MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Down Under Takes On Whole New Meaning

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 2:03 am Sat 22nd July 2006

Dateline: Australia
Author: Soli
From: Dads On Air
Via: Honor Network

Down Under Takes On Whole New Meaning

The High Court is confronting that issue right now. Liam and Meredith Magill were married in April 1988. A son was born in April 1989. Unknown to her husband, a few months later Meredith began an affair with a man, having unprotected sex until early 1995. In July 1990 a second son was born. Then, the next year, a daughter. After separating, Meredith admitted to Liam her concerns over paternity. A few years later she agreed to DNA tests. Liam learned that the two younger children were not his.

He was left devastated, suffered chronic depression and was unable to work. He sued Meredith for the tort of deceit, claiming financial compensation for his pain and suffering, but not for money spent on the upbringing and maintenance of the children.

While the Victorian County Court found that Meredith had deceived Liam when she nominated him as the father on birth registration notices, that was overturned last year by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The High Court will now decide whether the tort of deceit will hold Meredith accountable for her actions.

There are few hints as to which way the High Court will go. But few will be surprised to hear that at the hearing a few weeks back, Justice Michael Kirby pointed to international law as the guiding light. He cited Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and said it means that the starting point in any matter that comes before the court must be determining what is in the best interests of the child.

Up in the rarefied atmosphere of international law, it’s a neat sounding slogan. But down in the trenches, trying to apply it to the specifics of a case like this is another matter. Kirby suggests that the “best interests of the child” test applies for the simple reason that this case involves the depletion of family income: were Liam Magill to win, Meredith Magill would be forced to pay. It’s a novel argument. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would prevent any legal action against any person who also happens to be a parent. After all, any legal payout drains the family income to the detriment of a child.

Note that Kirby’s focus on the best interests of the child did not extend to a child knowing their biological father. Given that adoption laws are now premised on this rationale, one might think it should also apply here.

In any event, the High Court will need to probe a little deeper than the fine sounding but vacuous provisions of international law. And the question is simple: should the law of deceit apply where a mother and wife has deceived a husband into believing he is the father of a child? The court need not mess with the law of deceit. The principles are clear. Only the facts are new because science – DNA testing – is now revealing the deceit.

Those who claim there is a public policy argument in letting sleeping dogs lie assume that preventing litigation of this kind will make for happy families. It will do no such thing. It will only encourage women to perpetrate fraud in an age when science can uncover the truth. And there is no turning science back. Legal disputes over paternity fraud do not create the unhappiness. They are merely the aftermath of mothers deceiving men.

As in every other sphere of life, the only way to encourage responsibility is to make people accountable for their actions. The law has an important role in sending powerful messages capable of shaping behaviour in the future. Far from creating more unhappiness, legal sanctions for paternity fraud will, in the long run, encourage mothers to be honest about paternity.

That is why, if the High Court decides that the laws of deceit do not apply, in effect allowing women to engage in paternity fraud at will, parliament will need to step in. As the Australian Medical Association has said, this is a time bomb ready to explode; the AMA suggests that in Australia there are 200,000 families where the “presumptive father is not the biological father”.

Unfortunately some feminists refuse to acknowledge the reality of paternity fraud. Following the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision against Liam Magill, the former Victorian convener of the Women’s Electoral Lobby, Lisa Solomon, announced: “Women are moral, reasonable, rational beings. It would be a very rare instance where a woman would name someone who wasn’t the father of the child.”

For Solomon, it was about vindictive men using DNA tests to avoid paying for children.

Get the picture? Women, good. Men, bad. Phew. Nothing like a little sex stereotyping when it suits. Leave aside the rank hypocrisy of feminists resorting to the kind of sweeping generalisations that would send them ballistic if made in the reverse. The real problem is that gender-blinkered statements get us nowhere in sorting out what to do when paternity fraud happens.

If a mother gives birth to a child and is negligently given the wrong baby in hospital, no one would question her right to claim damages. Deliberate paternity fraud should be no different.

It’s not a person’s sex that matters. It’s the damage caused by another that counts.

One suggestion is that paternity testing be made mandatory whenever a birth is registered. A correspondent from University College in London emailed during the week with the following idea: “As long as BDM [Births, Deaths and Marriages] registries are kept, they might as well be kept accurately. I would give about 10 months’ notice before the new regulation or legislation takes effect. That’s enough time for people to adjust their behaviour (or improve their contraceptive methods). With complete transparency and accountability, responsible adults will be better empowered.”

It’s an interesting idea. Short of that happening, paternity fraud is here to stay. And so the question is whether we condone it or condemn it.

If the High Court or parliament shies away from the issue, that will amount to society, in effect, condoning fatherhood founded on fraud.

83 Responses to “Down Under Takes On Whole New Meaning”

  1. New Zeal says:

    Paternity tests can be a spanner in the works. Two points here:
    1. It is well known that a good percentage, maybe 10% of all births are fathered by someone other than the recognised biological father. This has been and probably will always be the case. Human sexual biology is configured for this.
    2. A psychological parent is both a legal and an emotional entity. Ie: a parent who is a parent because they provided for, nurtured, played with, disciplined, counseled etc is as much a parent as anyone can be a parent. Millions of children are adopted each year by adults who cannot be their biological parents, but who are their psychological parents. A good example if such parents are Nicole Kidman and Angelina Jolie.

    This is all very sad for Liam Magill, but is he going to write off the half dozen years or more that he was psychological father of this wife’s children just like that? He can’t have developed a quality relationship with either of them if he just wants to wipe the slate, especially when the biological father does not appear to be on the scene. He needs to get over the small problem of biology and realise that he is father by default. If he does that then he stands to gain from being a parent through the lives of his biological and non-biological children.

  2. Peter Burns says:

    New Zeal the Liam Magill case is going to set a legal precedent as to the credibility of the natural father throughout the world. I think most parents ( except you of course !!!!!) would be upset by the skulk behaviour of such a malicious fraudulent mother .To say otherwise is just foolish rhetoric as a obvious crime has been committed .

  3. new zeal says:

    As the story is written, the mother did not know for sure who the father of the children was. Therefore, she did not ‘commit fraud’ knowingly.

    Unlike men, who can have affairs with no risk of introducing alien genetics into the family, women do. If Liam should get repaid for all his years’ work for the family that somehow was not his, then that needs to be connected to the biological father becoming financially responsible for the children instead. Otherwise it is not fair on the children who did not ask for this to happen to them. If neither the psychological father by default (Liam) nor the biological father want to take responsibility for the children, then the state takes over in the form of the DPB.

    The kinds of attitudes expressed here only provide support for the existence of the DPB as a necessary and valuable institution.

    For every “malicious fraudulent mother” there is an equally malicious infidelious male lurking in the background, whose responsibility has been totally overlooked in this scenario. He is a father too, and his case does not lend much support to the oh-woe-is-me-fathers-are-getting-shafted-all-round-by-society hypothesis that is being put forward here.

  4. Mark says:

    New Zeal says that “unlike men, who can have affairs ……….”. this is typical of legal rhetoric, in other words, it qualatively assumes that ALL MEN do the same as ALL WOMEN, i.e its OK for a woman to fraudulently allow her partner to assume that the child is his because all men are doing the same thing themselves and fathering children all over the place. It ignores the point that while every disloyal woman is partnered with a third man, it does not justify the deceit and fraud suffered by the first man, the woman’s partner. It also does not take account that everyone prefers to put their efforts into their own children, not those of others. For women, the children are always theirs without exception. if women didn’t care about biological parenting then you would expect them to forgo the inconvenience of pregnancy and just adopt one ready made. this never happens

  5. scrap_the_CSA says:

    Simple issue here is that the mother in most of these cases is committing fraud for fiannancial gain. Usally via the Child Support Act.This is all at the expense of a childs right to know his or her father (There is only one father and thats the biological father – psycholigcal fatherhood is an legal/academic myth)

    Zeal-You are comparing an apple to an orange. Adoption is a case where legal ties are severed with both parents creating a legal and psycholigical fiction it is not based on deliberately defrauding a father and child by deception and lying by a mother.

