Posted on 11/02/2002 4:34:20 AM PST by Libloather
Man Sues After Finding Girl Not His Daughter
Fri Nov 1,10:43 AM ET
MELBOURNE (Reuters) - An Australian man is suing his former partner to recover more than $10,000 he spent on a little girl, for things such as presents, zoo trips and meals, after discovering she was not his daughter, a newspaper said on Friday.
"I want it all back -- every cent for every toy, every blanket, every bit of food," the man, who can't be identified for legal reasons, said.
"I wouldn't have spent all that money had I known five years ago she wasn't my kid," he was quoted saying by the Herald-Sun.
The claims include take-away McDonald's food over five years, four visits to an amusement park, three Barbie dolls, a Pooh Bear play tent, a day of skating, and child support payments.
The Herald-Sun said the man took the action after DNA tests found the girl was not his daughter.
The girl's mother said she was willing to repay the child support payments but that she should not have to pay back anything else.
"She had a good time with him that's the main thing," she was quoted as saying. "I don't think he should carry on too much about it. He should treat it like doing something nice with a friend."
The child is not the man's responsibility, period. Nothing he does towards protecting his rights should be at issue. If the child suffers, blame the mother. She did this, no one else.
So, take one's frustrations out on a child who, heretofore, thought somebody *loved* her. Make a public fool of her, and repudiate innocence.
I wish more "boys" would avail themselves of vasectomies.
It's the woman's fault, so? So, as long as there is a child involved what crimes that damage other innocent parties should be forgiven women?
If a con man deceived you and got $10,000 from you, would you just let the money go if it turned out he did it to feed his five year old daughter? 
There should be better research about vasectomy reversals for those wishing to have children, but these days a vasectomy (and a refusal to marry) can be a man's best friend.
Women, on the other hand, need to get over the idea that sex is something that men have to "pay" for. The mere act of having sex, should not be an indictment of a man's character.
So, you saying that if a man is not virtuous in all aspects of his life, he can be damaged in any manner with impunity? How about you? If I found you had been sleeping around, is it Ok for me to steal your car?
Wow, what a lot of pitless, pouting , selfish boys inhabit FR! Take the baby to court, and sue her for past hamburgers and merry-go-round rides and Barbie dolls, because she rec'd them under false pretenses. I guess I can't argue with that. Maybe I should have stuck to online forums with liberals...at least I could comfort myself with..."They're just leftists. What can you expect from them?"
Hate a cliche, but you're in a fool's paradise. That's exactly what defines a man's character. Anything else defines a boy's lack of it,
What kind of bile are you spouting? Look, there is no need for any dialog between you and I. You are off the deep end, dear.
Society is doomed if your thinking becomes popular. Good grief.
Why? The "father" didn't lie and deceive him for profit and gain. All he did was have sex with the mother that produced a child that she chose to hang another man with. Who's making the choices here with regard to the defrauding of this man?
You're trying to think with your heart and gonads, neither of which have any grey matter, deer.
I suppose it remains fruitless to point out that this child did nothing wrong, and faces quite a painful, life-altering rejection that this public battle will only make worse.
And the pride of one promiscuous, cruel and immature boy matters little compared to that. At least to me. But my idea of a man is likely far different than yours. Thank God I have one of the few ones left.
But honor is passe.
That's the way the court sees it. Welcome back, by the way....
Pookie & Me
It's ridiculous that the issue is seen as one of "balancing" in the first place. If a single parent burglarizes a house to buy toys for a kid, a kid who has done nothing wrong, there is no "balancing" in deciding whether or not the original owners are entitled to their property back. They were wronged in the taking of the property. The thief must return the property or pay the victims for it. It doesn't matter that the theft benefited a kid, that restitution would harm a kid who's done nothing wrong.
Why should the situation be different in the case of fraud? If a man is deceived into thinking that he is the father of a child then there is no good reason for claiming that he still must be on the hook for child support. Even if the child would be "harmed" by the repayment of the funds the man was bilked of, this is not reason to permit the fruits of the mother's fraud to be left alone. Even though the child is innocent, the child will lose money he was never entitled to have, just as if his parents were professional thieves or con-men.
What you describe in Georgia sounds contemptible. The father must prove not only that he didn't know that the child was not his, but that he wasn't in a position where he ought to have known. What the h*ll? In what other fraud case is it a requirement that the plaintiff show not only that he was deceived but that he investigated what clues there were fully enough to ensure that he wasn't being deceived?!
If a child in a supporting relationship turns out to be not the child of the man paying support, the presumption should be that the woman has to show that she did not deceive him into paying support if support is going to continue. Compare: if the computer I sold you turns out to be significantly different than you thought, the presumption should be on me to show that you weren't deceived.
But of course the court will look at these matters differently, in part because children are involved, but also because of the "woman" defense. Yes, she was deceitful, but apparently women have greater legal rights to be deceitful than do men. Men, I suppose, are to be used for providing for illegitimate kids of other men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.