Can't Sue for Paternity Fraud, so what do you do?

**Percy** · 1st-February-2009

Robert Franklin

In the UK You Can’t Sue for Paternity Fraud
2009-01-31 at 2:19 pm · Filed under blog
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Aikens and Mr. Justice Bennett, said: 'This whole case can be categorised as a misfortune to all those engaged in it. I would not wish to be the one to extend their misfortunes further.'

With those words a British judge declined to allow a man who had been the victim of carefully calculated paternity fraud for 18 years, to recover damages for that fraud from his ex-wife.

Cuckoldry is now officially enshrined in British law. It appears to be the policy of the British state to, if not outright promote it, not discourage it either. Read about it here.

So why does the Crown choose deception over honesty? It's a choice that seems unique to this case. Does the United Kingdom opt for dishonesty in, say, commercial transactions?

If the purveyor of swamp water and turpentine represents the concoction as a cure for cancer which just happens to kill those who partake, do its learned justices tell us that it's just all a big 'misfortune' which court proceedings would only 'extend?' I suspect they do not, which raises the question of why they do in this case?

Could it have anything to do with the sexes of the adversaries, or the unstated assumption that, in all things familial, mother must be deferred to? Or perhaps it's the parallel assumption that dad doesn't really care about his children so why should we care about his parental rights?

Somehow these justices seem to have forgotten the concept that civil courts exist to make recompense for civil wrongs. Does it occur to them that, if a man hires a lawyer and sues, he is presumably willing to bear whatever costs, financial and emotional, the process may impose on him?

My guess is that they do understand those things, but the idea of suing a wife and mother for her behavior in those capacities was just too much for them to contemplate.

MLK said that the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

But until the long arc gets to men's parental rights, remember to always ask for a DNA test at the hospital. If your wife/significant other object, just say "Dear, it's not you. This is my problem. I've read so many horror stories about paternity fraud and I just can't get them out of my mind. If I don't do this it'll always haunt me."

Thanks to Mandy for the heads-up.

Paternity fraud fight of husband 'duped for 17 years by wife'

By Lucy Ballinger

Last updated at 3:14 PM on 22nd January 2009

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126463/Husband-sues-wife--8216-duped-17-years-bringing-daughter-wasnt-child.html

A husband was conned for 17 years by his wife into bringing up her lover's child as his own, a court heard yesterday.

Mark Webb only found out the truth from DNA tests conducted after the girl turned 18, it is alleged. He has tried to sue his ex-wife Lydia Chapman for deceiving him over the paternity of her daughter.

In the first 'paternity fraud' case to reach the Appeal Court, Mr Webb claimed his former wife and her alleged lover conceived the girl at a hotel in 1985.

Mr Webb, 47, claims he was given no reason to believe the girl was not his and she was registered as the couple's child.

He claims that three months after the girl was born, Mrs Chapman and her alleged lover again met at a summer barbecue, where they sneaked away to a nearby picnic area to have sex.

He alleged that they also discussed the baby's paternity and deliberately set out to make Mr Webb believe the girl was his daughter.

Mr Webb claimed that, for years, his wife had continued with the deception, even giving her husband Birthday and Christmas cards from his 'daughter' referring to him as her 'daddy', the court heard.

Mr Webb, from Bournemouth, claimed he financially supported the girl from birth without a penny in maintenance from the 'true father'.
Lord Justice Thorpe said the case involved 'interesting socio-legal arguments'
Mrs Chapman, who denies deceiving her ex-husband, allegedly told Mr Webb in 2002 that he was not the girl's father and filed for divorce the following year.

Mr Webb's barrister, Nicholas Mostyn, QC, told the court it was not until 2004 – by which time the girl was 18 – that a DNA test confirmed that he was not the girl's father.

Mr Mostyn argued the case raised 'profound questions' about a spouse's 'duty of candour' to their partner. He told the court: 'Honesty and good faith lie at the very heart of the contract of marriage.'

Describing 45-year-old Mrs Chapman as an 'inveterate liar', he claimed she had 'a fixed and certain knowledge' that Mr Webb was not the girl's father.

Mr Mostyn said Mr Webb's 'sense of injustice' meant he wanted to pursue his case to the House of Lords if necessary, but the Appeal Court judges denied him that opportunity yesterday.

They refused him permission to appeal against a Bournemouth County Court judge's dismissal of his damages claim.

