Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Man finds out child is not his.wants to sue.

49 replies

mayorquimby · 26/04/2010 10:39

Just saw this link, anyone know of it's veracity or any more details than is provided?
Should he be entitled to sue for damages or get his share of the house back? women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article7107079.ece

OP posts:
GypsyMoth · 26/04/2010 10:41

it boils down to money?

Original poster
mayorquimby · 26/04/2010 10:43

well sorry having re-read it my title was misleading (is there anyway I can edit it?I just skim read the first time.)
He is not looking for any maintenance/schooling/up-keep payments back, but he did sign away his share of the family home at the divorce proceedings as he did not want to disrupt his daughters lie. He now wants to reverse that as he feels it was based on a lie and wants the family home to be sold after the daughter moves away and for the proceeds to be divided between him and his ex.

OP posts:
YesYouMust · 26/04/2010 10:44

'?I did it because I didn?t want my daughter?s life to be disrupted, I didn?t want her to have to move home because I wanted a divorce,? he says.'

But now because she's not biologically his it doesn't matter

Original poster
mayorquimby · 26/04/2010 10:44

*life not lie

OP posts:
Original poster
mayorquimby · 26/04/2010 10:45

well no becaus ehe still wants the house to remain unsold until she moves out, he just does not see why his wife should get it whole sale when she has been so deceitful.
Personally I could imagine wanting to sue for a whole lot more.

OP posts:
Original poster
mayorquimby · 26/04/2010 10:47

"James says he does not want to turn Ella out of her home, but that when she finishes college and moves away there is no reason why the house should not be sold and the proceeds divided between him and his former wife."

So it's not as though he wants her out right away because she is not his daughter, he still believes she should be looked after until she is independent. But after that why should his ex-wife who tricked him into living a lie for so long benefit from this lie?

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 26/04/2010 10:48

why didn't he DNA test right after she was born?

YesYouMust · 26/04/2010 10:49

I saw that after, but tbh that would have stood even if she was his, who said the wife tricked him? It says in the article she believed he was the father, that isn't unheard of.

DeborahDevonshire · 26/04/2010 10:49

As far as I understood it, he doesn't want any maintenance payments back, or to stop. Just that when his dd moves out, he wants half the proceeds of the house, which he signed away (against advice at the time).

It was a pretty sad story when I read it yesterday. Said when he found out he and his daughter just cried and cried. He also said that he would be devastated if his dd tried to make contact with her biological father.

I actually do understand where he is coming from. I think he should probably get his house back.

However if he did win this case I imagine that it woukd create on hell of a precedent, and lots of other similar cases would be tried.

It's just an awful situation altogether I think.

Chil1234 · 26/04/2010 10:49

I don't think the man will find that he's entitled to anything legally. If it's true that he gave up his share of the marital home so that the girl's life wasn't disrupted it is unlikely that his decision would have been any different if the test had been done earlier.

Sounds like a devastating situation for all concerned but not one that financial redress would make any better.

Original poster
mayorquimby · 26/04/2010 10:50

No idea, he sounds like a prize prick as well with a fair amount of extra-marital shenanigans. were DNA tests prevelant/the norm/ readily available back then?
No idea why he signed anything away in the first place.

OP posts:
DeborahDevonshire · 26/04/2010 10:52

It doesn't seem from the article that the wife deliberately tricked him. She may well be as shocked as her daughter and ex hiusband.

I suppose the decent thing to do in her case would be to split the house proceeds in two anyway, however we do not know how bitter the relationship between them was in the end (I imagine it was quite acrimonious reading that article) and of course it may not be that simple, she may have mortgages on it for instance, other children she is raising in the house.

I just think how bloody sad for all concerned.

PfftTheMagicDragon · 26/04/2010 10:54

But of course, the best thing to do in a situation like this is to make sure everyone in the world can read about it

Original poster
mayorquimby · 26/04/2010 10:59

"It doesn't seem from the article that the wife deliberately tricked him. She may well be as shocked as her daughter and ex hiusband."

Seeing as she will have known for certain that she was sleeping with at least one other man at the time she became pregnant I doubt it's possible for her to be "as shocked". In fact if she was sleeping with more than one person at the time I'd say she knew the chances were st best 50-50 it was his.

And I'd imagine the reason he is publicising it is that he can't afford to take the case himself so is looking for some sort of benefactor/donations/ class action suit situation.

OP posts:
wannaBe · 26/04/2010 10:59

tbh I can sort of understand why he feels the way he does.

And I don't buy the argument that the mother genuinely couldn't have known - it's really quite simple - if you have sex with two men close together and get pregnant then there's a chance that either of them could be the father.

If you get pregnant in the month that you had sex with a man other than your husband, there's a chance that other man could be the father of your child.

So while the mother might have believed that the daughter was her husband's, I don't buy for a minute that the possibility never crossed her mind.

expatinscotland · 26/04/2010 11:00

they both sound dire. i feel sorry for the kid.

YesYouMust · 26/04/2010 11:02

'I don't buy for a minute that the possibility never crossed her mind. '

I quite agree, but it's clear from the article that the possiblity had also crossed his mind.

2shoes · 26/04/2010 11:03

poor man

Reality · 26/04/2010 11:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

DeborahDevonshire · 26/04/2010 11:06

Yes in the ST article I read he wa publicising this in order to raise funds to try the case - he hasn't the money to do so.

One very mixed up young girl in the middle of all this.

wannaBe · 26/04/2010 11:06

YYM but the difference between him and her is that for him to confront the possibility would mean having to come to terms with the fact that his daughter was not his daughter. Whereas for her there was seemingly no need to address the possibility, because her daughter would always still be her daughter, iyswim.

YesYouMust · 26/04/2010 11:10

All the more reason for him to be responsible for himself, instead of bleating on about how hard done by he is.

It is possible she was convinced he was the father, protection with OM only once whatever, we just don't know.

LadyBiscuit · 26/04/2010 11:10

Why the fuck would you put a child you had raised through that? For money? What an arse

lockets · 26/04/2010 11:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

QueenofDreams · 26/04/2010 11:21

Hmm - he admits he wasn't much of a husband. He cheated on his wife multiple times. Then he has the gall to say he can't believe she would 'do the dirty' on him? So cheating is fine as long as it's him doing it. He does sound like an arse.
They were both cheating on each other, he can't have a go at her about deceit now.