Attention, divorcing fathers: According to the Florida Supreme Court, you may be on the hook for child support payments even if you find out after the divorce that the child is not yours. A January decision by the high court forces a man whose former wife misled him about their child's paternity to continue support payments as though the child were biologically his.

Michael Anderson has been mistreated twice -- first by his former wife and second by the legal system. Michael Anderson and Cathy Anderson got married after Cathy Anderson was already pregnant. Michael Anderson was told that the child she was carrying was his. After they divorced nearly three years later, Cathy Anderson reiterated that the child was his biological issue. However, within months of the divorce, Michael Anderson had a DNA test performed on himself and his child. The results excluded him as the father.

In a just world, Michael Anderson would have been set free of his support obligations and reimbursed the funds expended toward the responsibility he was defrauded into shouldering. Cathy Anderson would be facing at least a civil suit, and the state would be assisting the child in tracking down his or her real father. But that is not what has happened. Anderson's petition to be released from child support payments was denied by a 4-3 decision. The majority ruled that Michael Anderson wasn't defrauded because there was no evidence his wife knew he wasn't the father.

Well, she must have known there was a possibility he wasn't.

As the dissent written by Justice Barbara Pariente suggests, "a husband who asks his wife a direct question as to the child's paternity has the right to rely on the affirmative response of his wife that he is the child's father." If she is lying or misrepresenting the truth, then he should not be held to any child support agreement or order.

This case is more disturbing because Michael Anderson proved the child wasn't his within a year of the divorce -- the amount of time the Florida Supreme Court gives fathers to challenge paternity. But, incredibly, the court's majority found that because Cathy Anderson's assertion did not constitute fraud, Michael Anderson didn't qualify for that window.

The ruling means that any divorce lawyer worth his salt will be advising male clients to get DNA testing for their children before a divorce is final. Children experiencing the divorce of their parents go through enough turmoil and heartache. Now, because the legal system is looking to sock men with support obligations even for someone else's children, the children of divorce will also have to face their father questioning their relationship. The high court has misstepped here, and children will suffer because of it.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page