UK Man Wins Compensation for Paternity Fraud

by W.F. Price on February 15, 2013

In a sign that times are changing Richard Rodwell, a man whose wife fooled him into believing children she conceived by affairs were his, was awarded £25,000 ($40,000) in damages following a lawsuit he filed against the cheating wife.

After giving birth to two illegitimate children, his wife Helen divorced him and began to collect child support. Rodwell paid a total of $25,000 in child support before rumors concerning the paternity of his putative children began to surface, upon which he sought a DNA test. Much to his dismay, it turned out that neither of the two children he’d grown close to over the years were his.

Sadly, Rodwell married a really nasty piece of work. His marriage started to fall apart in 2004 when his wife began to openly conduct affairs:

…by 2004 the marriage was struggling. Mr Rodwell explained: ‘Helen was disappearing for several days without telling me where she was going. I only found out from used train and coach tickets I discovered.

‘I would collect the children from school as usual and walk into the house and it would be empty with no note or anything. Helen would go to places such as Newcastle or Manchester, and if I asked why she had gone there she would say, “Nothing to do with you.” ’

When Rodwell discovered the children were not his own, they rejected him, blaming him for ruining their lives. Sadly, they do not seem to have put the responsibility where it really belonged: with their mother. But this is one of the cruelest things about paternity fraud. The children are stuck with the mother, but they lose a father, so who are they going to blame? It’s easiest, of course, to blame the innocent party, because he is no longer “attached” to them.

His ex wife didn’t apologize, naturally…

‘I confronted Helen on the phone but she insisted I was Laura’s father. Finally I said I wanted DNA testing.’

The DNA test was done by mouth swab and when the result came back Mr Rodwell was stunned. He said: ‘When I saw the letter stating that I wasn’t Laura’s father I just broke down.

‘When I phoned Helen we had an argument and she just said, “What did you expect.” She didn’t even say sorry.’

One of the (intentional) results of feminism was that women were free to victimize their families with impunity, but it seems that in England at least people may have finally had enough.

It’s a shame what children have to deal with, but their mother committed fraud, and they will have to pay for it just the same as if they had a father who got caught embezzling from a company. The solution to these problems would be a complete overhaul of family law that removed all incentives for women to cuckold husbands and run off with children to collect support payments.

{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous age 70 February 15, 2013 at 13:22

You can be sure the feminists will be lobbying for a law which prevents such things from being found out, as they have done in many places already.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself February 15, 2013 at 13:29

One of the (intentional) results of feminism was that women were free to victimize their families with impunity, but it seems that in England at least people may have finally had enough.

I hope English people’s fatigue with paternity fraud snowballs into a worldwide fatigue with paternity fraud.

I hope fatigue with paternity fraud snowballs into fatigue with alimony and ex-wife, I mean, child support.

I hope fatigue with paternity fraud also leads to incarceration for the women who commit this offense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
cryptic February 15, 2013 at 13:33

No times are not achanging. It simply a case of “you men watch what my left hand is now giving, whilst not seeing what my right hand is still taking.”

Here below is another poor sucker that’ll beg to differ on any false news of imminent hope or change for fathers and non-fathers:

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/enews/cv/enews-20130215.html
‘Brandon Parsons is a young Marine who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. On January 22, 2013, San Diego Superior Court Judge Gregory Pollack ruled that Brandon Parsons will have to continue paying child support for another twelve years for another man’s child.

His reason is that Brandon Parsons did not file his request for an order for DNA paternity testing of the child, Ashton Parsons, and the mother, Crystal Parsons, until two years after the child’s birth. Because of this delay, Brandon will have to continue paying child support for another twelve years for another man’s child.

The Court found Crystal Parsons’ testimony to be totally untrustworthy. It called her actions in deliberately lying to Brandon about being the father of the child “despicable.” In his written opinion, Judge Pollack states his views as follows: “The court denies the motions of Respondent Brandon Parsons to set aside Judgment and order blood testing to determine paternity. The motions are statutorily untimely under Family Code Section 2122, 7646,7541 and C.C.P. Section 473. The Paternity determination set forth within the 2009 martial dissolution judgment stipulated to by father, is res judicata and not subject to an equitable set aside.”’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
The Baron February 15, 2013 at 13:35

“One of the (intentional) results of feminism was that women were free to victimize their families with impunity, but it seems that in England at least people may have finally had enough.”

As an England: this is definitely NOT the result of mass public outrage.

