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."

[F.J. Mitchell]

I must leave for now, but I will return later.


F.J.M.

[Demidog]

"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.

Right. He's a great dad. I was simply mistaken and read into the article things that weren't there.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Thank you, I pretty much feel the same way as you.

I would love it to be that case that the man is going to continue to see the girl, having been reimbursed from the mother, and now able to give gifts to the girl and show his love to her untainted by the mother’s trickery. On the other hand, we can hardly blame him if he cannot face the girl because he is afraid of being unable to hide his emotions, and does not want to continue the relationship. We don’t know the extent of the girls attachment and whether or not she even cares one way or the other. I don’t know which way I would react if this happened to me. I think it would depend on the level of attachment.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

So he wants to be paid back 100% by the mother for all he spent because of her trickery. What does that have to do with anything in the three things you said?
1. Is he saying to the girl that he is taking back what he did? No.
2.Is he punishing the girl? No.
3.Is he destroying the girl's life? No.

[Demidog]

1. Is he saying to the girl that he is taking back what he did?

Yes. Do you have any Children?

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Yes, I do. Do you think the girl knows about the lawsuit? If so, does she know any of the specific details of the damage claim? If so who told her? The man? Please quote the article.

[ps. Sorry I can't respond after this - I have to go, bye]

[William Terrell]

We are talking about FAMILY here. This woman he is suing is his 'partner' (translation: He has been living with her like a wife). The child is his daughter in every way but blood. As far as the child is concerned, he IS her father. This was a FAMILY.

This not a conservative idea, no matter how conservative you think you are. Our system or law and customs revolve, and linked into our entire inheritance and social systems, around blood lineage.

As far back as you want to go to the genesis of our law and customs, blood lineage has been the point of family, not the safety of children, except as it it coldly pertains to the interests of the state and society's extension into the future.

Conservative is keeping what has been held valuable in the past, having been the result of many centuries of men and women socializing, working and living together. These ideas, no-fault divorce, "it's all for the children", are not conservative ideas and virtually guarantee the destruction of our western civilization.

The only reason that the common law, both American and it's English source, made it the presumption that a child in a marriage was the man's is because there was no way to absolutly prove it. However, in the rare cases it could be proven that the child wasn't, the consequences were harsh beyond imagining for the woman (but also for the man if he were proven to have stepped outside the marriage).

So, no, you are not a conservative; you have been conditioned with ideas the conditioning agent said were conservative. Such agencies have been trying to break down our system of law for decades because on that rests the foundation of our constitutions, which make us different and better than other forms of government, and which isolate us from the rulership of men by ruling us with laws. And, as you see, it has been effective; you have no idea that this thing has been done to you.

[William Terrell]

She's not his child. Didn't you read the article? You're making a lot of presumptions, not based on the article, but based on your relationships, which I bet are blood relationships with children.

He could have done a lot for the child to please the mother, which is very common. Hell, he may not have even liked the kid, but was turned on by the mother. That's very common, too. To many men, most I think, blood is thicker than the water of a fraudulent relationship. With that I agree, even though I raised two children not my own.

[FITZ]

You don't think a woman knows whether she's had sex in the same month with more than one man?

She knew how many men she was having sex with but to figure out who was the father, she checked who made the most money.

[SunnyUsa]

" thought I might check in to see if some of these faux-conservatives come to their senses, but it appears not to be the case. "

Nice try at an insult to everyone here who doesn't agree with your point of view!

You know you think we are False Conservatives because we think there is MORE to a relationship (hopefully) than $$$ especially between a 'father' and a child...as he believed he was her father obviously for 5 years...

Anyway...
in the same sense that you think we are all hypocrites because we don't agree with this guy's decision and motives ($$$ revenge, child be damned)

I have to tell you that your rapid attack on alot of people here who don't agree with him or YOU reminds me of the Liberal's MindSet - WIN at ALL COSTS...morals and ethics be damned
...it's only the winning that matters - let everything fall that gets in the way

This GUY thinks He MUST now "WIN" and get ALL his money back, every last dime...

He thinks this is his best revenge against the mother, his agenda whatever...who cares about the child who probably loved him. I also believe he probably is doing this because he never really loved the child anyway, so the whole parental role & relationship between them was a false and it's fitting he wasn't the biological one either...

Let's hope the mother and those who do love this little girl help her understand that this was the case, and real love is more than money.

[William Terrell]

I truly hope that both the House and Senate become all republican. Then, there will be nothing to hide behind. I never vote a straight ticket and vote according to fitness, not party. This year I'm going to vote for all republicans in congress. I want everybody to see the socialist takeover continue with nothing but republicans to continue it.

[FITZ]

As far as the guy getting the shaft, I suggest the woman add up the number of times he was serviced and other other services performed for him and deduct from the child support paid out. I'll bet it is about a draw.

Basically that's what the woman here was doing, she was after him for the money. She knew he wasn't the only possible father but she decided it was he who would pay. She apparently decided the other guy(s) didn't have to pay. There was no love here, a woman wouldn't do this to a man she cared anything about.

[ccmay]

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.

If your auntie had whiskers she'd be your uncle.

You said that Christian sexual ethics are 'always' the solution (to questioned paternity.) This is true only in the special case when both partners follow these teachings to the letter, and even then can hardly claim to be the universal solution. (If Muslim or Jewish sexual ethics were followed to the letter, those would also be a 'solution' to the problem.)