Lord Justice Thorpe said the case involved 'interesting socio-legal arguments' but would 'visit upon the litigants huge burdens, both financial and emotional, which are disproportionate to any prospects of success'.
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Bennett, said: 'This whole case can be categorised as a misfortune to all those engaged in it. I would not wish to be the one to extend their misfortunes further.'

At her £250,000 red-brick cottage in Southampton, Mrs Chapman refused to talk about the case last night. Her alleged lover also refused to comment.

So, when you cannot rely on the Law for Justice
it may be the time for Rule 303.

**novaseeker** · 1st-February-2009

I looked into this case when it came down. One of the things we lawyers tend to say is that "bad facts make for bad law". There were some bad facts here.

The first bad fact is that the case involved a situation where the guy had a relationship as father with the girl for her entire minor life, yet he chose to disown her. Yes, this relationship was based on a falsehood, but the relationship, from the child's point of view, was a real one. His disownment of the young woman was understandable in a way (women may not understand this, but being cuckolded, and especially for an extended period by being tricked into raising the other man's kid, is easily the most humiliating thing a man can experience). But it was not the right decision. That fact right there made for a bad setup for a test case of paternity fraud.

The second bad fact was that the relationship with the daughter as 'father' went on for so long -- pretty much throughout her years as a minor. In that case, it would be very odd for the law to permit the father to simply walk away, as this guy chose to do. Again, a fact like that skews the case decision.

The real test case for paternity fraud is what happens if the fraud is discovered at birth, by a DNA test at birth? Can the husband then walk away without liability? One would think so, but it isn't at all clear under the law. But *that* would be the proper test case for paternity fraud, not a case like this one which has some bad facts.

On balance, I still think that the court should have allowed a cause of action for some kind of damages. Reducing a lifetime fraud of the most central order in a man's life to a mere 'misfortune' is quite outrageous. At a minimum the ex-wife should be made to pay damages of some sort -- there should be some fine for her having defrauded her husband for so long. The idea that this is a fraud without a remedy is outrageous -- but you tend to get outrageous holdings when you don't have good facts.

I think that MRAs should all be pushing for mandatory DNA testing at birth, to moot these issues at the outset of life, before the 'established relationship' argument can be deployed. Of course the women's groups (and many women apart from those groups as well) will be against this, but there is no reasonable ground to be against it, other than the desire to hide cases of fraud.

**Percy** · 1st-February-2009

In the story as given, Novo, there is nothing said about 'disowning' the daughter.

It is an artifact of law that propels a father to 'disown', so that 'true' biologicality can be established.

He too 'owns' his emotional bond with the child, a building bond that was deliberately overseen and encouraged by the LIAR mother who was not only facilitating his bond but the daughter's too.

Paternity fraud is an emotional crime against the father AND the child, for financial gain.

The biological father should have been sued too. He should be the paying financial compensation as he was the one benefitting from the abnegation of his responsibility and excaping his financial burden. The mother, who recieved the financial support deceptively should be paying compensation for the emotional pain she caused.

In the absence of the Law acting with any sense of natural justice, both the mother and the biological father should pay with their lives. But the law cannot be relied upon anymore. It is corrupt in principle.

I, personally - a nice fellow with much compassion - would have them both shot. The man and his daughter would be much better off without them.

A more humane - and fun - alternative would be to set up a scam which totally dispossessed the bio father and the wife, ruining them and exposing them to public ridicule and approbation. That only seems to happen on TV shows.

**MikeT** · 1st-February-2009

Simple, folks.
Stay the hell away from women and their lying, cheating ways.
Men will learn this lesson one by one and at their detriment.
Everyone in society is against them, the public, the meeja and the courts.

Just don't get involved with women, they are BAD NEWS all around.

**novaseeker** · 1st-February-2009

Yes the initial news stories don't go into what he did -- you have to dig around the internet a bit, and there were other stories about it as the case was progressing. Apparently, for example, he returned a stack of father's day cards that the young woman had hand drawn for him over the years, he would come to visit his bio children and studiously ignore her ... stuff like that --> that's not what you want to do when you are getting ready to go before a judge, generally speaking. My guess is that the judge looked at the facts, threw up, and decided not to do anything. But aside from that, the key issue is that there should be across the board testing at birth, so that stuff like this does not come up 18 years down the track.

**Percy** · 1st-February-2009

Thanks for that, Nova.