    Zeal – you need to actually think about your prejudices toward men and fathers in particular. It would help if you read some of the historic posts on paternity on this site.Then you might understand the damage done to Dads and kids by this fraud.

    Regards

    Scrap

    Regards

    Scrap

  6. Intrepid says:

    Kent Said,

    It is well known that a good percentage, maybe 10% of all births are fathered by someone other than the recognised biological father. This has been and probably will always be the case. Human sexual biology is configured for this.

    Where are you deconstructionist skills now Kent darling? You’re so hard on men “in general” and cold and heartless to men here on MENZ.

    Now say it honestly these 10% of women, who make a man bring up another man’s kid by sleeping around while married, are “evil little witches”, no?

    And in the Aussie case she is evil to her core for she has done it time and time again over the years and years, which involved lies rolling off the tongue even faster than you!

    You also said,

    For every “malicious fraudulent mother” there is an equally malicious infidelious male lurking in the background

    Your deconstructionist skills have returned here. So for every cheating husband there is a little evil(or several for men like many partners) woman who gets equal blame as to the cheating man. This suggests there are more women than men for men like many partners remeber!

    Why haven’t you brought this up before when bashing men who sleep around? Is it because we have here “a women as bad person report”, that destroys the status quo again?

    There are many such cases. In one case in Texas the women, even after having tests done on her 3 boys, denied that she had slept around with 3 other men, other than her husband. You dismiss these men’s pain, like men suffer none. This is treating men like they are tougher, and idea you have argued against on your site (that men are programmed to be different) yet you treat them very old school for a modern perfectionist. How can you go on thinking you are logical in any way when you continue to violate your own principles so often?

    Old school one moment, new nanny school the next. You flip as often as the french in alliances. Viva la differance! Monta taburnac!Mair!

  7. New Zeal says:

    So does the biological father of the two children in question here not figure at all? Is he totally free of any kind of responsibility in this, because he is a male, and historically males have been given a hard time, because males are somehow powerless to females and to their own sexual urges?

    You make all men seem like blameless angels while women are painted as evil fraudsters. There’s kind of like an unrealistic bias here. For every hard nosed woman who sleeps around and lies about paternity there is at least one male doing the same kind of thing.

    Zeal-You are comparing an apple to an orange. Adoption is a case where legal ties are severed with both parents creating a legal and psycholigical fiction it is not based on deliberately defrauding a father and child by deception and lying by a mother.

    The point about adoption is that parenting takes place quite adequately wihout the necessity for a biological connection. Sure it is done by consent rather than deceit, but the outcome is the same: the parent is the parent because they do all the things that parents do. Over inflating the importance of the biological connection puts males down to the same level as male lions who kill offspring of other males when they take over a pride of females.

    (There is only one father and thats the biological father – psycholigcal fatherhood is an legal/academic myth)

    Having been through the FC myself I know that psychological father is a term that is readily used and applied.

    It also does not take account that everyone prefers to put their efforts into their own children, not those of others.

    I would agree with that, however, if you have already brought up for 5-10 years a child that you supposed was biologically yours then you become bonded to that child. Liam Magill, by denying fatherhood of these two children is negating that relationship, something which involves not only him but also the two children. These children are the innocent parties here. They did not ask for their paternity to be screwed up, and here we have the supposed angelic innocent victim father forcibly negating and removing any father-child relationship that they may have developed over the years since their birth. For that child that sucks.

    Those are the kinds of considerations that the court is likely to make in this case. Biological considerations which are high on the male lion’s priority list are low on the human priority list. Human history is riddled with cases of undetermined paternity. It is a reality that we live with. It is part of human biology. Maybe DNA testing and the male pill will change that, so that it is different in the future.

  8. julie says:

    New Zeal,

    I cannot agree with anything you say on this one. This is far too serious. How damaging would it be for you to find out you are not the father of your children. And that the mother lied to you all these years. I would be devastated. And I would think alot of counselling would have to be involved. I told a man today about this and he said that even though he has 8 children with 2 he adopted he has always had in the back of his mind that 1 wasn’t his. This is mind stuff to the max. This is not about the children this is about a male, the father, the victim of the worst deciept. If you have done psychology you would know how damaging this is.
    Many years ago I was mucking around with palm reading and told this guy he had 2 children according to his palm. To my astonishment he said, “I knew the last one wasn’t mine.” He was so upset I have never read another palm even for fun. This is stuff people kill for. This is insanity stuff.
    All chidren’s well-being relies on this case showing this deciept for exactly what it is. DECEIPT to both parties, the fathers’ and the childrens’.

  9. Mark says:

    New Zeal wrote “Over inflating the importance of the biological connection puts males down to the same level as male lions who kill offspring of other males when they take over a pride of females.” New Zeal, you need to stay on track and forget the legal adage we so often hear in court that one wrong cancels out another, even when that one wrong is committed by lions and has nothing to do with the current topic which deals with humans. all of nature is full of terrible deceipt, deception and treachery and there are just as many examples of female ‘evil’ in nature as the one you give concerning lions, such as females that eat the male after conception etc. the examplkes are countless. Nonetheless, no wrong doing is ever justified and it is patently unfair for a woman to trick her partner into believing that the children were also his when given the option, he most likely would have found a more honest partner. relationships give benefits in return for some personal sacrifce

  10. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    The point about adoption is that parenting takes place quite adequately wihout the necessity for a biological connection. Sure it is done by consent rather than deceit, but the outcome is the same: the parent is the parent because they do all the things that parents do. Over inflating the importance of the biological connection puts males down to the same level as male lions who kill offspring of other males when they take over a pride of females

    Get real Zeal. Now you are trying to compare an apple with a box!You make the same mistakes that is a hallmarl of all social sciences. You bring your own prejudice to the situation and fail to acknowledge and accept that prejudice. This resultd in Freuds delussions and The anthropoligists talking about the noble savage.

    By the way you could have used female spiders who mate with and kill the male as a more realistic example.

    Get back to the real issues : Ill help you do that.

    Parents for Children 20 April 2005

    For Immediate Release

    Law Commission recommendations on paternity testing unacceptable to parents and children.

    “Last Thursday, the TV3 documentary Inside NZ: DNA and You, showed Kiwi’s that paternity fraud does happen in New Zealand. Paternity fraud is a deliberate act of dishonesty, with the clear purpose of depriving a child of her right to know her genetic and cultural heritage, usually with the hope of financial gain. Preventing this fraud is simple: free DNA paternity tests for fathers. Samples can be taken by a GP, testing done by a lab and counselling made available for all parties. Not a complicated legal appeals process in a dysfunctional discredited and closed Family Court. The Law Commission recommendations are unacceptable to parents and children.” Commented Mark Shipman, National President of Parents for Children, on the DNA paternity testing recommended by the Law Commission

    The Law Commission states in its report “We acknowledge that a father cannot be absolutely certain of his paternity save for a DNA test, unlike the mother ” (5.51) then goes on to propose constructing a legal process that focuses on some theoretical notion of ethics and consent. The end cost to Taxpayers for implementation of this proposal will be hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, most of it going to support the family law industry. It’s unacceptable that the Commission supports keeping barriers in place that continue to encourage paternity fraud when the solution is simple.” Commented Shipman

    ”The potential for financial gain from these frauds is huge! If a father is earning say $45,000, lives by himself and has his daughter on the weekends, he would be paying about $5700 annually as child support for one child. Over 18 years he could pay over $100,000 in child support. That’s a lot of money” Responded Shipman when asked what the financial effect on a father a paternity fraud could have.

    ”The loss of family history, social and cultural identity when a child is deprived of her father and led to believe that a stranger is her father and the long term effects of this on the child must not be understated. Kids have two biological parents mum and dad, they have a right to be parented and be a part of the family and cultural life of both parents.” Responded Shipman when asked what effect on a child a paternity fraud could have.

    Ends

    For further information contact
    Mark Shipman 021982222
    James Nicolle 021800586

  11. New Zeal says:

    I appreciate all your arguments, however I don’t buy the idea that in the Magill case it is deliberate fraud, given that the mother cannot have known until she had a DNA test that the children were not those of the man she was living with. That I believe is the case here, and for several years it appears all five family members were living together as a unit before they separated. So there are two factors:
    1. The mother cannot be deliberately deceiving if she does not know for sure.
    2. The father has lived with the children for a number of formative years which likely means he has formed fatherly bonds.
    Until you respond to these factors then you are not responding to the issues.

    I do not think from the information provided that the Magill mother set out to purposely defraud the father. I will agree, though, that there are likely to be some scumbags out there who do go out of their way to defraud fathers through false paternity. We are talking crime here and you are churning out your arguments in support of a minority of cases, in which the mother is unscrupulous, but is not necessarily a reflection of the average situation.

    Maybe any father following separation from a spouse and children should have the right to get the children DNA tested in order to determine whether or not he should pay child support. If every father tested every child that was born into their family and found out one was not his right there on the delivery table, what is this going to mean? Should the real father then be made responsible?

    You guys obviously have no experience with adoptees and what they go through. After an upbringing with foster parents, biological parents are often meaningless.

    Your arguments are valid within the world which you have created them, but they encourage the idea that men should only feel fatherly towards children that are their own kin. This is not a good approach given the huge numbers of step fathers out there in society, who, by living with the mother take on by default some kind of fatherly role. For them biological connection has to be ignored so that they can serve a useful fatherly role in the household. Your attitude towards the importance of the biological connection unfortunately does nothing to help diminish the sorry statistics regarding step fathers and abuse of step children in our society. However your attitude does help me to understand why step fathers are such a problem.

  12. Intrepid says:

    Dear Kent with Zeal,
    By the same token a whore doesn’t know which one was the father. Your devils advocate is getting beyond all proportion in your effort to win. Does a whore get to go up to person 27 and say, “you are the dad” and you can’t DNA me or you’re are violating my civil rights! Or if she is married to a passive man, and a practicing whore, does the man have to take care of every child she chooses to have? What if a women disappears for a few years, and therefore the husband can’t get a divorce, and turns up with a handful of kids, is he stuck? Any women is thus allowed to destroy any man with the support of the state. You haven’t thought about any of this, unless your a full time shit-disturber. You said,

    The mother cannot be deliberately deceiving if she does not know for sure.

    What if she simply doesn’t want to know? She can choose which rich bloke she wants to have as dad. In the US this has happened when some women had chosen a man that didn’t like her from the start, didn’t have sex with her, but is now paying child support. It seems no one even bother to get the poor blokes opinion and simply sent him the court order to pay. Her word becomes law.

    You are also now allowing women to be the old fashion women, who persons of your like say couldn’t make decisions for themselves in the past for men over controlled them, and were protected by the state. You are getting everyone dizzy with the amount of flipping from the old school to the new school when your emotions desire it. Make up your mind. Can women make choices and live by them or must the state come to the protect them from making decisions, for the can’t be left to decide anything? And there is more,

    However your attitude does help me to understand why step fathers are such a problem.

    Thanks for dissing every father on the planet that takes care of children from another husband. You are having a tantrum with the above statement. I think you should go away and sulk.

  13. New Zeal says:

    Thanks for dissing every father on the planet that takes care of children from another husband.

    I am doing nothing of the sort. In the posts between numbers 7 and 10 in this thread the general attitude is that if a father finds out that he is not the biological father of one or more of his children then he is entitled to feel bad enough about the situation to cut off all contact and financial responsibility regardless of how many years he may have lived with that child in the role of father. (With no thought to how the child might feel about this). The general inference of those posts is stated clearly by Scrap as follows:

    There is only one father and thats the biological father – psycholigcal fatherhood is an legal/academic myth)

    In other words there is no father other than a biological father. Along this line of reasoning it is not possible to have adoptive fathers or stepfathers. That statement could be interpreted as dissing stepfatherhood.

    One of the solutions to the Liam Magill case could be for Liam to come to terms with the devastating news of the deceit, make use of the relationship he has already built with the two children and continue in the role of father, which would help give him better access to his biological child and then in the long run get to enjoy the benefits of having three children. Obviously if the ex is deliberately being difficult then that might make that a very hard option leaving Liam with the choice of abandoning the two, but at the same time he would be abandoning his own child on the assumption the children all live with their mother.

    This other equally meritable solution is not considered. After Liam has publicly aired his private life in the press and has sorted out his immediate turmoil, a few years down the line, you might find something like the above scenario taking shape. The emotions that surround family breakups and child custody disputes are intense and mostly short lived.

  14. Intrepid says:

    Dear Kent with Zeal,
    As I said of your website, in which you sang the praises of nuture over nature, this has been debated over by smarter more scientific people than you or I and your dismissive attitude of the other side at every chance has manifested itself into an attack on Scrap’s nature postion which could be argued reasonably. I don’t think he is standing against nurture, as he is saying nature is stronger, while you stand for the trendy and spineless postion of the heart strings which is nuturing is God until it comes into effeminates rationalized cowardice and then it is all not their fault but adult males.

    It could be argued that many women suffer in both nuture and nature. Nature has made them survie at any cost, and thus bravery is lacking in them in the most simple of issues. While people like you, and your like, make flipping rules that go old school when effeminates feel like it and modern school when they feel like it, while tranfering mythical belief systems into deconstructionist attempts to attack the braver sex.
    Thus nuturing them with spoiled ideas that never let them develop into true decisve members of the world, by advancing their excuses into state policy.
    Yet either you don’t understand this, know it but are a politcal creature, or wish to be head of a cult where you are the all seeing gurru of some New Age cult.

    Your arguing skills consist of backing away on countless occasions by playing the martre, set upon by the unjustly angry men on this site, and also claim that outside of this sheltered male site the world sees as you. The men on this site are not sheltered and not wrong in their evaluation of the effeminate states in the west. Your sweeping judgments of the outside world to win an argument, once again guru-like in scope makes me worry about what someone like you would do in a powerful position in government.

    Despite Julie’s attempts at seeing you are harmless, I see you as very dangerous in a postion of power. You never give up rhetoric like the totalitarians at the end of the last century, and do so threw new agism as superior truth(with has nothing to back it up, because new agism is all about having nothing to back it up).

    Do you know how much new age ideas(of their time)were in the Nazis’ mantra, how much Hitler loved art and never changed his rhetoric? How they pushed their ideas directly, as many of your supporters do indirectly.

    Please what percentage of the male population needs to leave or die before maybe, just maybe, you might consider Helen and her backers, like you, wrong on anything?

  15. julie says:

    New Zeal says,

    1. The mother cannot be deliberately deceiving if she does not know for sure.

    She was having an affair. She knew the chances of her husband being the father were less than the chances of the male she was having the affair with. And 2 children were from this affair. Give me a break.
    We could let her off with 50/50 chance for maybe 1 if it was a one night stand but not 2 children. And even a 1 night stand whould be deciept. She must know 100% who the child’s father is. And the child has a right to know.
    The idea that she did not know for sure (being 100%) does not cut it. She wanted her cake and to eat it to. She had one man for sex and the other man to raise their children and provide for herself her other needs.

