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."

[CAPPSMADNESS]

Well, I won't fault you for posting to me, LOL

no - I fully admit that it's my fault......

you said a whole lot of words, and didn't answer my question.... are you a politician?????

just kidding.....

[SAMWolf]

Good point.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks. It's always good seeing someone capable of understanding. :-)

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

So I guess your response means that you can't argue with my logical analogy...

I don't think a person should be forced to pay monthly payments for someone elses kid. Is that too difficult to comprehend?

[WarrenC]

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?

See, this just gets wearisome trying to to tie someone like you down to a consistent argument. That Christian dogma says nobody is capable of following God's mandates "to the very letter" is Not the same thing as saying that people can't obey Any of his mandates. That approach could be used to point out the uselessness of discouraging any activity that humans are ever tempted to do. Also of course, I never remotely suggested that Christian sexual ethics should be "written into law" so I hope you enjoyed knocking down your little straw man argument. Your reference to "horny Bible thumpers" really says all we need to know about the attitudes that prompted your silly response.

[doug from upland]

After reading the first three links, I have a headache. Fairness would dictate that he is entitled to reimbursement if swindled. My concern in this case, however, is for the child. I want to see the best for the child, no matter what one party did to the other. If the little girl loved him and always considered him her daddy, it is rotten if he just disappears from her life.

[habs4ever]

This child is too young to grasp the nuances of fraud, entrapment, and larceny, so will focus on what she can understand.The most tangible, immediate and visible are her possessions she received from her "father".How she thinks about all this when she is 11 is a bit moot, don't you think? How she reacts to this as a 5 yr old is a more pressing concern, and she will be an unwitting pawn in this drama.

What is the best way for this man to seek justice, while tempering his rage and desire for revenge and not cruelly damaging the psyche of one so young and vulnerable? The little gestures that an adult will find trivial will be so much more to one so young.I hope he shows compassion and wisdom in how he deals with the child.

The mother deserves his contempt.

[William Terrell]

Sorry I gave you a headache.

The debate seems to go, if this man sues this woman for fraud, this child's feelings will be hurt. The child should be protected from this knowledge because of that. All this means is that to protect the child, the man should not demand justice, because the demand for justice will let the cat out of the bag.

The article gives not evidence that the man will disappear from the child's life. Neither does it indicate anything about the man's relationship witht he child. He may love her, but must do what he's doing because he can't look at his face in the mirror, not face the child's mother, knowing what a fool her mother made of him.

He may not even like, nor love, the child. Is that OK with you? Is a man permitted to not like or love a child? And if he doesn't, why should he maintain a pretense, which will ultimately be more harmful to the child than honesty?

People love others that don't love them back and have for millennia. Because someone loves you, what demands may they put on your life because of that fact and only that fact? The demand that you take a royal screwjob laying down? That you maintain a loving relationship with them in spite of how you feel? Require that you don't do things that pleasure you or advance your career because that will take away their time with you?

At the end of it, if the child's feelings are to remain unsoiled, the choice is between justice or the feelings of that child. You, and others out here, have been condeming the man for choosing justice.

Where do you guys get off making that kind of moral judgement? You make it in the absence of any evidence of the relationship between the man and the child. And your judgement goes against the foundation that keeps our society, the structure that protects all the children in it, stable.

[MortMan]

Of course, I have great kids, and 13 years under my belt.

I've got three terrific chips off the old block as well, but don't you think 13 years is a bit long to keep the old belt fastened?;-D

Actually, We're 2+ months into our fourteenth year, too.

Life's good, isn't it?

[Under the Radar]

My husband made the exact point the other day. He observed that we really must be living in a society that does not value children. When you consider all the legal recource a person has when he gets defrauded in a business deal, compared with the recourse to be had when he gets defrauded in paternity, it really makes you wonder where our priorities are. After all, it is a settled principle of law that the law protects our interests as consumers in order to promote commerce. However, we don't protect mens' interests as biological fathers at all. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[DainBramage]

No kidding, life is good. Thirteen pounds over my belt is more like it.

[RogerFGay]

This is getting world-wide attention. I read about it today on Swedish text-tv. I think the child support industry's days are numbered. It's not going to be too long before they're on the run, and strung up by their gahonees if they're caught.

[bankwalker]

paying child support for someone else's kid hasta REALLY suck

Borders on slavery, IMHO. I thought that ended a while back.

[2timothy3.16]

You really don't understand or you are being funny. Which?

[CAPPSMADNESS]

Your post is again, brilliant.

It is good to see that someone else understands that justice is blind - not a big, soft-hearted, touchy-feely liberal.

I cannot understand how people can condemn this man for seeking REPAYMENT OF MONIES spent on a child that he was duped into believing he sired. He should just "buck-up" and swallow because the child's feelings will be hurt.

I will ask you the same question that I have asked another poster though:

What will "damage" this child more in life over the long run? The fact that the person she called "daddy" was in fact not, or the fact that her mother lied about who her father really is and kept him from her.

And no - the point is not moot! This "childhood trauma" will not rear it's head for years to come (if in fact it ever does), isn't that what all the fuss is about? What would hurt you more? the fact that a man who was fooled into playing daddy walked out (if he does), or the fact that mommy lied to you and you never met your real daddy....

[Libloather]

This is getting world-wide attention.

Good.

[William Terrell]

But we haven't been given enough information in this article to know who is what and what is going on. All we know is what the guy's doing and why. The rest is all speculation, unless there's some other articles about the case I haven't seen.

All I know is that there are warping forces at work on all of us to one degree or another. Last time I checked, life wasn't a Pollyanna story.

As traumatizing as (worse case) being rejected by who she thought was her father, was, the girl may be strong and resilient enough to weather it without damage. Another child may be devastated by a lesser upset. Everybody's different.

But the mother gets to carry the baggage for all of it, no matter the outcome, I think.

[Israelsupporter101]

No, that man is not Shylock. That little girl did nothing to him. His fight should be with the mother, he shouldn’t hurt the girl. Antonio bullied Shylock. Shylock didn’t try to get revenge on Antonio because he envied him, he tried to get revenge because Antonio bullied him constantly. Shylock didn’t get to do it solely because he was a Jew. Shylock was the victim. This man isn’t the victim here, the child is.

[Israelsupporter101]

Thank you!

[Israelsupporter101]

Actually, I am a liberal, and I agree. This child shouldn’t suffer.