SERPICO LOSES BATTLE OVER CHILD SUPPORT

 

SERPICO LOSES BATTLE OVER CHILD SUPPORT IN COURT OF APPEALS

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/04/nyregion/serpico-loses-battle-over-child-support-in-court-of-appeals.html

AP

• May 4, 1983

Credit...The New York Times Archives

See the article in its original context from
May 4, 1983, Section A, Page 13Buy Reprints

New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared.

SUBSCRIBE

*Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers.

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

The state's highest court ruled today that a former New York City police officer, Frank Serpico, must make full support payments for his child born out of wedlock, even though he said the child's mother had told him she was using contraception.

The tribunal, the Court of Appeals, determined unanimously that the ''mother's alleged deceit has no bearing upon'' Mr. Serpico's ''obligation to support his child.''

In making its ruling, the seven-member court ordered Mr. Serpico - identified in court papers as ''Frank S.'' - to continue making $945-a-month support payments for his son, retroactive to June 27, 1980.

Appellate Division Is Upheld

Mr. Serpico became known in the late 1960's and early 1970's for disclosing corruption in the New York City Police Department. Today's ruling upheld a decision by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, which said in June 1982 that Mr. Serpico's ''novel theory'' that the woman had deprived him of ''procreative freedom'' did not pass muster under state law.

''Assuming the father's allegation that he was deceived to be true, how does it logically follow that the child should suffer?'' the Appellate Division had said.

The Court of Appeals said that ''the needs of the child and the means of the parents'' were the only things the law required the courts to look at when deciding child-support cases.

''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,'' wrote Associate Judge Sol M. Wachtler for the court. Woman Denied Statement

The court noted that the woman, identified by the court only as ''L. Pamela P.,'' had denied she ever told Mr. Serpico she was using a birth control device.

Judge Nanette Dembitz of Family Court in New York City ruled in 1981 that Mr. Serpico should pay $790 a month in child support, rather than a larger amount, because of the mother's supposed ''misrepresentation'' of her use of contraception.

Editors’ Picks

How Can I Soothe My Stomach After Thanksgiving Dinner?

The Tiny Dancers Who Make ‘The Nutcracker’ Sparkle

How Can I Get the Men to Pitch In at Our Thanksgiving Table?

Mr. Serpico had gone to court saying that because of his claim of misrepresentation, he should pay less than he might normally have been required to. The child's mother appealed Judge Dembitz's decision and Mr. Serpico appealed the Appellate ruling.

While the Court of Appeals and the lower courts did not disclose the names of the parents, Mr. Serpico has talked openly about the case.

A version of this article appears in print on May 4, 1983, Section A, Page 13 of the National edition with the headline: SERPICO LOSES BATTLE OVER CHILD SUPPORT IN COURT OF APPEALS. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe