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."
I likely will, and will make a better effort to pity the children who are so treated. After all, without that pity, they may well enact a vengeance on us all,
But, you, Buddhaboy, will not get over it, whether you feel the peril, or not.
This is a matter of fraud, and the child needs to be introduced to her real father.
This man has literally just had HIS child taken away. Is he entitled to nothing? Why are the hard issues here not placed at the feet of the mother?
This man AND this child are victims here. I dont see why this man is not intitled to his rights.
Basically, all of them.
Then why does he want to punish her?
Dont you just love that phrase?
As if there is no pleasure component in sex for women. Maybe that phrase is descriptive of things we need not know?
Breathtaking.
First Cause is all? But there are many, many causes in this dilemma.
God's judgement is one thing.
The judgement of men, and life, will be on the child, and you are pronouncing it to be one you approve of.
LOL, maybe you should do like I did, and go OCS for a woman.
If women can freely choose to kill their babies (abortion) then men should be allowed the same/similar right. Men should be allowed to sign a "statement of abortion" stating that, similarly to women, "due to the inconvienience that this child will have on my life I hearby abort it and take no responsibility for it forever." Then if the woman decides not to kill her baby she must take care of him or her on her own. Obviously the U.S. Supreme Court will side with the man's "right to choose" so it is Constitutional.
When will NOW start railing for a man's right to choose?!?!
If you can think of some way to get at her without hurting the little girl, suggest one. I like the idea, but nothing creative comes to mind except this civil suit, which is an attack on a child, not the mother.
As for the pain of losing a child, I hope that's what behind this, but I doubt it. Looks like offended pride to me.
He doesn't HAVE to lose her, after all. That's a decision he's made. Perhaps he should go for custody...?
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.
You're right. So what if a child was involved? Will you forgive any fraud if it benefits a child? How about theft and manslaughter? Think! If that becomes the norm, how about the next crook that cons you out of your house, but is let off because it benefited his daughter?
Would you be angry if that happened? Or would "one of the few ones left" hold and console you that you should just forget it, a child was helped?
Lady, your emotive lack of thought and reason is precisely the source of democratic and liberal socialist advances in our culture, and the resulting rot of our legal system, which is supposed to keep the right of all people safe. If people lose faith in the ability of our system to give out justice, our civilization will collapse, and you will be as responsible as if you personally threw the switch.
Does the name Mary Beth Whitehead mean anything to you?
Don't you realize that the chaos producing principles in what you are saying is exactly why men think of women in the way you object to, and the reason many of which want to see the 19th amendment repealed?
The biggest part of the flack you've been getting here, BuddhaBoy lies in the perception that you didn't consider the child a victim as well. Finally stating that outright will perhaps dispel that perception...
the infowarrior
That's obsurd. That women take no part in deciding whether to bet bopped or not is just silly. Yes, men are reckless but women can keep their legs closed. Otherwise toss they guy in jail for rape.
And, women often times choose "bad" men because they want the thrill and excitement. If women choose men of good character we wouldn't have the problems that we have today. The jerks would quickly straighten up because they wouldn't get any if they didn't.
I vote with Dr. Laura on this one...
I would really like you to answer this question, because it goes to the root of the argument here.
The fact that the child will be hurt is not relevant.
The man was the victim of fraud. Does that matter to you or not?
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.