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."

[Pippin]

I agree he has a right to "monetary" redress for the fraud the MOTHER exacted on him, but I don't agree the child should have to be made to suffer monetarilly or emotionally from the actions of either him or her mother.

[muir_redwoods]

There's a little girl imvolved here. From the sound of the parents, the little girl is not the only child involved.

I've raised three daughters and nothing could make me behave like these clods. Biology is important but not paramount. Somebody needs to do some serious growing up.

[VOA]

"I don't think he should carry on too much about it...

Like he really shouldn't be upset at being defrauded, maybe having plenty of
"lost opportunity costs" in case he wanted to move on and maybe get married and
start a more traditional family, not alone mention cause her daughter some distress...

The guy is not totally on the side of the angels. But when the one party that can really
know "who's poppa" decides to play a cheatin' game that involves a third party (the child)...
that's at least morally criminal.

[Libloather]

I've actually thought about what I would do if my kids were to turn out to be fathered by someone else, and easily decided I would just let it be. In my case the benefits I have received from them far outweigh the money.

That's fine. But paying child support for someone else's kid hasta REALLY suck.

[Godel]

Blame the woman who lied about who the childs father was. The man is a victim who tried to do what's right.

I know its horribly unpopular to bring this up these PC days, but some people might actually want to have a child that is theirs genetically. The man has that right. If the child is hurt, that is the woman's responsibility for her deception and unfaithfulness. I guess all men should be forced to pay the price for women's dishonesty?

[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.

[VOA]

The claims...(big snip)...child support payments.

Hopefully, in the not too distant future, every legal proceeding regarding paternity
will make DNA testing mandatory.
Just so everyone knows the deal at the start of the proceeding...and nobody goes
on for year, decades in a haze of deceit.

[FormerLurker]

Let the little girl keep the toys and the good memories, and remember, for 5 years, this man was the only father she's known.

I agree. If I were him, I'd be a bit concerned about ALL of the support payments, but if this child had come into my life I wouldn't toss her out like a used rug. I'd still let her call me dad, and would NEVER ask for any of her toys back. How disgusting of an idea.

Don't you think this is hurting her?

Of course it is. The jerk should come over here to the US and see how fun it is to deal with the courts...

[FormerLurker]

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.

Ever hear of Mary Magdeline?

[Jaidyn]

Did the mother know the truth all along? If so, I agree with you. I assume the mother could support her daughter without help since she evidently has the means to repay it so wonder what her real reasons for socking it to the man were? Whatever happens, the daughter is not to blame and the man shouldn't be judged for being so angry. In his case, time might heal the wounds and most likely he and the daughter can come to friendly terms. It is the mother, if she knowingly put her daughter and the man in this situation who is at fault. I do know of a similar situation and I am angry at the mother for putting so many people in the middle of what could have been avoided in the beginning had only she been honest. This isn't just about the three reported but families, including the real father and his family. The woman needs punished if this was a deliberate act of deceit.

[AntiGuv]

I think it's fairly obvious he's asking for the money spent on toys, not the toys themselves. And, might I add, more power to him!

[Pippin]

I'm not talking about that!

All I'm saying is why should the child be made to pay for what his/her parents do wrong?

I think both parties are at fault here, don't misunderstand me. The mother should be made to pay him back the money she defrauded him and apologize to him as well as to her daughter for lieing to them and deceiving them.

But at the same time I don't feel he should be punishing the little girl for something she had nothing to do with.

[Balto_Boy]

I agree. 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.

[AntiGuv]

I think both parties are at fault here...

Buzzzzt. Wrong! Try again. Only the woman's at fault in this one...

[Pippin]

Im misunderstood that, I thought he was askingfor the toys themselves. but, if it's the money he wants, I think that the mother should give it back.

[FormerLurker]

I think it's fairly obvious he's asking for the money spent on toys, not the toys themselves. And, might I add, more power to him!

Many MEN have spent much more than just the money for toys on their children. However unfortunate this situation may be, a man would not want monetary reimbusebent for a mistake in genetic heritage. It's not something you want a little boy or girl to ever think, that the daddy they grew up to know and love went to court to get their money back on their toys because their daddy wasn't really daddy...

[Balto_Boy]

That's nothing. There have been numerous cases where men have proven that they weren't the fathers of the children involved.........and have still been socked with child support.

And I'll bet it was other men (IE male judges) who disregarded the proof and stuck them with the child support. After all this time I hate to say it, but the problems facing men today aren't due to feminism, but to other men and their own recklessness.

[Pippin]

Thw woman's at fault for lieing and decieving not only him but her child as well.

The man's not being let off the hook so easily on this. He's letting his anger at the woman's duplicity govern his feelings towards the daughter who is an innocent bystander in this and is too young to understand what is happening.

[albee]

"Georgia has sort of struck a middle ground here. Each case is decided on its own facts. If the father had no reason to suspect that the child was not his own, and he promptly takes action to disentangle himself as soon as he learns that the child may not be his own, he may do so. On the other hand, if the father does NOT take action as soon as he learns of a potential paternity question, but just lets things slide along (so that the child grows up believing that the man is his daddy) then he may NOT back out of the deal. "

In other words, if the mother is an excellent LIAR, good at DECEPTION and capable of perpetuating a FRAUD over a great length of time, the male "partner" is on the hook for years and years?

Sorry, but something is wrong with that picture.

[AntiGuv]

I'll admit that I would just leave things be and suck up the $10,000 myself, but I don't blame him for his anger. More likely than not, he wouldn't have wasted five years of his life on her in the first place if she hadn't lied. You only live once - five years is a pretty meaningful chunk of that....