This is a loophole that the feminists have yet to close. And they surely will do. Not immediately – after the shock has died down a bit, they will campaign and lobby to make paternity testing illegal as it is in France. They will use the “best interests of the child” argument to twist legislators’ arms to grant them the ‘right’ to commit paternity fraud.

And they know what criminals they are – that’s why they claim fatherhood is ‘socially constructed’ – except pump and dump fathers/one night stands leading to ‘oops pregnancies’ are still required to pay. Oh, and motherhood is sanctified and biological, of course.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Tom Smith February 15, 2013 at 13:47

Mr. Price- the damages awarded were zero. This is because he paid out 25,000 in child support, and he was awarded exactly the same in damages.

Now if he had been awarded something like one million in actual damages that would have been impressive. What really troubles me is that there’s no real claw-back (i.e. a way to get child support payments back) when there’s been a payment which has been made as the result of fraud.

One can only hope that the “red pill” males in all jurisdictions address this before the feminists do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Opus February 15, 2013 at 13:54

I was discussing this very problem (though not this case, which seems very odd – how can the children be illegitimate if the parties are married?) at Dalrock’s only a day or so ago and naturally recieved a fair amount of flack, as I knew I would, for doubting the wisdom of Paternity Testing. Look at the trouble it has caused in this case: One distraught guy and distraught children. The woman will now present herself as a victim as she struggles to bring up the two chidlren whilst paying back the money as ordered by the court. I now await more flack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9
joeb February 15, 2013 at 14:02

The sad part is It was only a fraction of the cost to the male and The truth is she can now run a muck in the lives of the real fathers”if the whore can find them “also causing more damage in other men’s lives and families .
So all in all this is going to at the least cost two men and three at the most , This is no concession for decency .
This is the butterfly effect of one whore in society . It may cost Millions and ruined lives of many .Closed businesses , and broken dream are still to come .
Only in Britain can anyone see this as Good , With a Heard of Elephants in the room . The denial of the Only Problem there is :No real for Consequence for Women . Whore Mongering ,and Mass thievery .
There is Much shame to be passed around in Britain But , The only victim will be the Good guy , The guy that goes to church and trusts .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
The First Joe February 15, 2013 at 14:29

@Opus – You’re delusional if you think men are better off living a lie, enslaved to a liar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Savage Sambo February 15, 2013 at 14:40

But of course you’d naturally doubt the wisdom of paternity testing barrister Opus. Surely can’t have the hoi-polloi gaining too much of an insight into the truth and wizardry by which nobler souls in silk arrive at versions most suited to the professions agenda.

Where i’m from, the father takes the children, legitimate and illegitimate, whilst the adultereress is oven-baked and eaten.

There is a ghastly lack of animal protein, some dark places and any excuse will suffice for a good ole bush party.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
The Baron February 15, 2013 at 14:55

Opus: the answer is to punish women who commit fraud. No pussy pass.

No one should have to live a lie.

I have sometimes wondered what would happen, if some daring scoundrel were to sneak into a hospital maternity ward and change all the newborn babies around while no one was looking.

Then, twelve years down the line, he would come clean, and tell all the mothers that their children were not theirs, never were, they were always somebody else’s.

You’d think feminists would be just fine with that, wouldn’t you? Since they angrily defend a woman’s right to do exactly this to men. They even scoff at calling it ‘fraud,’ so this sort of thing MUST be acceptable to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
keyster February 15, 2013 at 14:55

I dated a woman who had a brother that looked nothing like the rest of the family. She told me that her mother had an affair with a neighbor and that her “brother” looked exactly like the man. Her father obviously found out, DNA testing wasn’t developed yet but wasn’t needed…and he commited to raise the boy as his own and accept him into the family as his own.

The neighbor was a real derelict loser and his progeny turned out to be not much better, regardless of his excellent rearing. But I’ll never forget how much I respected that man for “sucking it up”, swallowing his pride and being as good a father to that boy as he was his biological children. I couldn’t have done it. To him it was more important to keep the marriage and family firmly intact, albeit on unstable ground.

Divorcing, and paying child support for children that aren’t your own is a different matter ethically and certianly legally. But some would like this changed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean February 15, 2013 at 15:46

One of the (intentional) results of feminism was that women were free to victimize their families with impunity, but it seems that in England at least people may have finally had enough.

If it were me I’d not only sue for the lost money I spent on support, but I’d also sue the bitch for emotional distress.

Then I’d find the father/s and sue them as well. I guess I’d sue them all at once to save time and I’d bankrupt the lot.