But this is impossible, as Swaggart and Bakker and many other horny bible thumpers have proven-- in fact it is Christian dogma that nobody is capable of following God's mandates to the very letter. Why, then, should they be written into law?

The world is full of pious "Christians" who bombard others with their view of sexual ethics, in fact typically wish to enforce their views upon others at the point of a gun, and yet cannot control their sexual urges themselves. Their Christian faith fails them and fails society. It crumbles before the power of testosterone and the selfish DNA. It cannot be considered a universal solution to society's problems with sex, else they would have been solved two millennia ago.

And so I agree with the previous poster, who said that the 'holier than thou' attitude is not, never was, and never will be a solution to such problems.

-ccm

[Jaidyn]

None of us know the entire story but from what I gathered, the woman was a former partner so they did not have a five-year relationship if the child was five years old. He had been paying support for a child which the woman conceived while they were having their so-called relationship. She not only betrayed her partner by having sex with another man, but she went on with her betrayal by claiming the child was his. Whatever the relationship between the girl and the man remains to be seen and whatever the outcome, is detrimental to the child because of deceit. Right now, it is likely the girl will be angry at the man she thought was her father but later, will be angry at her mother for lying about her birth. Which of the two will the daughter find easier to forgive? And will she be angry at her real father? The mess is common in today's America where spin is not a lie and families are an olio of genes that erases any type of family tree since no one is completely sure which kid belongs to whom unless a dna test is given. What does that say for society? To me, this is a moral issue, not a legal one. Too many morals are in the gutter and unfortunately this child is just another statistic. I wonder how many other children this woman has and do they all have different last names? I have compassion for all children but so long as sex is as casual as drinking a glass of water, the problems for children will get worse, not better.

[Route66]

"So, no, you are not a conservative; you have been conditioned with ideas the conditioning agent said were conservative. Such agencies have been trying to break down our system of law for decades because on that rests the foundation of our constitutions, which make us different and better than other forms of government, and which isolate us from the rulership of men by ruling us with laws. And, as you see, it has been effective; you have no idea that this thing has been done to you."

I have made it clear in my previous posts that the LAW may be on the side this man. He may well win on the grounds that this child is not his by blood. In other words - I have made no argument that he should be forced to remain in this child's life.

But, in my view, he is a truly a shallow human being if his love for this child completely evaporated with the results of that blood test. He was terribly wronged by this woman, but no matter what happens now between him and her, abandoning this child and collecting his cash will not put it all right and make it all better. In my mind, it makes him a small man.

So we are down to this -
You have respect for this man because he is exercising his rights under the law, abandoning a child he has known as his daughter for the last 5 years, and suing the mother for everything he ever gave the child including her toys.

I would have respect for this man if, though he did not have to, he decided that the child who calls him father was worth more than the money - apart from the fact that her mother had wrongfully deceived him.

There was a time when men and women knew how to do the right thing just because it was the right thing. It was a measure of that person's character. We obviously simply will not agree on what character traits are worthy of respect. If it makes you feel better to think that your views reflect the values of true conservatives, so be it. We will agree to disagree.

[rb22982]

That is the mother's problem, she defrauded them both.

[rb22982]

I'd prefer you do it, since you 'feel' so strongly about it. You obviously have no idea what abuse is. The man was abused just as much as the child was. If you can't see that you have major evaluation problems. Of course the child will go through emotional trama, either now or later when she learned that it wasn't her real dad and that mommy lied and frauded the guy she thought was her father. The entire blame of the fiasco lies solely at the mother, not at the man who was frauded.

[William Terrell]

I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about justice. I'm talking about the system that protects one person from a screwjob by another. Our whole civilization is based on the justice sought by an injured person and administered by our courts.

It trumps any child or any individual's love for any child because once trust is lost in justice being done, we can kiss it all goodbye. You're worried about a child being traumatized, a child's feeling hurt? We loose our sense of justice, and every child will be worse off than just a minor depression because who she thought was her daddy wasn't.

The man may be a sonofabitch. So what? By pressing justice agaisnt one who worked by fraud and deceit against him and winning it will probably save hundreds of children indirectly while hurting (not killing) one. He is to be blessed not condemed.

We didn't have such foolish, arrow concepts of relationships in our country's past and our country became one everybody wanted to come to, to be free and determine his or her life. Our concept of justice protected that. Now we have deadbeats and trash coming in from all over, protected by emotional caprice like that you display, to suck at the American public tit, and concepts of the importance of individual sulking has brought about the socialism responsible as an attractant for those undesirables.

Get over it before it gets over you, and all of us. You're no conservative. Conservatives go beyond the individual case and see the system that guards everybody.

[meyer]

If you steal a car for a poor woman without transportation so she can get a job, the woman is helped and all society is helped by turning her into the work force. If the car is siezed and returned to its owner, the woman and all society is therfore harmed.

Now that's a bit of twisted logic. You seem to be advocating that personal private property is actually community property and should be put to use as such. In other words, the fruit of the car-owner's labor belongs to this lady according to her need. Is that you, Karl?

I contend that the lady should get a job closer to home. And, the car thief ought to be lucky he wasn't shot trying to swipe the car.

[William Terrell]

That was an example of the foolishness of saying because an innocent party is benefited by the fruits of a crime, the crime should go unremedied and the injured party not reunited with his property.