L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.
449 N.E.2d 713, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819, 59 N.Y.2d 1 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's obligation to support their child is determined by the child's needs and the parents' financial means, and is not affected by one parent's fraudulent misrepresentation to the other regarding the use of contraception.
Facts:
- L. Pamela P. and Frank S. engaged in a sexual relationship that resulted in the conception of a child.
- Frank S. was subsequently established to be the child's father.
- Frank S. alleged that L. Pamela P. intentionally misrepresented to him that she was using a form of birth control.
- L. Pamela P. conceded that she was not using birth control at the time of conception but denied that any conversation about contraception ever occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- L. Pamela P. filed a paternity petition against Frank S. in Family Court (a trial-level court).
- The Family Court issued an order of filiation, establishing Frank S. as the father.
- In the subsequent support hearing, the Family Court found L. Pamela P. had deceived Frank S. and, based on this finding, ordered Frank S. to pay a reduced amount of child support.
- L. Pamela P. (as appellant) appealed the support order to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division modified the Family Court's order, striking the defense of deceit as irrelevant and increasing the child support award.
- Frank S. (as appellant) appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mother's deliberate misrepresentation regarding her use of contraception constitute a valid defense to a father's child support obligation or otherwise affect the apportionment of that obligation?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
No. A mother's deliberate misrepresentation regarding her use of contraception has no bearing upon a father's obligation to support his child. The paramount concern in a paternity and support proceeding is the welfare of the child, not the adjudication of disputes between the parents. Under New York's Family Court Act, the court is mandated to determine support based on only two factors: the needs of the child and the respective financial means of the parents. The statute does not permit consideration of parental 'fault' in the child's conception. Furthermore, while a parent has a constitutional right to decide whether to procreate, this right protects against governmental interference (e.g., restricting access to contraceptives), not against the actions of another private individual. A private wrong, such as deceit by a partner, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation that would relieve a parent of the fundamental obligation to support their child.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that a child's right to support is paramount and independent of the misconduct of their parents toward each other. It effectively insulates child support proceedings from becoming forums to litigate the intimate details and alleged wrongs of the parents' relationship, thereby focusing the court's inquiry strictly on the financial needs of the child. By rejecting the father's constitutional claim, the court also clarified that the right to privacy concerning procreation is a shield against state action, not a sword to be used against a private party to evade parental responsibilities.
