Posted on 04/01/2003 7:00:33 PM PST by Sweet_Sunflower29
The baby boy was born in 1990, and for four years William and Pamela Doran raised him as their own. When the couple divorced in 1995, William Doran continued to support the boy financially and emotionally. But a year later, Doran, of Avoca, got a visit from a man who would leave him with a nagging suspicion.
Doran's wife had an affair while they were married, he learned, and there was a chance the boy he had called "son" was not his son after all.
When a DNA test confirmed that suspicion in 2001, Doran launched a legal battle to discontinue child-support payments. On Friday the state Superior Court ruled in his favor - a decision several local attorneys said will have statewide impact.
The attorneys said the ruling is significant because it moves away from a longstanding standard within the court system that has made it difficult for men to challenge paternity if the child was conceived during marriage.
Pennsylvania courts have long held that a man who holds himself out to be the father of a child can be held financially responsible for the child, even if it is later proved the child is not biologically his. This "presumption of paternity" is meant to protect the child by preserving the family structure.
But advocates of fathers rights have questioned the fairness of the law in cases in which a mother has intentionally deceived a man into believing a child is his.
"It's a huge ruling," said Karen Menone, secretary of the local chapter of Fathers' and Children's Equality, an advocacy group for fathers. "When a woman commits fraud and lies about the paternity of a child, it has devastating consequences. ... Courts have to stop rewarding women for bad behavior."
In Doran's case, court papers say Pamela Doran, now Pamela Smigiel, admitted she was having sexual relations with another man during her marriage to Doran. Doran first questioned if he was the child's father in 1996, and Smigiel assured Doran he was. The truth was not revealed until 2001, when Doran, suspicious that the child's appearance did not match his, convinced Smigiel to allow a DNA test.
Smigiel's attorney, Gregory Skibitsky, had argued that a legal principle known as "estoppel" precluded Doran from challenging paternity because he had acted as the child's father for years, even after his initial suspicions about paternity were aroused.
But Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Chester Muroski rejected that argument, saying Doran's case was different because of the misrepresentations of his wife.
"Had she been forthright to her spouse and explained what she had done at the time of the child's conception, her husband may certainly have acted differently," Muroski wrote. "Unfortunately, her deceit, falsehoods and misrepresentations gave Mr. Doran no reason but to treat the child as his own."
Skibitsky appealed to the Superior Court, arguing Muroski misapplied the law. But the court sided with the judge, citing prior appellate court rulings that have said fraud can be considered when determining whether a father has the right to challenge paternity.
"Review of the record leads us to find that Doran would not have held the child out as his own had it not been for Smigiel's fraudulent conduct," the court wrote.
Doran had also sought reimbursement for the child support he paid over six years, but Muroski denied that request. That issue was not addressed in the Superior Court ruling. Doran has a separate civil suit pending on that issue in Luzerne County court.
Michael Pendolphi, a Forty Fort attorney who specializes in family law, said the decision, while significant, will impact only a small number of cases since it relates only to instances where deceit is alleged, which is rare.
Pendolphi has represented men and women in support issues, and said he supports the court's decision.
"It makes (the system) more equitable. A woman should not receive support from a man who is not the biological father based on her lies to him," he said.
But attorney Arthur Silverblatt, another family-law specialist, said he believes the ruling will hurt children.
"The presumption of paternity doctrine ... was created to prevent innocent children from bearing the stigma of illegitimacy," Silverblatt said. "What this does is open the door for the destruction of that doctrine."
Silverblatt said he understands the concerns raised by fathers rights advocates, but he believes the court's first and foremost responsibility is to the child.
"It's a difficult case, no question about it. One sympathy certainly could be with the father. But if we have to adjudicate where sympathy lies, it should lie with the child, not the parents."
Too late for me, but great news all the same.
That's a tearjerking crock designed to allow con artists to use children as human shields. That's been going on long enough. It's about time the courts re-visited this issue.
Let's have this woman introduce the kid to the real father, who can now start paying the child support. She can also explain to the kid that she hid his real father from him and lied to him all these years because she cared only about herself, and she treated both the child and the former husband as fools to be lied to for her convenience.
The only person done dirty is the child
Excuse Me!!
I feel sorry for the child and the man. Imagine finding out that a child you love is not yours. You still love that child, however if you get married again, should your new wife also pay financially for the BITC#@$ deciet?
When the courts rule that a man must pay or you go to jail, and the same judge says he will not enforce visitation rights, when the c@%& moves to another state with the very pr*%@ that impregnated her. I'm sorry the but the man who believed in his vows is the one that gets screwed.
When that child turns 18 and she wants nothing to do with the man paying for her upbringing, but never could afford to visit her for the very reason he paid out the F#^*&^! as%#* for said child.
No, I personally feel for the man.
If the DNA doesn't fit, you must aquit!
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.