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."
He's not asking the little girl to write him a check for 10k.
That's just it. All the man is asking for is for the woman who defrauded him $10,000 to return the money to him. As far as the story reads, that's all. In my eyes the man not only has the right to be refunded every cent from the person with the responsibility for the childs welfare, but I think he has the right to punitive damages through a civil case.
After all, what other form of fraud is so low, so dispicable, so agreegious as to impune the progress of a mans life?
When telemarketers trying to "guilt people up" in order to defraud, it's fraud. When a stock broker pushes and pushes and pushes in order to defraud, it's fraud, but all of these are recoverable, just money, loss of capitol that, while shocking, can be recovered.
Conversly, what we're talking about here alters the course of a mans life, precludes him from engaging in more grounded and satisfying relationships, and (worst of all) generates a bond between the 'father' and child where no such relationship exists.
Mom should be thankfull that punative civil damages aren't being sought.
You know it. What would piss me off the most is her knowing it ahead of time
and still defrauding him. This is another reason why "a women's right to choose" is BS.
He doesn't want the gifts back, he wants money from the mother. He's not taking a child's Barbies away. Try to keep the hyperbole to a minimum, please.
She only knows she is being rejected for no reason at all in her mind or she's thinking maybe she's done something wrong to make her "daddy" stop loving her.
This is where Mommy has to step up and tell the child that Mommy was the one who wronged Daddy, not her, and that is why Daddy left. Of course, she seems to be a moral coward (and cheater, and fraud), so I doubt she will.
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.
It's not the woman's fault the car was stolen! 
The main thing in parenting is frequently the righteous loving guidance during times of discipline and hardship,....not just having a good time.
Perhaps both share mutual liability. A good reason not to promote premarital sex.
It's not the woman's fault the car was stolen!
Wow, that is some very profound screwed up logic.
The man in this story is despicable.
I really like your analogy to rape. In many ways, what happened to this guy is worse than rape.
But the child was not the man's child, therefore not a result of his zipper.
Get over it buddy. You didn't exactly break the bank for this kid over 5 years, even when you thought she was yours. I've bought more stuff than that for friends kids over 5 years just because I liked the little person and hoped I was giving the child some enjoyment.
Then, what happens? I get mad at the mother and want all my 'Happy Meals' back? My little short person buddy doesn't deserve that oh-so-expensive Barbie Doll, now?
What a loser this guy is
The "holier than thou" attitude won't now, never has, and never will be a solution.
No kidding. You would think that after spending five years with her and watching her grow, that there would be some feelings to not hurt "the kid".
Actually, the teachings of Christian sexual ethics are now, always have been and always will be a solution. "Holier than thou" -is a pretty good description of the father's outrage.
Would you point out where there is not a point for point match between my story and the article's story (except I use theft instead of fraud)? Or are you saying that fraud is not as bad as outright theft?
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.