The mother of the nine-year-old boy has been ordered to repay the man she wrongly claimed was the father of her child after he found out he was unable to have children. For nine years the man - who has not been identified - believed he had a son and said he was manipulated by his former lover following their rendezvous.
The couple, who live in different states in Australia, met on the internet in late 2000 and had a one-off liaison in early 2001, it has been reported. Now, the child's mother must give back the $3,730 given to her in child support payments after the case was dealt with in the courts.
According to the Herald Sun, the woman claimed she believed he was the only man who could have been the father of her child. The man was even asked to sign a statutory document declaring he was the father to enable her to claim family tax benefit.
It wasn't until last year, when the man tried to have a baby with his new partner that he discovered he was 'physiologically incapable of conceiving a child' and a subsequent test ruled him out as the father.
Australia's Federal Magistrates Court was told that the woman now remembered another encounter with a different man who must be the child's true father - but she said she did not know his identity. The court heard that, at the time of both one night stands, the mother's memory and thought processes were unclear due to a serious bout of depression and stress from an earlier abusive relationship
Federal Magistrate [Mangina] Stewart Brown said in a judgment published this week that the mother had been negligent rather than deceitful by not telling the man of her earlier liaison.
He said: 'I think it unlikely that (the mother) would have forgotten her earlier liaison with the person she now concedes must be the (boy's) father.' Describing the woman 'at best lax and at worst disingenuous', Mr Brown ordered her to repay the man at $15 a fortnight. He said the woman had at best been lax and at worst disingenuous.
Fighting the application, the woman claimed the order was 'oppressive' because she could not afford to pay back child support. However, Mr Brown ordered her to repay the man $15 a fortnight, saying he had paid her child support to which she was not legally entitled.
For two weeks after the boy's birth the couple tried to live together as a family but the relationship broke down and the man had not seen his 'son' since he was a toddler. The court was also told how the man had been 'harried' by the Child Support Agency.
However, the man was told by Mr Brown that he approached the intimate relationship with a level of irresponsibility, adding: 'Without wishing to appear either trite or prurient, it takes two willing participants engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse to conceive a child.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1aEcp2kzG
Shocking story! The Manginastrate fell for the pussy pass because what that women did was theft, pure and simple theft via deception. The bitch obviously knew who the real dad was/is but opted for the easy push over/easy money choice! Did the man involved get such a good deal from the Child Support folk, did they offer him an easy $15 a fortnight payment plan?? Unlikely! They most likely offered him prison, or should I say threatened his liberty whilst the whore who set the CS services onto him sat back, pissing and moaning with crap like "where's my money!!" and "I want my money". That women should named, shamed and sent to prison!
remasculating and deeverboydd like this.
Reply