    Scrap,

    Thanx for putting something up about Mark Shipman on TV. I did not know about that previously.

  16. New Zeal says:

    Julie,

    She was having an affair. She knew the chances of her husband being the father were less than the chances of the male she was having the affair with. And 2 children were from this affair. Give me a break

    There is a male in this story who was having an affair too. Does he just get off the hook? Is a male somehow not responsible for the possible progeny of his sexual exploits? If you are going to support Liam’s right to cut himself off from those two children, then you need to lend equal support to the other man taking over responsibility, otherwise you leave two dependent children in the lurch, who as I keep saying must be considered innocent parties in this dispute.

    You still haven’t responded to the reality of the nuture, as intrepid puts it, that has already gone into the children from the father. Maybe Liam, despite living with these children for several years has not bonded with them, in which case that simply reflects on his qualities as a father. Maybe he should never have been a father, and this dispute gives him a good (albeit probably expensive) exit from those responsibilities. To be sure if he succeeds in cutting himself off from responsibility over the two youngest this would have an effect on the child that is biologically his, and cause hurt that is probably far greater than that which Liam has suffered.

    I find your responses startlingly inconsiderate of the children involved in this dispute and quite totally stacked in favour of the selfish emotional needs of Liam and his financial outlays. Thankfully the court is a lot more circumspect and will come up with a judgment far more balanced. Meanwhile all the money that Liam has spent over the years supporting the two children that weren’t his will have been spent twice over again arguing about it in court.

  17. Mark says:

    New Zeal says “There is a male in this story who was having an affair too. Does he just get off the hook? …Maybe Liam, despite living with these children for several years has not bonded with them, in which case that simply reflects on his qualities as a father.”

    this is exactly the approach the mother’s lawyers are likely to take and along with that and the ‘fact’ that ALL MEN are having affairs and fathering children all over the place, not to mention the attrocious behaviour of male lions towards other male offspring, the focus in court is soon diverted away from the deception this woman has pulled over her partner and it becomes justified in light of the behaviour of all other males. what else could this poor woman do? the trick in court is to sling as much mud at the other party as you can regardless of any facts or truth. if you succeed in entertaining the judge more than the other side, then you win. I don’t doubt there is a psychological father and this man may have been a great dad to these children. I’m sure he was. I have a friend who had an abortion many years ago. she became very depressed about it after. then when they planned to have children her husband left her for someone else. he came back and went again over a few years before the finished for good. she never met anyone after that and once she got to the age where she could not have children she became very depressed. I can understand how upsetting it must be for this man too.

  18. julie says:

    New Zeal,

    The post says,

    He sued Meredith for the tort of deceit, claiming financial compensation for his pain and suffering, but not for money spent on the upbringing and maintenance of the children.

    He is not suing for costs paid in the past or ongoing costs to maintain the chidren.

    So the question is, “Has she committed deceipt?” and “Should she be financially liable for the deciept?”

    Just to give an example of her deceipt;

    If you went into a contract with Mrs Dogwoman to get a pedigree pup and you had paid for all expenses for the ‘bitch'(female dog),and all the pups expenses but later you found that the pup was not pedigree all along, have you been decieved?

    If this pedigree dog cost your reputation as a top dog breeder and thus you lost your income because of it and you can measure the income lost should you be compensated from Mrs Dogwoman as she deciepted you.

    Other things to consider could be, ‘Did she know she deceipted you, did she do everything in her power to make sure she would not deciept you etc.”

    Marriage is as a contract between 2 parties. It has always been treated that way and there was a time when you had to break the contract before you could get out of the marriage.

  19. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Zeal, you seem to suffer from an inabilility to understand simple concepts.

    This mother knew that there was a significant chance that the father of these two children was not her husband.She was the one having the affair and her failure to declare that while in a marraige and bearing a child can be nothing else but deliberate and decietful. Get real zeal.

    You guys obviously have no experience with adoptees and what they go through. After an upbringing with foster parents, biological parents are often meaningless.

    You dont know what you talk about. You are so wrapped up in your stranger parent (aka social parent) construct that you you would deprive children of their rigt to be parented by both parents.

    On this issue mate, the right of a child to be parented by both parents not by a mother and a defrauded stranger is the real world view. Yopu an Sue Braford would get along fine, despite any reasoned approach and contary to research and fact you can never be wrong. YEAH RIGHT

    Intrepid is right your attitudes are dangerous.

    For your information : My first sion was adopted. I worked for 3 yaers transitiong shattered kids from CYPFS care to independent living. God help foster kids when they turn sixteen the state does not give a toss and their relationships with their families have been destroyed by the state. I am a step dad. I would note that my personal situation has nothing to do with the discussion, but you seem to think it does.

    Its simple and like the law commission you cant advocate that denying a child her right to her father is acceptable and expect that society is going to accept that. In 15 years time we will have changed Family Law and your arguments will be seen for what they are. A distorted and prejudiced 20th century view of parents, in particular dads, that does not have a place in the 21st Century were the rights of kids to be equally parented by both parents will be paramount as in 99.9% of all situations this is best interest for the child.

    Get past your prejudice to parents, partticuarly dad, and their kids zeal and you will come to realise that your view is very distorted and ideologically bound.

    Scrap

  20. New Zeal says:

    Scrap, I don’t know what this has got to do with children having the right to being parented by both their parents, whatever the definition of that might be. (You earlier restricted that to just biological parents). This case is about Liam Magill having the right to sue for money (whether that is for pain and suffering or for money spent on the children it is still money that the mother does not appear to have) over children that are not biologically his but over whom he has been acting in the role as father. By supporting the children as father for however many years he did, he has by default become their ‘father’, more so than the biological father who is not on the scene. You continue to avoid responding to the very real bonding that should have occurred between Liam and the two younger children. This relationship is not the sole ownership of Liam. The children have a say in this too and since they are too young to stand up for themselves the court will attempt to act for them.

    You both appear to be supporting Liam’s selfish right to be father of his own biological children and his need to have his hurt palliated by a financial hand out over the needs of two children who were brought into the world in the understanding that they have a father and a mother who love and care about them. Rather than supporting the possibility of all parties resolving their differences and overcoming this very difficult hurdle of biological fatherhood, you are condemning these children and this mother to a life of sole parenthood and financial distress.

    I think you will find that you are the ones with the minority view on this.

    You are basically saying that if a wife sleeps around and gets pregnant she is committing paternity fraud which should be a punishable offence. Meanwhile if a husband sleeps around he is just committing adultery which isn’t.

  21. Intrepid says:

    “Wrapping oneself in the flag is the last refuge of a scoundrel”-20th Century

    Wrapping oneself as defender of children is now the last refuge of a scoundrel- 21st Century

    You can see at the UN, EU, Hollywood and of course with kissing baby politcans that get into trouble, they put themselves with the children and think they can come clean. In the end we will find ourselves battling as to who is closer to the children, or who understands the children’s feelings better. Desire will rule in such a world.

    “Me thinks you protest too much” – Kent with Zeal Defender of all children.

  22. New Zeal says:

    Mark, you said:

    I don’t doubt there is a psychological father and this man may have been a great dad to these children. I’m sure he was.

    If Liam was a good father to these two children would he be doing what he is doing to them? Think about it. And think about his own child, the biological one in the family. What effect do you think his action is having on that child? By punishing the mother he is punishing his own child. This is a lose-lose situation all round. So are most cases in the FC that have to go all the way to a hearing. Unlike other court procedings, the FC only goes to a full hearing when the parties involved can’t get their act together to sort things out for themselves.

