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."
The child has been defrauded as much as the man. Here she thought she had a mommy and a daddy, now surprise! no daddy. To have your father snatched away is indeed a measurable harm. And the mom IS responsible for that. But, if the dad suspected fraud and didn't DO anything about it in a timely fashion, then he is responsible too. The parents need to make sure that the child is made whole, in proportion to their fault.
No. it isn't. The child's real father is out there somewhere (and he's gonna owe a TON of loot!)
This is remarkably short-sighted. Do you not understand the consequences of what you are saying?
Laws regulate the mechanisms of society. Almost every time, the exacting of justice under that law causes some unavoidable collateral damage. The reason this collateral damage is generally an acceptable cost is the presumption that the cost of not enforcing the law imparts a greater societal cost than the collateral damage that may occur by enforcing it. If a man who is otherwise a good father to his children is put into prison for being a regular thief, you hurt the children but isn't it more important that the mechanisms of justice work for all of society? What are the consequences and costs of NOT putting the father in prison for being a thief?
You see everything from the perspective of the little girl. The little girl will suffer collateral damage from the justice imposed on her mother for criminal behavior. But then, there will be negative consequences for the little girl no matter what the outcome is. This is unfortunate. But ask yourself this: By enforcing this law in this one case, how many children will NOT have to suffer in the future because their mothers know that paternity fraud has serious consequences? If you believe in the theory of law at all, you have to come to terms with this question. Are you saying that the damage to this little girl, who will suffer regardless of outcome, outweighs the damage prevented by enforcing justice against paternity fraud throughout society?
Another Pharisee.
Well then, she's just an inconvenient child, isn't she? Her mother should have had an abortion.
Oh wait, Conservatives don't believe in abortion either. Hmmm...caught in a quandry it seems. The child doesn't deserve financial or emotional support and we can't kill her. Pesky laws!
Forgive me, I must leave to care for my children...the ones abandoned by their father because $50 a week in child support was "too expensive".
Of course, you could also eliminate welfare and generate most of the benefits for a lot less effort and money. Welfare is one of the reasons society works the way it does. Before welfare, the consequences of your actions were swifter and more direct, making smart decisions simple.
Good points.
I hadn't realized that your legal theory presumes that women are typically deceptive when it comes to sex and paternity, and that of course the man should have known who he was dealing with. Well, you're a woman I presume from your moniker, so I suppose you know what you're talking about.
The mother is responsible for taking proper care of the child. The negligence is that of the mother, not the "father". If the woman didn't want to have a child, she shouldn't have sex. If she chose to have a child, she tacitly takes responsibility for providing the best environment for the child she legally can, which does NOT include defrauding the people around her. Nobody has a right to a "Leave It To Beaver" family. The daughter, by action of the mother, was entitled to a single parent at worst, and the fatherhood of the real father at best. The daughter is NOT entitled to the fatherhood of any man walking down the street, and the fraud of the mother doesn't change this fact.
You are attributing rights to the little girl that don't exist for ANY person. But you want to make an exception for the girl. Justice convenient to your emotion is just tyranny by another name.
No more so than men:
You're the most beautiful woman in the world...
I just want to cuddle...
I love you...
Justice is not "punishment". What does this woman's behavior teach her daughter? That lies and duplicity pay? That cheaters win? The economic benefits can be had via dishonesty and manipulation of others?
This woman's behavior is inexcusable, not just because of what she did to this man, but also because of the disgusting example that she has set for her daughter.
If you think all wmen are the same, maybe you should avoid commitment. Either you're wrong, or my husband got the last same woman in America. I would never consider defrauding a man just because I "hoped" I had his kid. I think there are a lot of women out there that feel the same as I.
9 out of 10 women agree with you. Buddhaboy is not, apparently, a gambling man.
In cases where there is nothing more than "sincere declarations" by the woman, as I said, then the courts back the man 100%.
Here, we don't know what indications, if any, the putative father had that the child was not his own. The fact that the mama is not putting up a fight and has already said she will give the money back seems to me to allow the inference that the woman KNOWS she deceived him and he had no reason to doubt her -- therefore she has no leg to stand on to keep the money and she's giving it back.
Gifts to the child, as opposed to child support to the mother, stand on a somewhat different footing. I suppose the man could argue that he gave the gifts to the child under a false assumption, i.e. that she was his, but it's a different situation because the RECIPIENT, the child, is not at fault. Gifts are generally not recoverable at law, hence the fiction of "in consideration of $1 and love and affection" in real estate deeds.
But regardless of the law, a man that would stand on his legal rights with a girl-child of FIVE with regard to Barbies and Happy Meals is SCUM. She doesn't understand the law, she just knows that Daddy doesn't love her any more and wants to take her toys back. He should quietly take the child support back, and continue to offer affection to this child despite his (quite justifiable) anger at her mother.
And in answer to somebody else's question, it's different when a parent dies. It's not the same sort of abandonment - kids are often angry on some level that the parent "left them" but come to understand that daddy or mommy didn't have a choice. And there are divorces and divorces -- where the parents engage in this sort of angry fighting over money, it DOES leave scars. I've seen it many times. I've also (thank heavens!) seen divorces where the parents keep it polite for the sake of the children, even if they can't stand each other. It isn't perfect - kids need their parents if possible - but it's miles and oceans better than the sniping, the cat-fighting, the multiple motions to modify child support, the bribery and coercion of the children, etc. etc. Ugh!
If that's true, it's the mother's responsibility to tell each potential father that. Not just "hope" the one they want to be the father is the right one.
Sometimes it is. Be that as it may, this is not a case of Justice. This is a man who would rather destroy a little girl's life than accept his responsibilities.
What responsibilities are those? While I think that he should continue to have a relationship with the girl out of simple compassion for her, he does not have any more legal responsiblities to this girl than you do (have YOU volunteered to finance this girl's life? If not, then you are not better or worse than he).
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.