May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:



Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Categories [more]
General (1976)
Lawyer 2 Lawyer (285)
Latest Blogs
This Month's Posts [more]
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Links of Interest [more]
Locations of visitors to this page



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



law-blogs.net


Quote of the Day - The birth thing was just insult added to injury. - Barry Toiv
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo
An Affiliate of the Law.com Network

From the Law.com Newswire

Sign up to receive Legal Blog Watch by email
View a Sample

DNA Proves Husband Is Not Dad, But He Has To Pay Child Support Anyway

Imagine you're married and have a three-year old child, but you can't get along with your wife.  You get a divorce and are ordered to pay $1,200 a month in child support.  You may not like it, but you understand because you want to support your child.

But after your divorce, DNA proves otherwise.

Mom may be Mom, but her child is not yours.  After learning the devastating news, you go to court for an order to stop paying child support.  Let the real father kick in for the child support, you reason.  The courts rule against you, so you appeal all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.  Somewhere along the line, someone has to make sense of this problem.

The Florida justices ruled 7-0 against Richard Parker. The Court ruled Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support.  Parker's child support payments will total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.  Unfortunately, however, Florida has a one-year statute of limitations to prove fraud after a divorce, and Parker didn't file in time.

"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," Justice Kenneth Bell wrote for the Florida Supreme Court.  "We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," wrote Justice Bell.  He quoted another writer 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."

Is the Court saying, "don't trust your spouse?""

Is that the right result?  Shouldn't the biological father pay the child support?

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, April 22, 2007 at 11:23 Comments Closed (0) |
 
Share Link  

 


  Text-Only Site