  23. New Zeal says:

    And Scrap,

    On this issue mate, the right of a child to be parented by both parents not by a mother and a defrauded stranger is the real world view

    A child does not care if the person acting as father is biological or is an alien from Mars, so long as they get to feel wanted and cared for etc. That is why adoptive parents usually leave it to adolescence to tell their child that they are not the real parents, when they are old enough to deal with it.

  24. Stephen says:

    Intrepid,
    You say the real father of this child gets off the hook.
    True.
    But only because the mom doesn’t identify him. Gutless trollop it seems.

    Also I’m afraid if the poor defrauded sod who got decieived doesn’t get some compensation and the real mother punished very dangerous social messages gets sent out (some would say further reinforced).

    The messages are –
    Men are simply sperm donors with no rights but only responsibility to pay for kids – even those they got defrauded into believing are thiers.

    Women can screw around, lie and deceive with impunity as society (in the form of taxpayer supported law) will back her up.

    This as a classic case to illustrate how the availability of the male pill would make a world of difference.

    I for one would resent my hardearned taxmoney being used by skanky women to mother poor bastard children whilst deceiving innocent men.

  25. Intrepid says:

    Stephen I think your were quoting Kent with Zeal, but I agree with the message you think they are sending(old & new rule ploys, flipped when it suits their desires).

  26. Stephen says:

    Intrepid,
    Sorry. My mistake. The Post was meant to address Kent/Zeal as you point out.

  27. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Zeal,

    If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck I see a duck.

    If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck you see a seagull.

    There is no point in trying to reason with you. You go on about anything but the issue. This is a kids rights issue. A child has the right to be parented by mum and dad. They have a right to their family, genetic and cultural heritage. Its fundemental.

    Then comes the right of the father to parent his children. Choosing to assit one parent to parent their children (what you call a step parent)does not make you a parent.

    Your prejudice against parents, particuarly dads and their kids, continues to shine through in your posts. I would suggest you print them out and do a critical analysis of them.

    Scrap

  28. New Zeal says:

    Found at:
    http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/The_Age_Secrets_Lies_26NOV05.htm

    What all this should make clear is that the current child-support payment system, which assigns payment obligations on the basis of biological paternity, not parenting commitment, is tragically flawed. Regardless of whether the father suspected, knew or had no idea that the child he was parenting was genetically unrelated, and notwithstanding however culpable his female partner’s behaviour was in creating that situation, the law needs to recognise and affirm men’s value to children as parents – and people – not sperm donors. Playing the biological card not only undercuts research findings that affirm the importance to children of having an active male parent in their lives, but lends support to the insulting claim made by a sperm donor interviewed on Four Corners last month that he, not the man who invested 20 years of time and love, was his daughter’s “real” father.

    After the Magill case, this is where the law is quite likely to go.

    And this too:

    Of course, rejecting mandatory paternity testing at birth does not mean that men should not be assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way. Upon the birth of a child, men ought to be given the opportunity to give one-time-only non-rescindable consent to their acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. If they feel unable to sign on the dotted line without conclusive proof that they are the biological progenitor, they should be offered a DNA test free of charge.

    However, once a man does formally accept social and legal responsibility for a child – either with knowledge of their genetic paternity or in the face of a fully informed waiver of that knowledge – their status as the child’s legal father should rightly be set in stone. No DNA skeletons rattling out of the cupboards at a later date should affect what they legally owe their child or, hopefully, how they feel about the kid who calls him dad.

    And from
    http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-69.htm

    One very good reason why family laws are specially crafted and dispensed in specialist courts is that many cases involve children. Decisions such as Magill (which will always involve children) have the potential to cause even further harm to the children involved. A damages award in tort does not factor in the impact on the child of requiring the mother to make such a payment. We have no doubt Mr. Magill suffered great emotional distress. But we suspect it wasn’t all that easy for the children either. Naturally, the decision does not tell us much of the mother’s financial situation, but an outcome requiring a mother to pay costs together with a compensation award could force that parent to sell their home. The children moreover see the person they no doubt psychologically consider to be their father in essence punishing their mother for her deception in a way that could seriously adversely affect them and which at its core must make them question their relationship with the man they see as their father.

    According to the court transcripts, Liam knew in 1995 that there doubts over the paternity of at least one of the children. He paid child support for 3-4 years after that with this knowledge. The judge at the hearing concluded that Liam suffered depression as much as a result of the break up of the marriage as of the knowledge of not being biological father.

  29. scrap_the_CSA says:

    Decisions such as Magill (which will always involve children) have the potential to cause even further harm to the children involved. A damages award in tort does not factor in the impact on the child of requiring the mother to make such a payment. We have no doubt Mr. Magill suffered great emotional distress. But we suspect it wasn’t all that easy for the children either.

    Its all fiction. “have the potential to cause….” is meaningless. Its a poor attempt at being an apologist for the mother.Its purely speculative.

    We have no doubt Mr. Magill suffered great emotional distress. But we suspect it wasn’t all that easy for the children either

    This is the failed legal argument from many US paternity fraud cases. It fails because it tries to right one deciet with another deciet.

    So it is better to maintain a deception than telling the child the truth.

    In your world two wrongs make a right.

    Your faith in the legal process is so ammusing.

    Scrap

  30. julie says:

    Zeal,

    Thanx for posting that. Very interesting and positive.

  31. new zeal says:

    We have no doubt Mr. Magill suffered great emotional distress. But we suspect it wasn’t all that easy for the children either

    Scrap, this has nothing to do with legal process. This is to do with how the father’s behaviour affects the children. As a father your behaviour affects your children. Are you not aware of that? The same goes with Mr Magill. The way he is treating them and his ex will affect his children (biological and non-biological).

  32. julie says:

    Scrap,

    To be honest what zeal has posted above makes me see things in a different light.

    I actually think caring for the children in this way has some worthwhile reasoning to it.

    What is the impact with 2 parents at war on the children. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. In fact I have changed my mind about opening the FC to the public some time ago. I don’t want to be reading about ‘he says, she says, she did, he did’ and I don’t think it is fair for the whole of society to be involved in these wars. Especially as I can see it getting back to the children through schools etc. “My dad says that your mum … or visa versa”

    I have heard of FC cases going on for many years and I have heard from people that grew up in that situation tell how their parents never spoke about it with them and then others that were negatively affected by being pulled by both parents to take their side against the others.

    Where do we draw the line as to how parents can fight one another.
    How do we decide which pain is being inflicted for resentment and which is not. If he inflicts pain and gets away with it then we are condoning the behaviour of women that use orders to inflict pain.

  33. new zeal says:

    There is another issue here which will be the real reason why Magill won’t get a payout and that is the tort is there for commerical deceit and this is not a commerical matter. In fact it opens a can of worms regarding adultery and all other domestic agreements. If your name is on a marriage certificate and you commit adultery with another person are you not committing some kind of deceit with respect to the agreement that comes with being married? I have no doubt that Meredith Magill is guilty of deceit, so is an adulterer, but should such matters be allowed to be settled in an expensive court of law? Where will it stop?

    It would be more appropriate for Liam to get a refund from the CSA for payments made on behalf of the two non-biological children. Then the state can take up the responsibility of supporting Meredith and the two children in the absence of both the birth father and the psychological father taking on the responsibility. This will happen in the form of the DPB. In this case neither the birth father nor the psychological father are stepping up to be responsible for these children. Without the DPB the children would be in the gutter.

  34. Intrepid says:

    Well let me quote the same source as Kent with Zeal to prove Zeal wrong.

