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."
Do you really believe that children are as fragile as that? My own father died when I was very young, and I have suffered no serious damage from it.
Children all over the world lose parents in one way or the other,it has happened from the dawn of time, and will continue happening until the world ceases to exist.
Children have a remarkable way of adapting and carrying on, they can and do adapt to life changes and illness more readily than adults do.
With the exception of realizing that a parent is absent from her life, this child is too young to be "humiliated" by what is going on and far too young to realize that it has made the news.
You said it, not me. In case you were unaware, this nation was founded by the rule of law.
When we lose that, we lose the entire nation. If you consider yourself a Conservative, I think you need a nice nap. However, I admire your honesty.
Keep it up, those who want to repeal the 19th amendment will use statements like yours for ammo.
1. The child
2. The putative "Father"
3. The Biological father
The biological father and his child have been robbed of the chance to know and love each other for the first five years of the child's life. A few previous posters have touched on the issue of the biological father - but I would like to point out that this man is the more egregiously wronged of the two fellows. The woman flatly stole his child from him. In fact, "robbed" and "stole" are far too mild terms; this woman, through her selfish and evil actions, has managed to rape three individuals and imperil a child's sense of family and self, damaging her perhaps forever.
Enough has been said about the cuckold; yes, he was wronged - his entire world has just been utterly destroyed. His desire for public restitution from this woman is eminently understandable.
The child is the one who will bear the scars of mommy's lies for the rest of her life. Unless the woman is careful to keep the child out of any court proceeding - which, judging by her past behavior, doesn't seem likely - she will damage the child even further.
Bottom line, it is the woman who is deserving of the slings and arrows of most deserved fortune, and the two men and the little girl who are her victims.
I think that is the ultimate solution, especially for out of wedlock births. In the meantime, any man who is told by a woman not married to him that she is pregnant with his child should demand a test at right before signing anything. A lot of women would be kept honest if the spector of automatic testing loomed.
Suppose a man is unjustly convicted of a crime, and sentenced to life in prison.
While in prison, he is sent gifts and packages from his friends. These people incurred expenses under the false premise of this man's guilt, and associated jail time.
How many of you would deny as part of this man's compensation upon being found innocent and spending 5 years in prison, the cost to his friends of the gifts, the travel expenses for visits, you name it.
Who hear would deny repayment for those GIFTS, in the way that they would deny this former-father reimbersement? I can guess at some of your answers, because many of you fail to address the single fact that every thing that every action that this man took towards that child was done so under the guise of fraud.
But it's a great story, anyway.
Shylock the Jew is after vengeance against the rich enemy he envies--he manages to loan the enemy money with the proviso that he rec' a "pound of flesh" if the debt is not repaid.
Now, Shylock had the law on his side. I'm sure you respect that.
But for every Shylock, there is a Portia.
She is the judge, and agrees with Shylock's grievance, and gives him permission to take his pound of flesh.
Just a pound, no more, no less. And no blood! Blood was not part of the stated contract. If anything is taken not in the contract, shylock's life will be forfeit. Poor Shylock goes away frustrated.
This is because the child knows he was valued. The child generally realized that his loss was not because of him, had nothing to do with a sense of being worthwhile,
There is a theme of repudiation running through this story's loss, of angry rejection.
Case dismissed...
Did anyone think that maybe he REALLY wanted to believe this woman, that maybe he really loved her and trusted her, and then five years later he notices "his daughter" looks an awful lot like his best buddy Roger? Can no one understand the hurt and anger that he must feel? Or maybe it doesn't matter because he is a male and therfor he is always bad/wrong?
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.