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."

[Route66]

"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.

[SunnyUsa]

"No, it's when my wife comes home on Wednesdays smelling like booze and her blouse unevenly buttoned.."

You're just being paranoid! (rofl!!!)

[DainBramage]

I know, it's probably just my imagination. <:)~~

[William Terrell]

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?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

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)

[CAPPSMADNESS]

"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!!!!

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

for the last time......

HE IS NOT TAKING HER TOYS AWAY!!!

Geeeeesh!

[Victoria Delsoul]

FOR THE FIRST TIME …

I was referring to the girl's point of view. That's how she'll see it.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

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.

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

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

[Mid-MI Student]

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.

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.

[SunnyUsa]

"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

[VOA]

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.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

"One doesn't have to be an expert to realize that but honesty and not let emotional outbursts should take over."

huh????

[CAPPSMADNESS]

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.......

[snowstorm12]

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.

[Victoria Delsoul]

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.