    From the Candian Children’s Rights Concil:

    Father-deprived children are:

    1. 72% of all teenage murderers.
    2. 60% of rapists.
    3. 70% of kids incarcerated.
    4. twice as likely to quit school.
    5. 11 times more likely to be violent. 6. 3 of 4 teen suicides.
    7. 80% of the adolescents in psychiatric hospitals.
    8. 90% of runaways

    It would seem that the same site doesn’t agree with you Zeal on the optional father(that need not a father around), so you have shot yourself in the foot.
    Now I’ve have some serious problems with a site with nothing on their search for NAMBA (an organization that pushes for sex with under age boys & girls). This matches the UN, in policy, in which neither wishes to upset any organization that has connections to gay rights). I also went to the organization they belong to and found again nothing on NAMBA. It would seem the defence of children doesn’t go as far as saying anything about a worldwide organization that represents these low lifes. In Holland last week the supreme court there has just allowed a NAMBA like poltical party to run in the election, yet these sites can’t seem to see this as a threat.

    This goes back to the same people who want to weaken laws against real criminals and harden the ones on non-criminals. This can be seen in Kent’s hammar on men and “let it go attitude” to women. This is because of nothing more than bare faced politics and in the idea of “familiarity breeds contempt”.

    If having a court case causes stress to a child to prove a women is bad for having lied about screwing around and much more(fraud on a grand scale), then any case against a father or mother would bring stress to the kids and thus should be stopped. This is insane!! The child doesn’t need to go to court at all to prove the mother is an axe murderer, a thief, or compulsive liar or con artist. You keep trying to have it both ways! What should happen to NAMBA members Kent with Zeal? My ideas on convicted Namba types and their indirect supporters boarders on angry white male stuff. I’m interested to see what you have to say. Should we talk and feel their pain?

  35. new zeal says:

    Intrepid,

    If having a court case causes stress to a child to prove a women is bad for having lied about screwing around and much more(fraud on a grand scale), then any case against a father or mother would bring stress to the kids and thus should be stopped.

    So you think any deceit, dishonesty, disagreement between a mother and father should be tried in a court of law and some kind of punishment applied?

    The court does not agree with your assessment of the situation, but you are welcome to your point of view.

    My support for the existence of the DPB does not equate to support for the fatherlessness of children. This very case here illustrates the need for the DPB given that two fathers, a biological and a non-biological one have copped out of the responsibility of fatherhood. Doesn’t say much for your poor innocent victim father hypothesis.

    If fathers could be a whole lot less winner takes all, learn to be conciliatory and take the children more into consideration then there would be less of these tragic cases, and maybe less need for the DPB. There is nothing in your attitude, intrepid, that leads me to think that you would be any different.

  36. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Scrap, this has nothing to do with legal process. This is to do with how the father’s behaviour affects the children. As a father your behaviour affects your children. Are you not aware of that? The same goes with Mr Magill. The way he is treating them and his ex will affect his children (biological and non-biological).

    NO NO NO it has to do with how a mothers behaviour affects the children, you are making a cardinal mistake of confusing symptom with root cause.

    The cause is maternal deciet.

    Scrap, this has nothing to do with legal process. This is to do with how the father’s behaviour affects the children. As a father your behaviour affects your children…..

    The whole thread is about legal solutions. Its not about dads behaviour, he is not the cause of the situation. The cause of the situation is Mums behaviour.

    Dad, has been deprived of his child, the decivied parent has been duped, the child has been decivied.

    Julie, your drifting off the issue that Zeal fails to deal with. The cause of this whole scenario is a decietful mother. What is proposed is that its wrong to make the mother accounatable because it may (note this is speculative and has not be shown) impact the child.It has been shown that there is a huge negative impact where a child is denied their right to be parented by dad.

    So why remove any child from abusive parents, it may impact the child.Its the logical extension of Zeals misgudied train of thought.Thats where this line of thought leads to as no accounability or responsibility for your actions is required.

    Where do we draw the line as to how parents can fight one another.

    He is not the parent. He is a stranger parent.The whole point here is that its not a fight between the parents of these children. Its a fight between a liar and a decived stranger.

    Regards Scrap

  37. The issue isn’t Paternity FRAUD” It is Betrayal… fraud is only about money… Betrayal is about love and trust.

    To win the moral high ground on this one, we MUST turn it away from the LEGAL term “Paternity Fraud” and brand it “Betrayal”

    It is not about the money. It is about “BETRAYAL” – the word that captures the essence of the crime… it is also a term that women are equally able to understand and be moved by… it an emotional issue and an issue of child welfare.

    “Fraud” is a boring legal term that implies money and deadbeat dads… Betrayal is about love, trust, the responsibilities of parents and the well being of children.

    Please read our press release below.
    Thankyou.

    Paternity Betrayal
    ======================================
    “The Greatest Love of is a Parent’s Love for their Child”

    The greatest love of all is a parent’s love for their child. So discovering that your kid is somebody else’s is the greatest betrayal of all.

    It is a triple betrayal: Firstly to discover that this love is based on a lie.

    Secondly it is a betrayal of marriage – adultery. And a huge financial fraud, since children are expensive little things.

    But most importantly, the third betrayal is that these poor children are denied their human right to even know one of their natural parents too. Like adopted children, these betrayal kids, these “poor bastards” (literally!) are lied to and never meet their natural fathers.

    It is a ticking time bomb. What if they need a transplant? With genetic medicine becoming common over the next 20 years, today’s babies are going to find out not just that they have been lied to, but that they have been put it medical danger.

    These Cinderellas are put at risk. The child-protection issue is very real. The stats on child abuse are very clear; the children most at-risk of abuse are those who don’t live with both their natural parents.

    Your article missed this key issue of betrayal and instead worked hard at trying to blame the victims… The man is betrayed and the child is denied the human right to know and be cared for its natural parents.

    Frequently quoted people such as the Law Reform Commission’s Wisbrot in have previously made it clear that they want DNA testing to only be available for mothers, and illegal for fathers. DNA tests are done by mothers usually to get money, DNA testing by men is usually motivated by truth or love. Money would triumph over truth and love.

    Liam, Rodney and Andrew have been suffering since discovering that their children were other men’s. Some of this suffering is due to the costs of these children, the fraud and lying. But the real suffering is the betrayal of the greatest love of all…

    PS>
    UN Rights of the Child is contravened by paternity betrayal

    The Australian Government has ratified the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. Australia must ensure that children have “the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents… The right of the child to preserve his or her… family relations…That a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will… (and) the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.”

    If you want me to provide citations to any of this research, please contact me. Or look at the Australian Govt website, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/family_law/submissions/sublist.htm submission 110.

    James ADAMS (PartTimeParent)
    Media – http://www.Fathers4equality-Australia.org
    PartTimeParent@pobox.com
    Ph 0417 258 364 Sydney, Australia

    “The greatest love of all,
    is a parent’s love for their child!
    Family Law betrays that love”

    Please feel free to re-publish anything in this email.
    Attributing it to Fathers4Equality or myself would be appreciated 🙂

  38. Stephen says:

    Right on Scrap.
    I’m tired of hearing excuses made for badass women because holding them to account ‘may effect the child’. It reminds me of women getting lesser prison sentences for similar reasons. And I’m afraid the more we pander to women in this way the more they’ll take for granted they can just shit on thier menfolk. It’ll just be one more piece of misandric feminist judicial activism which gives women rights and men responsibilities.

    Oh My God. Folks are going on about how the child MAY be affected if the mom’s punished.

    Hello!
    The child already IS affected. They’ve been robbed of any chance of getting parented by thier own biological father all these years. The child’s mom has shown herself to be a lying duplicitous skank.
    Her child, the mom’s primary victim has every right not to trust her.
    Then there are the secondary victims – the child’s father and paternal family who’ve been deceived and ripped off by this self centred sorry excuse for a mom.
    Then there’s the next layer of victims – the courts, social workers, taxpayers who have to deal with and pay for the shit SHE CAUSED.

    I hope they throw the book at her.

    Then she won’t be in a position to cause more devastation and women will get the message they can’t **ck people over with impunity.

