L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 59 N.Y.2d 1 (1983)

CASE: Man tries to get out of child support obligations by alleging that the mother misrepresented to him that she was using contraceptive birth control.

FACTS: Man loses paternity action and is forced to pay child support for a child born out of wedlock. Thereafter he "endeavored to establish that petitioner, intending to have respondent's child regardless of his wishes, misrepresented to him that she was using contraception." The court agreed and held tht 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 overturned the finding and ordered support based more on the general rule (a child's needs and the means of the parents, the allegations concerning the mother's deceit and fraud ahd no relevance to the determination of his obligation to support the child); mother appealed.

QUESTION: Whether a mother's alleged fraud in telling the father of her illegitimate child that she was using birth control before the act of conception should result in an exception to the general rule that the apportionment of child support obligations between parents is to be based upon the parents' means so that the father be required to pay in support only that amount above and beyond what the mother can provide.

FATHER ARGUES: The mother's intentional misrepresentation that she was practice birth control deprived him of his constitutional right to decide whether to father a child (right to privacy as part of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Imposition of child support obligations on him, under these circumstances, constitutes a state involvement sufficient to give validity to his constitutional claim.

COURT SAYS: Affirms appellate division (finding for the mother).

HOLDING: Trial court erred in mitigating father's child support obligations based on the alleged misrepresentation on the part of the mother in telling him falsely that she was practicing contraception and where the father did not himself use contraception. Imposing support obligations on the father based on the needs of the child and the means of the parents in meeting those needs, notwithstanding the mother's alleged fraud, did not violate father's right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

RATIONALE:

  • 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.
  • The Family Court, which is devoted to the best interests of the child, is not a proper venue for adjudicating disputes existing solely between the parents.
  • The father was not denied his constitutionally protected right to decide whether or not to become a child because he himself could have used contraception. What he was asking the court to do is to let him avoid child support obligations simply because another private person has not fully respected his desires in this regard.


T O P