I might, personally, find that behaviour disgraceful. I can also see it as a reaction to years of deception.

Living in a false reality, manipulated by a liar, can have devastating effects.

I am not excusing his for being so deliberately callous toward his daughter though, but I also do not see that it has any place in the Judge's considerations.

I totally agree with your view that ALL children ought to be tested at birth. Not wholly and soley for paternity reasons, but for health info availability too, brought about by their genetic heritage.

**haahoo** · 1st-February-2009

Its easy to get carried away with the, understandable, emotionalism such things will engender, but lets not forget how easy it would have been for mother to do pop down to the abortion clinic and "solve" the problem before it arose..

MikeT has the right idea, alls fair in love and war, you dont have to partake in either..

The issues, all too easily, come down to money as ever..

That is sad, it is a sad reflection of the mens movement that they dont realise just who is putting them in this position..

The state with its financial burdens it places on men and its failure to understand that women are responsible, not men, for their choices on what they allow in their vagina's..

Compulsory DNA testing is not something I support the idea of, yet their are reasons beyond just ascertaining paternity for the avoidance of financial conning.. (Which is largely a product of the state's persecution of fathers), which Percy has mentioned.

You can be sure compulsory DNA testing, like the CSA before it, will lead to more demand for the trade of the baby butchers..

If men were to focus more on the states provision of such perversities as child support and abortion, they would go further I think towards reducing womens incentives to be sluts.

**Percy** · 1st-February-2009

You can be sure compulsory DNA testing, like the CSA before it, will lead to more demand for the trade of the baby butchers..

Yes, you might be right, but nevertheless it could also lead to a widescale reappraisal of responisibility and an increase in honesty.

Society's moral apprehension has declined. It will reach a point where it can only improve.

Historically it was not possible for a father to be 'certain'. Now it is. It meeds Men to DEMAND certainty.

Abortion is a WOMAN'S crime. An increase in that will also reach a point of sheer horror and the tide will turn.

**haahoo** · 1st-February-2009

I fear that things can certainly get worse, and may even have to do, before they can get better..

**Feckless** · 1st-February-2009

Quote from novaseeker

I think that MRAs should all be pushing for mandatory DNA testing at birth

You can test while it is still in the mothers womb as the mothers blood (which doctors usually control often when there is a pregnant woman) contains the childs dna. So you can easily test beforehand.

**bonkers** · 1st-February-2009

Quote from Feckless

You can test while it is still in the mothers womb as the mothers blood (which doctors usually control often when there is a pregnant woman) contains the childs dna. So you can easily test beforehand.

Yeah . . . I read about this also

The thing is though, lots of married women are having affairs and if they become pregnant they have this test. If the baby turns out to be from their lover rather than their husband, they then opt for that legalised murder option.

One company who offers the DNA service saw a jump in requests from 20 to 500 last year . . . .

Women!! . . . ya gotta lov'em . . . .but protect yaself

**novaseeker** · 1st-February-2009

Yes, the amniotic tests are a bit controversial if they are being used to determine whether to abort or not. Ethically companies and doctors seem more comfortable administering them for that purpose in the case of rape victims, but much less comfortable in the case of adulterous women. I can understand that, given the controversy surrounding abortion in general.

But testing at birth doesn't have those ethical concerns.

**haahoo** · 1st-February-2009

Quote from novaseeker

Yes, the amniotic tests are a bit controversial if they are being used to determine whether to abort or not. Ethically companies and doctors seem more comfortable administering them for that purpose in the case of rape victims, but much less comfortable in the case of adulterous women. I can understand that, given the controversy surrounding abortion in general.

But testing at birth doesn't have those ethical concerns.

I guess any woman who wants one will have to prove she was raped then..

"I was raped" is usually enough evidence..

**Percy** · 1st-February-2009

In most western countries it is 'standard protocol' to do tests on new born babies. In Oz there are three 'mandatory' tests on a sample of blood to screen for specific diseases.

To do a DNA test they would not even have to take any more blood or make any other 'invasion' of the baby's body.

**haahoo** · 1st-February-2009

Quote from Percy

In most western countries it is 'standard protocol' to do tests on new born babies. In Oz there are three 'mandatory' tests on a sample of blood to screen for specific diseases.

To do a DNA test they would not even have to take any more blood or make any other 'invasion' of the baby's body.

I am sure that it will not be long before the state gets everyones DNA on the register, to use as they see fit..