When England allows such lawsuits and regularly awards them then I think you can say that she has had enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Opus February 15, 2013 at 15:46

Just as I predicted: my opponents are true Puritans.

Do you think we should have a Paternity Test carried out on HRH Prince Harry: the Half-Blood Prince? Look what happened to his Mother, and in her case there was no question as to Paternity of her future child when on a fateful night in Paris…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Charles Martel February 15, 2013 at 16:35

Opus
I now await more flack.

It’s flak not flack. From the German – FLiegerAbwehrKanone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel February 15, 2013 at 16:54

keyster
The neighbor was a real derelict loser and his progeny turned out to be not much better, regardless of his excellent rearing. But I’ll never forget how much I respected that man for “sucking it up”, swallowing his pride and being as good a father to that boy as he was his biological children.

That poor guy. Hard to imagine the psychological stress of living in those circumstances. I couldn’t do it.

Interesting story in the recent Delaware courthouse shooting. The shooter is the FATHER of the man in a custody battle. The shooting victims were the divorced wife and her friend. I do not condone these murders and yet it’s interesting to see how far this father was prepared to go for his son and his grandchildren.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
DB February 15, 2013 at 16:59

A family law feminist response:

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2013/01/14/husband-receives-damages-after-discovering-children-were-not-his/

“So called ‘paternity fraud’”.

For fuck sake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo February 15, 2013 at 17:15

One of the (intentional) results of feminism was that women were free to victimize their families with impunity, but it seems that in England at least people may have finally had enough.-WP

I strongly disagree with this; albeit I use to agree with it whole heartedly!

I strongly feel that most of the technology we have now was characterized as for women; to deceive men of its actual implications! Implications being that men would be free from the personal ass-hats of their lives (petulant wives); and be able to move on with impunity.

So the suffragettes who later renamed themselves feminists as a group markedly went on an advertising campaign as I sense they could see the writing on the wall for their feminine descendents. In other words, being the good Samaritan brothel rats they were; they did their ideological descendants a favor and struck first. This is one of the reasons I strongly feel is the reason for government support.

Though I see why government might not want to inhibit men who get creative without interruption; despite the occasional romp ending in disaster with any number of women they will refuse to support. The problem is that demographically, the nation who maintains its replacement rate; potentially rules the world. Government cannot exist without replacements to their current stock of citizens. Though they want us working, they also want tax from the other half of the population; and kids to boot into war or over paid college professor’s classrooms.

Why government delved into profiting from the destruction of our children is debatable on many points; perhaps all of them are true? We have discussed those issues too many times so I won’t name them, most here know or have an idea of the concepts of the manosphere which I refer to.

Yet I think it all started with women gaining the vote. Couple this with the leaders of the women’s movement attaining power through scare tactics and deceit; and you have the necessary concoction to keep men chained to women like the past 5000 years…………..temporarily. The current slate of technology surrounding sex opens the door to males of all kinds attaining any number of women; and discarding them after in an endless cycle of indifference to female pain.

Eventually, as we are starting to see; men are rising. For every feminist lie they may personally maintain, they will potentially have two zeta male traits to match. You can’t go around life and not see what is around you; most used to. Now, most men and women are walking from traditional maritally flavored commitments.

The thing is it is all about demographics. White feminists and lesbians breed themselves out. Minorities are going to get a script flip when their young refuse to have kids after experiencing what their parents have done to them and each other. This is already starting despite the men’s movement not even becoming prominent yet. Yet we mostly all came here individually; as to where females were willingly herded together.

The future may bring a lot of laughter for us; and numerous women advertising their stint in several glory holes just praying a man will come and take her disgrace away.

Can’t say it makes me happy; yet sadly I can’t say that I care either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo February 15, 2013 at 17:18

@Keyster

That is just wrong. I am pretty sure what I would have done. It would not be his choice.

This is why I am adamant on at birth paternity tests.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Mike Brentnall February 15, 2013 at 18:10

The following has not as of yet involved a lawsuit but is still on topic and somewhat related to the storyline by Mr. Price above.

Last weekend a nation wide radio network (Corus) in Canada briefly aired a story about a man who had unknowingly raised 3 of 4 children fathered by different men. He and the ex-wife were the true biological parents of only one of the four.
The talk on this one story lasted a little under a half hour during a popular broadcaster’s (Roy Green) show and mainly centered on how the man/ex-husband and true father of 1 was required by (I believe) Quebec courts to pay child support to all 4 children. (Can not find the story in archive).
Little mention was made of the mother’s role on this confused family.
Any listener may have been given the impression that momma had 3 separate and concurrent immaculate conceptions. Far from any divine intervention, 3 of the 4 births were conceived by an adulterous wife.
But one, gauging by the show’s tone, guests and phone commenters, would suspect the former and disregard the latter. So elevated to etherical madonna like heights people had overlooked the ex-wife’s culpability.

Momma bear had, irresponsibly or not, engaged in behaviors which birthed these children into existance. This is her responsibility and hers alone. The ex-husband, the taxpayer and even the adulterous sperm providers bear zero, none and little co-responsibility respectively for her right to exercise how her own body would function.
One adulterous affair, sex outside of marriage resulting in conception, would be enough to legally dissolve a state licensed marriage. But three?
Paying for the maintenance of children takes a lot of money. Time for momma bear to go looking for one full time and one part time job, and now. Poppa bear can be relieved of the unfair burden of paying support to three biologically foreign children of not his knowing choice or doing and spend his free time supervising those children who’ve been accustomed to his presence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price February 15, 2013 at 18:47

The shooter is the FATHER of the man in a custody battle. The shooting victims were the divorced wife and her friend. I do not condone these murders and yet it’s interesting to see how far this father was prepared to go for his son and his grandchildren.

-Charles Martel

I bet the guy got screwed in family court himself, and had nothing. It was his final meaningful act, as he saw it. I’m sure we’ll see more of this stuff in the future, as hopelessness characterizes more men’s lives.

joeb February 15, 2013 at 20:51

This is more Government Garbage , I learned awhile back that If a women wants a DNA test , she simple goes to HHS and proclaimed the fact of fatherhood . Free to the female .
If a male wants a Dna test he has to hire a privet testing facility(at his own cost ) and its not admissible in court .
So , the DNA test maybe manipulated by HHS and males chosen by Degree of worth . Seeing that They are Health and Human services .
Rumblings about this scam in Michigan Kind of peaked my interest .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Nemo February 15, 2013 at 21:00

If we simply made paternity testing immediately after birth the sole basis for determining who is named as the legal father on the birth certificate, a huge amount of lawyering would be avoided.

This may be the main reason why lawmakers hate the idea: it eliminates their ability to force men to directly pay for kids that they didn’t father. Someone has to pay for diapers, and if the local drug dealer won’t do it then they’ll trick the plumbers and engineers and grocery store managers into doing it.

BTW, there is a good argument to demand DNA testing simply to avoid accidental incest.

Imagine if the next door neighbor in keyster’s example looked enough like the husband to make everyone *think* that the husband was the biodad of his wife’s son. Then imagine if that son had sex with the girl next door and knocked her up (just like his real father did). Their baby would be the product of half-siblings, a boy and a girl with the same father. Not a good way to avoid genetic diseases, plus it’s real icky.

If women REALLY cared about the welfare of children, they would demand DNA testing at birth to decrease the potential for accidental incest.

Try that argument on a feminist, then sit back and watch her head explode …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
TFH February 15, 2013 at 21:08

The solution to these problems would be a complete overhaul of family law that removed all incentives for women to cuckold husbands and run off with children to collect support payments.

In a Democracy where women are into the 3rd/4th generation of female suffrage, nothing is more politically impossible than this.

Occasional one-off verdicts like this are merely used by feminists to show that the laws are not anti-male, since a woman gets caught 1% of the time, and gets away with it 99% of the time (99% being less than 100%).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
keyster February 15, 2013 at 21:09

Interesting that Obama alluded to lack of fathers in the home today as contributing to gun violence in Chicago.

The black community leaders there are really pushing this meme-FINALLY! …and despite their fellow Democrat feminist minders.

Now, that (education) starts at home. There’s no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families — which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood. (Applause.) Don’t get me wrong — as the son of a single mom, who gave everything she had to raise me with the help of my grandparents, I turned out okay. (Applause and laughter.) But — no, no, but I think it’s — so we’ve got single moms out here, they’re heroic in what they’re doing and we are so proud of them. (Applause.) But at the same time, I wish I had had a father who was around and involved. Loving, supportive parents — and, by the way, that’s all kinds of parents — that includes foster parents, and that includes grandparents, and extended families; it includes gay or straight parents. (Applause.)

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/president-obama-speech-chicago-191471731.html#ixzz2L2E5fsft

Obama “wishes he had had a father”!
That’s a stunning revelation for any politician to state publicly. Even Bill Clinton would never have said that, because “It Takes a Village” to raise a child – ostensibly single moms and female teachers. Feminists will be watching closely to see if he elaborates on this theme of pro-fatherhood…and so will conservatives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 16, 2013 at 07:15

You can bet Feminists will be lobbying, violently, against this– men suck and must pay, regardless!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Just saying February 16, 2013 at 14:13

Talking about England…..ironically enough, the phenomenon of wives “cucukolding” their husbands is quite normal and accepted amongst the aristocratic class. I put cucukold in quotes because often the husband is aware of what has been going on and accepts it because he gets to impregnate another man’s wife with equal impunity. The only difference is that the aristocratic class does not talk about it, unlike the chattering/lower working classes. I think historically these “marriages” were more akin to business arrangements whereby the woman brings a lot of money, prestige and title into the marraige. Both parties get something out of the business arrangement, just not fidelity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Just saying February 16, 2013 at 14:53

Talking about cuckoldry, I thought I’d add an “interesting” angle to this. While sociobiologist understand the need by both men and women for genetic variety, some also think that cuckoldry used to serve another function – that of confusing paternity. In societies (human or otherwise) with high promiscuity and a high proportion of absent fathers, a female having several progeny by several males “protected” her young from male infanticide since the male can’t be sure that he/it is not killing it’s own offspring. In more organised societies where the male assumes responsibility for his family, cucukolry also served the man’s interest in some ways as it could “protect” the man’s biological children from harm by another man (ie the other man can’t be sure he is not harming his own offspring).
Note that I am NOT advocating infidelity or anything of that sort. We no longer live in barbaric lawless societies so our behaviours have to change accordingly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter February 16, 2013 at 19:42

@Opus

“how can the children be illegitimate if the parties are married?”

Firing up the clue factory for you dude, he isn’t the biological father. Attorney’s apparently are dumbshit parasite’s regardless of which side of ‘the pond’ they are on.

That is exactly the kind of non-thinking/non-logic that permeates a degenerate society. You are a buffoon at best – and I still think you are a provocateur.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus February 17, 2013 at 03:58

I am indebted to 3D Shooter (as always) and on this occasion for bringing me up to speed on the difference between Illegitimacy and Legitimacy: clearly I failed to pay sufficient attention to this subtle but basic point when I studied Matrimonial Law. How they ever passed me in the subject I guess I will never know – perhaps the examiner was sleeping, or perhaps he was of a different opinion to 3D Shooter. Hmmm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Chauncy February 17, 2013 at 13:41

Opus studied Matrimonial Law ?

No bloody wonder !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Tom936 February 17, 2013 at 19:51

The Baron February 15, 2013 at 14:55
I have sometimes wondered what would happen, if some daring scoundrel were to sneak into a hospital maternity ward and change all the newborn babies around while no one was looking.

Then, twelve years down the line, he would come clean, and tell all the mothers that their children were not theirs, never were, they were always somebody else s.

You d think feminists would be just fine with that, wouldn t you?

There have been cases of babies switched at birth. Short version, it went just as you’d expect. Brown stuff hit the fan, big lawsuit, major damages awarded, not a peep out of the paternity-fraud excusers, and the media never mentioned the connection.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Tom Smith February 18, 2013 at 15:42

@Opus. First, let me begin by saying I am a lawyer (qualified as a solicitor, but currently only on the roll). I am also admitted in and practice in the U.S. midwest (I will spare you the states where I practice). I disagree with your interpretation of “law” at least as it should apply in the U.S.

For unmarried fathers, I routinely advise obtaining paternity (DNA) tests, because some states- like Iowa- ascribe to the “no blood relationship, no rights” approach to unmarried couples. This means that the lack of a paternity (DNA) test can be raised at any time, even after the admitted (without a paternity test) father has paid substantial support and had significant visitation. This “He’s not the father” defense is typically raised after the “admitted” father files a change custody motion (and it appears mommy will lose).

With married couples, requesting the paternity test is more problematic because there is the presumption that children born during the marriage were fathered by the husband. And most of the time, owing to the overall cost of the divorce proceedings, a divorcing father will not want to expend financial resources on such a test. While- at least in my opinion this is a mistake (i.e. the presumption can be rebutted with a paternity test), the choice is the client’s, not mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
hrmmm February 19, 2013 at 18:37

Prenups and paternity testing, if she makes a fuss, walk away.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 February 20, 2013 at 09:25

@ Tom, you wrote,

With married couples… (i.e. the presumption can be rebutted with a paternity test)

I find your comment interesting, and wonder if you would expand on it. As we all know, in the U.S. a child of a married woman is presumed to be the offspring of her husband (or ex-husband if the divorce occurred within the previous nine months). But I have heard of very few cases where a cuckolded husband has successfully had his child support obligations removed based on the “mere” fact that the child was the result of his ex-wife’s adultery – especially after he has (read: was tricked into) “assumed a fatherly role.” Which – as I understand it – essentially means that he helped the woman during or after her pregnancy, or attended the birth, or held the child, or didn’t know to contest paternity, or pretty much any flimsy excuse to put him on the hook so she can be a “heroic, independent, single mom.”

