L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1983 |
| Parties | , 449 N.E.2d 713 In the Matter of L. PAMELA P., Respondent, v. FRANK S., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The issue on this appeal is whether a father, whose paternity of a child has been established, may assert, as a defense to his support obligation the deliberate misrepresentation of the mother concerning her use of contraception. We agree with the Appellate Division that the mother's alleged deceit has no bearing upon a father's obligation to support his child or upon the manner in which the parents' respective support obligations are determined. The order of the Appellate Division, 88 A.D.2d 865, 451 N.Y.S.2d 766, should therefore be affirmed.
Following a hearing on the paternity petition, Family Court made an order of filiation, having found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is the father of petitioner's child. Thereafter respondent endeavored to establish that petitioner, intending to have respondent's child regardless of his wishes, misrepresented to him that she was using contraception. Although petitioner conceded that she was not, at the time of conception, using any form of birth control, she denied that any conversation concerning contraception took place.
Family Court, 110 Misc.2d 978, 443 N.Y.S.2d 978, found that petitioner had purposely deceived respondent with regard to her use of contraception and that this wrongful conduct should weigh in respondent's favor in determining the parents' respective support obligations. Thus, the Family Court held that the general rule that the apportionment of child support obligations between parents is to be based upon the parents' means would not be applicable to the present case; rather, it held that an order of support would be entered against the father only in the amount by which the mother's means were insufficient to meet the child's needs. *
The Appellate Division modified Family Court's order, striking the defense of fraud and deceit and increasing the child support award accordingly. Noting that the only factors to be considered by Family Court in fixing an award of child support are the needs of the child and the means of the parents, the Appellate Division held that the father's allegations concerning the mother's fraud and deceit had no relevance to the determination of his obligation to support the child.
Although at one time the objective of paternity proceedings was merely to prevent a child born out of wedlock from becoming a public charge, it is now well established that the appropriate emphasis must be upon the welfare of the child . The primary purpose of establishing paternity is to ensure that adequate provision will be made for the child's needs, in accordance with the means of the parents.
This overriding concern for the child's welfare is reflected in the provisions of article 5 of the Family Court Act. Once paternity is established, section 545 requires the court to "direct the parent or parents possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means to pay * * * a fair and reasonable sum according to their respective means as the court may determine and apportion for such child's support and education, until the child is twenty-one". Thus, in determining the parents' obligations to support their child, the statute mandates consideration of two factors--the needs of the child for support and education and the financial ability of the parents to contribute to that support. The statute does not require, nor, we believe, does it permit, consideration of the "fault" or wrongful conduct of one of the parents in causing the child's conception. The purpose of the paternity proceeding and the imposition of support obligations being the protection of the child, the Family Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, is simply not the proper forum for adjudicating disputes existing solely between the parents.
Responde...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.A.M. v. R.A.W.
...(Cal.Ct. of App. 2 Dist.1980), and L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 88 A.D.2d 865, 451 N.Y.S.2d 766 (App.Div.1982), aff'd 59 N.Y.2d 1, 449 N.E.2d 713, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819 (Ct.App.1983). Since the issue is one of first impression in this state it requires a policy determination. In making that decisio......
-
Thomas S. v. Robin Y.
...adequate provision will be made for the child's needs in accordance with the means of the parents (Matter of L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 59 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819, 449 N.E.2d 713). Thus, both in considering whether to grant a filiation order and, alternatively, in considering whether t......
-
Doe v. Coughlin
...618, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, supra; Matter of L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 59 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819, 449 N.E.2d 713; Crosby v. State of New York, Workers' Compensation Bd., 57 N.Y.2d 305, 311-312, 456 N.Y.S.2d 680, 442 N.E......
-
Kass v. Kass
...most biological parents to support their offspring, regardless of how they were conceived (see, e.g., Matter of L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 59 N.Y.2d 1, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819, 449 N.E.2d 713). Even assuming that the wife at bar intends in good faith to bear all of the expenses of child-rearing on ......
-
The Constitution and the rights not to procreate.
...(58.) Id. at 685 (emphasis added). (59.) Id. (emphasis added). (60.) The New York Court of Appeals' decision in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 59 N.Y.2d 1 (1983), gestures at this reasoning. There, the Court rejected reliance on the contraception cases as giving a father a constitutional right t......
-
§ 1.03 Dating Claims
...Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 2582 (Cal. App. 1979). New York: L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 88 A.D.2d 865, 451 N.Y.S.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982), aff'd 59 N.Y.2d 1, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819, 449 N.E.2d 713 (1983). [166] Fournier v. Lopez, 5 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 2582 (Cal. App. 1979).[167] L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.......
-
Procreative rights in assisted reproductive technology: why the angst?
...that the signed consent forms of the parties indicated their dispesitional intent to avoid procreation); see also Pamela P. v. Frank S., 449 N.E.2d 713, 716 (N.Y. 1983) (explaining that although the father has a constitutional right to avoid procreation, this right does not relieve him of h......