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."
Yes, but not at the expense of the rights of another human being.
This child's interests are not be default more important then the man's interests. I know how harsh that sounds, but when you start placing the interests of some over others by matter of age, you open up every right in society to interpretation by condition.
Our Constitution is a very harsh, unfeeling document. It does not proscribe rights to some, and not others based upon age, condition, race, or excuse. This child is just one of many victimized by fraud.
You dont make a crime go away, buy allowing it's victims to just "put some ice on that", but essentially, that is what people are suggesting this man do.
re:"Will you forgive any fraud if it benefits a child?"
I have veered from this question because it is far too open-ended. I really don't understand it, but I'll try . No, I wouldn't forgive any possible, hypothetical fraud one can dream up just because it benefits a child. That is not the case in this story.
re:The fact that the child will be hurt is not relevant. )))
Oh, you are *wrong*!
The man was the victim of fraud. Does that matter to you or not?
Flesh and blood are not to be transacted like football tickets. If you try, you'll cause waves of pain which will eventually knock you over with their force. The man was a victim of a cruel deception, but he is not without responsibility. The human heart, and the flesh that surrounds it, is a precious commodity (since your rhetoric prefers the market). Demean it, and it will demean you. This is what adults must face in dealing with other adults, if they seek maturity. The man tried to have something on his own terms, and was disappointed. My sympathy extends to the point of buying a lemon of a vehicle, which isn't too far. I sense your sympathy extends much father.
If you prefer the laws of market and jungle, I'd like to point out that you'd better have a signed contract at the beginning-- and none is possible here, nor should they be possible, in the dealings of hearts and flesh.
It is not the mother who is being sued. It is the child. It's her toys and amusements (the time they spent together in affection) which are begrudged and are being demanded in tribute to a bruised pride.
If you can get your mind off the guy's feeling cheated for a moment, consider that a child's sense of worth is her everything, for the rest of her life. There's more important things than a defrauded ego.
Now, a real prince of a fellow would at least try to be the Honorable Uncle to a child he loves. She really needs the help, and he was willing enough at one time.
When the Liberals were saying "it is all about sex", did you agree with that?
We conservatives need to be more consistant than that.
Check your freep mail.
This is NOT true, he asked for REIMBURSEMENT for the COSTS of the items from the MOTHER.
Mom and daughter will pay for it at some point, though maybe not monetarily.
I'm not wrong, and I think you should examine your conservative credentials.
There is no passage in the Constitution that says: "Oh, by the way, we suspend all these rights, if some child is going to be hurt by their protection."
We we are equal, then we are ALL equal. Young and old alike. The impact on the child is not relevant to the discussion, no matter how harsh, no matter how tragic.
True. But a vast majority of these cases involve a man getting involved with a woman who already has children. Therefore he enters the relationship with full knowledge of the situation.
This is far different than the fraud illustrated in this current story.
I never said anything about women not taking a part in it, but only that men can protect themselves by keeping their manhood zipped. Do you disagree with that? If so, then call that absurd rather than attacking me for points I didn't make.
And, women often times choose "bad" men because they want the thrill and excitement.
So what? All many men want is a piece-o-butt and don't care what kind of woman they get it from. Yet when it turns out that the kind of woman they just "conquered" is a man hater who wanted some baby making sperm or a woman who wants a man with more money then her soon to be born child's father has, they act as if they're the victims. The question is, how long does this have to happen before men wise up and face the fact that their concept of manhood is being used against them?
LOL, you've just proven my point.
This little girl no longer has the emotional support she once enjoyed from this cretin...and yes, his decision is entirely a money-issue. He wants every penny back that ever spent on her...including the food he provided...an immature response from an equally immature male.
In my opinion, she is much better off without this human refuse in her life.
True, thank God. But for five years this man beleived the little girl was his daughter. How does that go away so fast? Not to mention the fact he wants all her toys back, so he is intentionally hurting her too. I suspect like others do that there is more to this story.
It's about the fraud and deceit and the willingness to forgive the perp because a child may be hurt.
I wonder how many of you so-called conservatives see anything familiar here to some of your comments?
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.