I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll ask you. Is my view incorrect, or is Iowa law unusual in that regard?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
thisgent April 7, 2013 at 07:27

In my opinion, Paternity Fraud is a very serious moral crime that most women get away with scot-free, and don’t receive punishment even when they are found out.

It’s actually worse than Rape, or at least as bad, and it should be classed as a sex offence and the perpertrator placed on the sex offender’s register in England.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Cuckoo in my nest April 9, 2013 at 03:19

This case gives me hope for an end to the nightmare that is our life and restores some of my faith in our antiquated justice system.

My husbands ex partner convinced him in 1999 that he was the father of the child she was carrying; he took responsibility and is named as the child’s father on the birth certificate. The relationship dissolved acrimoniously but he had weekly contact; many years later he established a contact order and parental responsibility believing he was the childs father and that regular contact was in the interests of the child. We paid child support both privately and through the csa, we covered her debts, paid her mortgage when she couldn’t be bothered (she has 3 children with 3 fathers and is not financially responsible).

We married, had a child of our own. Our child did not have the genetic disorder that the first child had so we sought a reassurance DNA test. Low and behold the first child is not my husbands. We discussed the result with the mother (she laughed) and explained that we would continue financial support for 12 months but that she needed to get a job. She agreed to contact the csa and arrange for another test, to sort out the birth certificate. After 12 months we contacted the csa and they said the payments were cancelled but they would not reveal why. We waited for the repeat tests; none came. The csa will not reveal any of the details of our payments to us as we were not the claimant.

3 years later and she has not had a repeat test done, the child is now aware that the original test was done but he has been told the test was wrong. She has moved 400 miles away so the contact order is impossible to stick to. We have a woman who financially gained about £80k from us over 11 years and who legally has no one to answer to. She had free childcare provided by my husbands family for 12 years.

My husband and I are at a loss with the British legal system; we paid for a contact order as she was so obstructive and difficult about contact. We have been advised that paternity fraud is hard to prove; she was asked in court if there was any doubt over paternity and if a DNA test was needed, she firmly said no. We paid through the csa as it was the only way to have a record of the transactions (she denied that we gave her money during the establishment of the contact order).

We are told she doesn’t have to have the child retested; we can fight this legally but that is another cost added to our family. Without a repeat test the child remains confused as to his parentage.

It should be simple. It should be fair. We should not have to suffer further.

Some people use children for financial gain; this is a sad truth about society. For some people children provide housing and income.

This child will probably never know his biological father; as a mother I find this cruel. The deliberate withholding of someone’s heritage, an unknown man who is being denied the opportunity to be a father and an extended family being denied a relative. The slim chance, but real fear, that the child might meet and have a relationship with a biological relative.

Once you know the truth of biology you have a choice. We needed the truth. DNA testing is not an easy option, we were devastated at the results but also relieved as we no longer had to worry that my husband carried the genetic illness. It was the right thing to do.

I hear a lot of rhetoric about the rights and welfare of the children affected by paternity fraud; but what about the other family? What about the children whose lives are curbed by financial payments to a none biological child? This issue is entirely one sided and every case is different.

Fathers that take this option should be commended for the courage they have shown. Women that lie and hide behind the excuse that “it is harmful for the child to know the truth” are in denial of their actions. What they mean is it will be uncomfortable for them to explain their actions to their child, it will be uncomfortable to be held to account and uncomfortable to pay the money back.

Being a good parent means admitting your mistakes and learning for them; teaching your child to live in a way that is honest, mindful of the feelings of others and aware of the consequences of ones actions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
LR June 7, 2013 at 18:59

Here in the United States, women can be sued for paternity fraud whenever they cheat on their husbands or boyfriends while in France, they let women get away with man-eating and having the manstreses’ children like they’ve done before in the old days. Yeah, women are allowed to be man-eating whores in France while in the USA (and Canada, except French Provinces), they’re not. Maneaters here get battered, raped, kidnapped, and killed. Why? Because North America is very conservative and harsh about women’s sexual behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: