Skip to comments.
Man Sues After Finding Girl Not His Daughter
Yahoo News ^
| 11/01/02
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."
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: australia; daughter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380, 381-382 next last
To: William Terrell
"I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about justice."
And I have been talking about character and morality.
We are simply not speaking the same language on this issue. I wish you well.
341
posted on
11/03/2002 11:14:09 AM PST
by
Route66
To: DainBramage
"No, it's when my wife comes home on Wednesdays smelling like booze and her blouse unevenly buttoned.." You're just being paranoid! (rofl!!!)
To: SunnyUsa
I know, it's probably just my imagination. <:)~~
To: Route66
And I have been talking about character and morality. How can there be justice without character and morality? How can there be character and morality without justice?
To: SunnyUsa
I get it...we are all women and children haters because we don't want to pay for someone elses kid? Makes total sense. (/sarcasm)
To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
"Conservatives of 50 or 100 years ago would shun many "conservative" people on FR as crypto-Bolsheviks or worse. Most of today's conservatism is nothing more than right-wing social democracy, or right-wing anarchism; it is yesterday's hand-me-down leftism.
Nobody thinks anymore; they feel. It's "for the children"."
This needs to be the FR QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!!
To: habs4ever
Obviously, it's not the child's fault, but the mother's. Nevertheless, this is a traumatic experience for a 5 year old. To learn that the man she called daddy is not only her father but also wants to take her teddy bear and Barbie dolls away from her. Most unfortunate.
To: Victoria Delsoul
for the last time......
HE IS NOT TAKING HER TOYS AWAY!!!
Geeeeesh!
To: CAPPSMADNESS
FOR THE FIRST TIME
I was referring to the girl's point of view. That's how she'll see it.
To: Victoria Delsoul
How on earth can a five year old girl derive a point of view from a lawsuit she probably knows nothing about and would not understand even if she did??!?!??!?
SHE CANNOT! and SHE WILL NOT until such a time that her mind can grasp the meaning of the suit! And by then, she will also be able to understand that her mommy is a manipulating liar.
To: CAPPSMADNESS
How on earth can a five year old girl derive a point of view from a lawsuit she probably knows nothing about Probably? You don't know that? She doesn't have to understand the lawsuit, just that her daddy wants her toys back.
You obviously think children are stupid.
To: Victoria Delsoul
Probably? You don't know that?and neither do you...
She doesn't have to understand the lawsuit
In order to derive an opinion from it, yes she does
just that her daddy wants her toys back.
but "daddy" doesn't want her toys back - he is not her daddy, and all he wants is repayment of monies spent on a child he was falsely led to believe he sired
You obviously think children are stupid
As a mother of 2, step-mother of one and foster mother to 2, not hardly. But I also know that 5 year olds are not schooled in legalese.
The only way that she would believe that "daddy" wants her toys, is if mommy told her that - and that would be yet another lie from mommy.
I am through trying to debate this topic with you, and other posters like you, as I do not hold to the "it's for the children" mantra.
We can agree to disagree
To: 2timothy3.16
The price a man pays for being promiscuous. Keep your zipper up and pay only for your own kids, let your zipper down for every two bit harlot on the streets and you'll pay through the nose. The thing is, the only person we know that is being promiscuous in this case is the woman.
I fail to see where in this article the man slept with other women and was thrown out by the girls mother. I can however find the evidence that the mother was sleeping with other people.
To: CAPPSMADNESS
I am through trying to debate this topic with you, and other posters like you, Promise? Of course that mother is at fault, and she should pay for it. I have no quarrel with that. But I also understand the effect of this lawsuit would have consequences on the child. One doesn't have to be an expert to realize that but honesty and not let emotional outbursts should take over.
To: ItisaReligionofPeace
"I get it........"
yea you sure did!!!
Wow! it's uncanny! You got all that from what I posted!
Are you some sort of professional?
Were you trained in investigative analysis of people's posts or is it just natural talent? Good for you either way! :))
/sarcasm
To: ccmay
Yeah. Some solution.
You've obviously confused Jimmy Swaggart with a person who has read, understands and tries to follow
the teachings of The New Testament.
But the error is understandable.
A majority of people in the USA are unable to distinguish someone like
Swaggart, Jim Bakker and the like...
from someone at least attempting to be a follower of an itinerant, impoverished Jewish carpenter.
356
posted on
11/03/2002 2:37:52 PM PST
by
VOA
To: Victoria Delsoul
"One doesn't have to be an expert to realize that but honesty and not let emotional outbursts should take over."
huh????
To: Victoria Delsoul
okay, I promise.... this is my last question on the subject..... honest injun....
What do you think/feel will effect the child more in the big scheme of things- This gentleman walking out of her life (if in fact he does), or her mother lying to her and hiding who her real father is?
Before you answer, keep in mind that this "child" will not always be a child.......
To: All
I don't think the man should be repaid for gifts or trips. He should be repaid child support. He took a gamble by assuming the girl was his. He was negligent for taking on the responsibility for the girl and taking the woman's word for it. Never assume paternity unless you're married. He should've requested a paternity test right away and if she refused that would be a red flag. That is negligence on his part. When you aren't married get a DNA test or pay the consequences with lost time and money.
To: CAPPSMADNESS
Well, I won't fault you for posting to me, LOL! Just kidding.
Since I'm not privy to the lawsuit or any other information I can only base my opinion on this article. What I gathered is that the "father" is driven by money. He has spent money on a child that isn't his and he wants his money back. In part he is right. The mother had no right to lie to him and take money from him. So I understand him being angry. However, he also wants the money he spent on toys and snacks. So to me this is not a case of a "gentleman walking out of the child's life" but a case of vindictiveness. And my point is, when the child finds about it, I don't think she'll be smiling.
Be back later.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380, 381-382 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson