men, get a vasectomy and you'll never be burdened with child support. Or children for that matter, the horrible little shits.



I thought that you had a daughter that you spoke highly of?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5239293 -

Quote:
zappaisgod said:I am commenting on what the law says. I was aware of this before both of you were born. It is not news to me. I also know why the courts take the stand they do. It's for the children. A status most of you are barely out of.



If this is true ... the courts are biased. I seem to remember something about justice being blind ... not biased.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:Nox1, your analogy is asinine and you seem to think I expressed some support for this law. I do not. But then again I don't much like children. I'll clarify for you. If the guy had not supported the child for five years and immediately done a paternity test he would have been able to dump the whore and her child without fee. The delay is what put him on the hook.



Okay ... children don't matter to you. As a parent legally married to the child's mother ... it is readily expected that the husband is the sire of the child. Seems to me that the fellow didn't begin to have doubts until the child didn't look like him. This isn't like the movie Jim Carrie made, 'Me, Myself, and Irene'. The way I read it ... he did do a paternity test when the doubt arose. Kinda like "new evidence" in the case of a convicted felon. You seem to ignore this fact with a brush-off that he should have had a paternity test at birth. Maybe that will become of thing of the future ... but the purpose of marriage is to legitimize children ... and has been since marriage licenses began.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:Nox1 Facts do matter.



No. Facts matter not in this case.

You seem to be intimately familiar with the law being discussed here. Would you be so kind as to provide a link so that I might peruse it myself?

Thank you in advance.

Nox


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: Nox1]
    #5241010 -

Shit like this pisses me off to no end.  And I'll stop right there.  :grin: 

Before I say something I'll regret later.

There really has to be a point where men put an end to this crap...


--------------------
Every mistake, intentional or otherwise, in the above post, is the fault of the reader.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: Nox1]
    #5241118 -

Quote:
You seem to be intimately familiar with the law being discussed here. Would you be so kind as to provide a link so that I might peruse it myself?



I don't know if/what law this is, but I have seen it over and over in the courts. It happens the exact same way every time... the man looses. The courts feel it is more important that a father provide money for a child regardless of the biological connection between the father and the child. If you take on the roll of a father figure, the courts can (and probably will) require you to continue being a father figure, regardless of anything else, including biology, lack of anatomy, or being misled/lied to by the mother.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5242643 -

RandalFlagg said:
zappaisgod said:
Lesson for all men, get a vasectomy and you'll never be burdened with child support. Or children for that matter, the horrible little shits.



I thought that you had a daughter that you spoke highly of?



I do. I'm crazy about her. But parenthood wasn't my idea, I didn't think it was possible, didn't like her mother much by then, and it wasn't what I wanted to do with my life. That being said, I fully accepted my responsibility and embraced her with the most love I have ever had for anyone.
I would never recommend having children to anyone. It is an awesome responsibility that should be avoided by most people.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: It wasn't his child, but court says he must pay. [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5245355 -

> I would never recommend having children to anyone. It is an awesome responsibility that should be avoided by most people.

If more people thought like that, the world would be a much better place to live.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court Legalized Child Porn.
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 5,235 31 06/08/02 02:59 AM
by Anonymous
* roll call... do libertarians support child labor?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Anonymous 8,937 126 08/27/04 10:11 AM
by silversoul7
* Iraqi children exploited by U.S. soldiers/commanders Zahid 2,159 10 05/02/04 02:47 PM
by Divided_Sky
* GW Bush is disappointed that same-sex marriage wasn't banned
( 1 2 3 all )
daussaulit 6,434 56 07/28/04 08:23 PM
by Zahid
* Supreme Court to hear 'Pledge' Case
( 1 2 all )
afoaf 2,728 26 10/16/03 07:03 PM
by afoaf
* How can 42 thousand children be killed legally? Zahid 1,838 17 09/08/04 12:17 AM
by Xlea321
* Anti-Drug War superior court judge becomes Libertarian Party
( 1 2 all )
40oz 1,457 20 09/10/22 01:30 PM
by alien-hybrid
* Are you willing to send your child to war? LearyfanS 696 9 03/18/03 08:20 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,036 topic views. 2 members, 76 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.