    I’ll be watching this one with keen interest. The outcome will be very indicative of how safe it is for children and menfolk in nz.

  39. Intrepid says:

    This article was written by Soli (Pen Name) on “Dads On Air.”

    Yes, it is a betrayal, but when women go to court their lawyers turn things like this into finacial compensation. This can work to deter future actions on the part of other people, and keep lawyers sucking the blood out of families and in the upwardly mobile.

    Dear Kent with Zeal,
    No the court doesn’t get involved with every argument between spouses or ex- spouses (an exaggeration of the deconstruction kind once again), just the major kind of destructive ones like this.

    Cases like this are fundamental for they show the state doesn’t care about kids, betrayal, fraud or male pain beyond simple posturing, but in fact this points to the cold hard poltical facts of most effeminate based governments. These point to their political bases desires getting acted upon, and their opponents get screwed and bankrupted, because it makes their jobs easier to socially engineer. If they cared about kids they would keep any decent father involved, every lawyer profitting form this debauchery under wraps, and every witchy ex-wife warned that every lie she makes to the court she will take a further step in the tranferance of the kids to the non-lying parent(and likely the better parent).

    You never answer anyone’s question Kent, but harp on some new point you feel we have missed yet again.

    Answer just one for me, pretty please with sugar on top! What is your attitude to NAMBA? As a true child defender, and not a politcal hack using children to attack your political enemies, where do you stand on when we catch one of these child loving evil villians? If you continue to avoid I will have to come to believe it splits some of your politcal gay base, and therefore like the UN, EU,Canadian Child protection groups etc. it is a no go or no comment.

    How you can continue to split hairs on us balding angry men is interesting. Is it because men as found less to support your agenda, and thus deserve to be knit-picked into apathy, by making some of these poor men question whether the world is round?

  40. New Zeal says:

    Julie, your drifting off the issue that Zeal fails to deal with. The cause of this whole scenario is a decietful mother. What is proposed is that its wrong to make the mother accounatable because it may (note this is speculative and has not be shown) impact the child.It has been shown that there is a huge negative impact where a child is denied their right to be parented by dad.

    Oh, hell, sorry, I was wrong, I didn’t realise, this whole situation, the separation, Liam’s depression, the hurt, everything is the fault of the mother. All men and fathers are innocent victims who only care about love and nice things.

    I’ll take more care next time.

  41. julie says:

    New Zeal,

    All men and fathers are innocent victims who only care about love and nice things.

    No, we can’t look at it that way. And we can’t say the same for all women.

    Let’s just look at it from a bigger picture and how it will affect those that follow. Laws get made to stop the guilty but end up hurting the innocent. It is the end result from this case that will affect everyone including your child and mine.

    Cases like these shape laws. From this case many that follow will be affected. Precedents are the same as the written law itself.

    This could be how we got so out of control in the first place.

  42. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Zeal,

    Back to the issue.

    While the Victorian County Court found that Meredith had deceived Liam when she nominated him as the father on birth registration notices, that was overturned last year by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The High Court will now decide whether the tort of deceit will hold Meredith accountable for her actions.

    Not:

    Oh, hell, sorry, I was wrong, I didn’t realise, this whole situation, the separation, Liam’s depression, the hurt, everything is the fault of the mother. All men and fathers are innocent victims who only care about love and nice things.

    The issue is that a mother has lied about paternity and now must face the consequences of her deception. Its not about blaming the stranger who was duped.

    Your vitrolic attack on Liam and other fathers is unjustified.Your in a flap because the flaws in your rethoric have been exposed.

    Julie, the innocent are already hurt. Thats the effect of the lie.What other hurt may or may not occur is still a matter of conjecture.

    The solution of free DNA testing at birth may protect fathers and dads in the future, but these women (and there are a significant number)like Liams ex need to be held accountable – given current laws he has no other option than to sue. I would suspect that when the child reaches a majority age they could end up suing the mother also.

    Zeal. I wont respond any more on this thread. My views are clear enough and time I spend on here is less time helping parents like Liam.

    Scrap

  43. Mark says:

    New Zeal wrote “…this has nothing to do with legal process. This is to do with how the father’s behaviour affects the children.”

    I agree with New Zeal. This should not involve the legal process. It is properly a medical issue concerning the psychological relationships between the parents and the children. The conflict-based legal process does nothing to help those relationships. In fact, it does everything it can to harm them for the income of the lawyers and court employees involved. lawyers used to send messages to the lawyer for the other side. translated from latin, the message read ‘you pluck your goose and I’ll pluck mine’. they don’t need to do that anymore as they all understand how the game is played. competent people are needed who can mediate between the parties and it would have been better for all involved if the parties had remained anonymous. I think Liam Magill should sit down with the three children and explain the whole situation. you don’t just cut children out of your life regardless of the mothers dishonesty but unfortunately it is her selfishness and deceipt that has caused so much hurt to all parties involved.

    Liam and Meredith Magill

  44. New Zeal says:

    you don’t just cut children out of your life regardless of the mothers dishonesty but unfortunately it is her selfishness and deceipt that has caused so much hurt to all parties involved.

    Thank-you, Mark, that is the point I am trying to get across. Scrap seems to think that it is more important to bring the woman to some kind of justice rather than find a solution that is in the best interest of the children and both parents. Maybe the woman is the ‘victim’ of her own mistakes. Give her a break. The most famous person in Western history, Jesus Christ made his career out of forgiveness. It is not going to do the kids any good to keep rubbing everyone’s face in Meredith’s act of deceit, which happened over a decade ago.

    Liam needs to get a grip, and come to terms with what has happened. He has got the choice in front of him of having a family or not having a family. He could choose to adopt the two children as his own and enjoy the costs and benefits of fatherhood (once the children are old enough they can choose to live with him). There is certainly no biological father on the scene to compete with. But, alas, I think it is too late and he has probably damaged any relationship he might have had with his non-biological children beyond repair.

    Basically, Scrap, your position supports creating a situation of fatherlessness here and justifying the need for the DPB. I understand two of the children are boys. What a shame for those children not having a father because Liam was not able to come to terms with his wife’s infidelity and the lack of biological connection between him and his children.

    Court notes also show that Liam looked after the children for some time in 1996, after he knew of doubts about his paternity, indicating that he was not cut off from his children even after the separation. This is a very sad case, sad for the reflection on Liam’s very poor response to his family situation. The public scrutiny of his private life is not going to help him recover from his depressive illness. The anger and bitterness required to drive him to take hostile legal action against his ex is only going to make his condition worse and cost him a whole lot more money than he is ever going to gain in compensation.

    I agree, Julie, that cases like these will result in a change in laws, and maybe something like what I posted in a previous post will be the outcome: recognising the legal requirements of psychological/social fatherhood.

  45. Intrepid says:

    Dear Mark,
    It is funny that people who talk about bringing out problems to fix them then choose to hide them when they damage their case. (Flip-flop). The Australian court has bucked this trend, and you still don’t respect the court that you tell us we should. (flip-flop). Mr.Liam is seeing the kids on the weekend and holidays( the length of time again is not under his control, he may want more), and undoubtedly loves his now adopted kids. So the argument that he wishes to withdraw that aspect is again another red herring, as he is seeing them weekly. As the statement from the judge below confirms:

    “His major depression and anxiety disorder are most likely to have been brought on by the severe psycho social and emotional stress that he has been experiencing over the years since his wife had left him. These stresses include difficulty he has with the Family Court and Child Support Agency, financial hardship due to his ex wife’s demand for Child Support, which at one stage reduced his take home pay down to $132 a week, and he still had to provide food, clothing and entertainment for the three children when they were with him over the weekends and holidays, in the painful knowledge that two of his three children whom he cares and loves for so many years, have turned out not to be his.
    All these stresses are directly caused by the fact that two of the three children are not his. Had he been asked only to pay for his own Child Support instead of three, all these stresses and emotional trauma would not have happened, and he would have continued to be well, working and not suffering from anxiety and depression”.

