Man Sues After Finding Girl Not His Daughter

Yahoo News ^ | 11/01/02

[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."

[scholar]

I'm not talking about the adults in this, I'm talking about an innocent 5-yaer-old girl who only know that the man she called "daddy"

Bless You--that is the only issue that is important here!

[2timothy3.16]

Thank you.

[F.J. Mitchell]

You poor pathetic, myopic, incapapable of empathy, critter. Maybe it would make you happier if this guy who thought he was a father but went ballestic upon finding he was not, were given the authority by law, to order that this five year old child be post birth aborted as punishment for the damage to his petty, punkish, barely-existant self esteem.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Agreed, but please see my post #230

By the way, Pippin thought the guy was taking his gifts back, which is not the case.

[Route66]

"There are no "buts" to Conservatism. Not for Family, not for anything. No exceptions. When you find exceptions in the
Constitution, please let us know."

I did not place a 'but' anywhere in my explanation. I think morality and love of God and family are at the heart of true conservatism. Our founding fathers made it clear that the system of government they set up would only work as long as we were a people restrained and guided by God's internal moral compass.

It has been the shutting down of that compass that has left us lost and drifting as a nation and has pulled apart the most important and powerful institution in a healthy society...the family.

There are a lot of things that are supported by law but which are still morally wrong. I have said that even though Australian law may allow this man to sue, it does not make him morally right to do so.

If you do not agree that morality in human family relationships means anything then we will never have any basis for agreement.

[2timothy3.16]

Men have got to face the reality that their concept of manhood being defined by how many women they nail is being used against them, but it seems none are willing to do so.

Some do, not many I would agree, but some. My sons were raised to save it for marrige. Wasn't as difficult as some would think, we simply talked about self respect and respect for the girls they dated, and about respect for the girls parents and most of all, respect for God and His Word.

Many times I asked them this "Do you really think the Lord allowed Himself to be spit on, dragged around, whipped, nailed to a cross, ripped open with a spear and cast into a cave so that you could sleep with every little tramp out there?"

[Jaidyn]

You are right on. As I stated earlier, the article left too much to speculation. Some have assumed the couple lived together when perhahps there was only a one night stand. Perhaps the mother told the daughter the guy wasn't the father. Maybe the woman found another 'father' for her child. None of us know and it isn't fair to assume anything since all circumstances are different. Society and especially the courts tend to lump all situations into one and invariable someone gets hurt or treated unfairly. As expensive and time consuming as it may be, each case should be judged on it's own merits to have a favorable outcome for all concerned.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

So are you telling me that all children who have divorced or seperated parents turn out with emotional problems? Do they all suffer terrifying side effects? Can they never bond with another parental figure? Do they all turn out to be horribly, emotionally scarred adults? If this is a fact, then I need to see the hard data on it. My great-neice has adapted quite nicely and absolutely loves her step-daddy. Her father abandoned her when she was 4 and I have yet to see any "side effects" to it.

This child will adapt and live a quasi-normal life (as much as she can with a mother like she has), like any other 5 year old would.

[F.J. Mitchell]

And your Interpretation is shared by the likes of Usama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Rulers of earth's worst hell holes.

Law without conscience is worse than Anarchy.

[Monkey King]

each case should be judged on it's own merits to have a favorable outcome for all concerned.

All concerned except for the woman who destroyed three lives?

[WarrenC]

Yeah. Some solution.

But of course the problem with your response is that Jimmy Swaggert's unhappiness resulted from his disobedience to the teaching of Christian sexual ethics. If he had followed Christian teaching he wouldn't have been crying. So your Swaggert reference supports my point, not yours.

[reformed_dem]

Something like this happened to my brother-in-law. He was helping raise his son, who it turned out, was not his son. He agonized over it for a while, thinking he should just walk out. I told him, you ARE his father, maybe not biologically, but you're the one who's been there for him, raised him, loved him. It's not fair to him if you leave. He's done nothing wrong. He agreed and stayed in his life. Unfortunately, not long after this conversation, my b-i-l was killed in a car accident.

[Jaidyn]

Ok, not a favorable outcome but a fair one. The woman, if she knowingly deceived the guy should pay or even go to jail for a few days to think over what she did. Deliberately hurting a family, to me, is worse than being mugged by a stranger whether it's against the law or not.

[Mamzelle]

How very sanguine. I rest assured. OK, let's get Barbie's Dream House on ebay and send the proceeds to Daddy Dearest without delay/

[Monkey King]

And your Interpretation is shared by the likes of Usama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Rulers of earth's worst hell holes.

Buddhaboy had to go, and while he certainly does not need my help to defend his positions, will you permit me to pick up this gauntlet?

I don't think the comparison between a poster on this thread and various Shariapalooza rulers is apt. I also don't believe we ought to be talking about "interpretation" of law. That comes perilously close to the "living" constitution some Ivy league blowhards keep mumbling about. The constitution, as the law, endures; and as such, it's penalties are mutable only to the extent that they are expressly so.

Did this woman break the law? If so, what harm has been caused is entirely the fruit of that transgression. Any restitution OK'd by the court is the product of her infidelity - both literal and figurative.

[Monkey King]

Ok, not a favorable outcome but a fair one. The woman, if she knowingly deceived the guy should pay or even go to jail for a few days to think over what she did. Deliberately hurting a family, to me, is worse than being mugged by a stranger whether it's against the law or not.

Well said.

[StayAt HomeMother]

I would not be avwerse to DNA testing being required of all births, to be disclosed only to the woman giving birth, to her husband and/or to the man having putative responsibility.

What about going one step further - register the DNA of every male in the country, then every new male (by birth or immigration), and match up EVERY child at birth with its father? This would save HUGE amounts of welfare. It would make men act more responsibly. It would make adoptions a "sure thing" and eliminate baby mixups at hospitals. And it would help law enforcement efforts.

OK, for the law enforcement aspect we would have to register female DNA as well. Equal opportunity.

[No puns now about registering your gun!]

[scholar]

The Man is ONLY seeking MONETARY DAMAGES from the MOTHER. THAT IS IT!

I understand your point, but do you really think that this child is going to be totally unaware of this dispute? From what I have observed from other family disputes over custody, child support, etc., I am very sure that the child will ultimately suffer from this action.

[LWalk18]

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?

Hey I really wanted to believe there is a Santa Claus, and I love and trust my parents, but don't think I can sue them for fraud because they told me about a man who doesn't exist. Everyone gets deceived at various points of their life, you can't sue each time for fraud. Remember that he is getting back the money he was obligated to pay (child support)as well as no longer being charged for money- that is the right way to compensate him. The law shouldn't have to intervene everytime someone feelings are hurt- that is why we needed tort reform.

[AnAmericanMother]

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?!

Correctimundo. That's the law in all cases of fraud.

It's called "reasonable reliance" and "due diligence". If you buy something from a guy hiding in an alley who whispers, "Psst! Wanna buy a Rolex?" you haven't exercised due diligence and you can't sue him for fraud when the watch turns green. In most of the cases that have been decided in Georgia, the man had pretty strong indications that the child was not his own (vide the case I cited) but did not investigate. In other cases (e.g. where the woman had a secret extramarital affair and the youngest child was not the husband's) the courts have backed the husband 100%.