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 didn't have to, actually. I love my wife very much, and she's not bitter like some. Of course, her parents are still together (37 years), which was a major factor in deciding to marry her.
Let me be clear though, that I consider her a victim of her mother, and that anything this man does to seek redress should not be weighed against any potential impact on the child. If the child is hurt, blame the mom.
I bet they won't all be on it. Even now there are condoms they could use but won't. The man here is lucky that a child isn't the only thing his girlfriend "gave" him, she was sleeping with other men and could have given him any kind of disease instead. He wasn't in a marriage, neither one apparently wants committment.
So what?
Would you let a crook off when he coned you out of thousands of dollars because his child benefited from it? And don't tell it's not the same thing. It is exactly the same. A deceitful woman (crook) coned (lied to him aobut the child being his) an innocent man, causing him to pay thousands of dollars and the only reason he should suck it up is because a child (not his, just like the crook's child would not be your's) benefited and would be hurt if he demanded justice. 
Good for you. You are most fortunate. Me? I went OCS.
For years now, we conservatives have been the victim of every form of legal extortion from liberals in the form of every increasing taxation and regulation. Every argument against this growing intrusion in our lives has been met with one argument:
"IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"
Someone tell me when it became settled law that the rights of children trump the rights of every other citizen? Why are my rights less worthy of protection because I am 36 instead of 6 years old?
Children get hurt, and so do adults, so what is the difference? I almost weep out loud whenever I pay taxes, so where are those rushing to comfort me? I am serious!
Children are just young people, NOT special people. Maybe if we reminded the young ones of that fact more often, we wouldnt be so worried about the future of the country.
They deserve no more or less than we would want for every other person on earth.
We have had that "for the children" phrase used against conservatives for decades now, and when conservatives start arguing under the same premise, it really makes me sick.
Fraud is fraud. Thanks for listening.
That's the thing, Pippin. The child is left with a lying piece of trash for a mother and the former "Daddy" is rightfully outraged. It was the child that was most grievously harmed in this and the fault lies on the mother's doorstep. One can only hope that "Daddy" will still take an interest in the little girl, so long as the mother doesn't benefit financially from it.
That is a good point. I'd not thought of that. The reason siblings are prohibited by law and custom from having children is because of the genetic crippling of the kids produced (one need only look at the families of the old Russian czars). That is harming an innocent child and a direct result of this kind of deceit.
Too bad.
Who says he cant do that? Even if this man were someone who never wanted a child, but did the right thing upon (falsely)finding out that he was a father.
Someone on this thread addressed "a man's right to choose", I think this is something that should become part of the discussion. If women can legally opt out, why cant a man?
You want to see a HUGE change in behavior? Just give men the right to say no to parentage, and you will hear legs snapping shut all over the world.
This guy can literally count the times he took the little girl someplace special in one hand: Once to the skating rink and four times to an amusement park.
I have a feeling that Mom used him as a source of money and threw him a day-long visitation bone once a year while maintaining sole custody of the child. The guy obviously never bonded with the little girl.
That being said, this guy's name needs to be kept sealed by the Court so that the child never finds out that he wanted his Barbie doll money back. You don't hurt kid's feelings that way even if they are total strangers.
You're confused. The ideas you write are liberal basics, and the very antithesis of conservative values which are founded on the taking responsibility for one's free choices and actions. This woman in the story is acting decidedly against those principles, and you are supporting her.
I agree with you, but your opinions (and mine) aren't terribly popular on these threads. It's all about the money, dontcha know...
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.