    You are only talking about money$$$$$, plain and simple, in your endless defence of the witch wife. You don’t want to hold bad women accountable, like the Victorians of old, who thought a women not bright enough to be held account for such complex issues. Then flip-flop when such a women loses anything of her rights, even when proven to your face to be totally irresponible. This makes you an enabiling shrink, if you are a shrink.

    You are not the defender of the children. You are using children to push your political agenda. Shame on you, you’re politcal hacks of the fox kind! Seeing here the court paper shows that you don’t know what you are talking about, for Mr. Liam is seeing his children. You are guessing, at the least, that holding the wife accountable means he wishes to withdraw his love of the children. Stop wrapping yourself as defender of the children and labeling anyone opposed to you uncaring simply to push your agenda. The facts show the truth, and you are scared by them, and thus try to hide them. Only in your aloof world do the new elite need to know the facts. The children, if they surf sites of foreign countries to read about their case, will find nothing they haven’t heard at screaming level by this women,. no doubt. You and Kent with Zeal comments would hurt them more than anything the judge says. Mark said:

    ..you don’t just cut children out of your life regardless of the mothers dishonesty

    If the children see this, they will think his adopted dad (in all but the legal sense) doesn’t wish to see him anymore. You should seal your own comment under court injuction, and listen to the judge. Also, Is this case about the women’s simple dishonest? This is like the British upper class understatments of old, you are really becoming like the elites of old! They did less poltical flip-flopping than you modern “real politic” as art types though.

  46. Stephen says:

    Thanks Intrepid for throwing much needed light onto waters murked by disinformation.

  47. starr says:

    My comment would be: don’t you think if the MOTHER HAD BEEN OPEN AND HONEST from the very beginning this whole lot of emotional baggage suffered by the father, the kids, would have been avoided in the first place?

    Due to the first choice made by the mother.. look how many lives have been affected and the significant extent of mess created.

  48. New Zeal says:

    Yes, I agree with the suffering that has been caused by the wife’s misdeeds, but where do you stop? To drag it out over and over is not going to do anyone any good.

    What is it saying to those two children that he sees every second weekend when he is taking legal action against their mother, whom they possibly love very much and rely upon for daily care?

    All this talk about money Liam is giving for the children and the issue at hand is $70,000 that he wants his ex to pay him in compensation for his suffering and loss. So where does he think that money is going to come from? Should we all expect a payout when we suffer loss and disappointment through being deceived by someone?

  49. starr says:

    Zeal
    I would expect a person to have the decency to act with integrity in the first place.
    Glossing over someones misdeeds and encouraging them to not face up to will only encourage more misdeeds — a situation we can relate to these days quite a lot.
    It not called dragging the “issue” but being held accountable for and being responsible for your actions. That’s what mature people do. Whether money should be the factor or not should be decided with care. After all Liam did not ask to be in the situation he finds himself. He was manipulated into it. These days the only language most perpetrators understand is financial “incentives”.. take that away from them, they will be more inclined to act in order.

    To put matters into a more drastic perspective..e.g a person rapes your daughter, would you be saying the same thing.. “why drag the issue further”..would yopu say let him go as he has nothing to give” and nothing further can be done.. or would you prefer he be held accountable in a manner?

    Situations might be different but the principle remains the same doesn’t it

  50. New Zeal says:

    starr, the misdeeds happened over ten years ago. Meredith has had to face up to her mistakes. Her children are a living reminder of it. Even murderers get out of jail after ten years. I would say that she has been held accountable and has done her time. For the sake of the children it is time for them to move on.

  51. Intrepid says:

    Your assumptions shows your agenda. Maybe if he got the money back from her(for he seems to have lived in poverty on $125.00) he would spend it on the children in better ways. She is the one getting the cash to spend as she sees fit, and you and your like see nothing wrong in a complete utter liar having control of the purse strings of all including these poor kids after lies, lies and more lies.

    No mother world ever spend money on herself or booze over the kids in your dysfunctional view of the world (old fashion earth mother position again: flip flop). You assume that if he gets his money back he’ll not help the kids his way in getting his sanity. Many men, including myself, leave their ex because they spend way too much money on hair salons, clothes etc, when the kids eat crap because it easier(no cooking),cheaper and gives her the excuse to say you’re cheap if you don’t spend every dime on her like in the soup opera world, instead of the kids. Saving for the future education means little to some women when they are at a mall looking at a pair of shoes and matching purse. The world is filled with proud visa card airheads that giggle at their shopaholic ways and the state wants you to fund them, when that is one of the reasons you left.

    Before marriage they don’t spend your money, so you can’t tell what they will do when the state gives them(not half) but almost all if you get divorce. Unless you have some true New Age mind reading powers to add to your impurvious thick head, none of us normal blokes have a chance with the state so biased in saying “all cash to the children” when it is “all cash to the mother.”

    Thus the kids learn from your like “Frugally challeged are always good, cheap saving for education dads always bad. In the Victorian England men controlled wealth, as we hear time and time again, and they were usually responible savers. Now women control wealth more than men (when men marry) and we will have a total collaspe soon. “Hmm this must be men’s fault”, says Kent with Zeal. The state is also irresponsible with wealth and is running up it’s cards too. So neither wants to say it is the fault of effeminate emotional spending that is the probelem, for they can always find some child that looks bad to say we need to spend more they way they see fit. The insanity continues, but the bills are coming due soon.

  52. Intrepid says:

    What time has she done? She has been rewarded so far at every turn!

  53. New Zeal says:

    What time has she done? She has been rewarded so far at every turn!

    She has had to endure public humiliation and the original trial which required her to pay out $70,000 which she spent several years fighting. Hardly a reward.

    I’m sorry if you married and had kids with an airhead clothes buying VISA junkie. My condolences.

  54. starr says:

    zEAL
    comment 50.
    “starr, the misdeeds happened over ten years ago.” … so you are saying its okay to let her get away with it because it happened 10 years ago?.. Liam probably found out about it recently?.. what about his side of things?

    “Meredith has had to face up to her mistakes. Her children are a living reminder of it”.. really? cos it seems to me she has had the cake and eaten it too. She got away with it for what.. 10 years..Now she is having constipation… after effects of “having and eating the cake”..

    It does not matter whether she did wrong 10 years ago or 10 mins ago.. the fact is she did wrong and innocents had to suffer for it. time she faced her responsibilities with honor.

  55. starr says:

    PS you seem to advocate quite a bit for supposed crimes.. (falsily allegated.. or presumed he will do it in the future)but have a hard time accepting actuals?.. why is this so?

  56. Mark says:

    Intrepid wrote “You are only talking about money$$$$$, plain and simple, in your endless defence of the witch wife. You don’t want to hold bad women accountable, like the Victorians of old, who thought a women not bright enough to be held account for such complex issues.”

    Intrepid, if you read again what I have said, in no way do I excuse Meredith Magill has done. if you read my comments carefully you will see that I have said it is her selfishness and deceipt that has caused so much hurt to all parties involved. my criticism is of the conflict-based legal process that encourages delays and dishonesty and makes this situation much worse than it has to be. In a crisis like this, the last thing parties need is more adversary when they really need to get together with a competent person who can mediate the best outcome. believe me it works better than our legal process. everyone needs to play their part to turn back the tide of narcissism that is sweeping through western culture, even you

  57. starr says:

    Zeal
    further to your comment 50:
    this is part of an article in The Sydney herald today” A Sydney man has been charged with sexually assaulting five children over a 21-year-period.
    The 61-year-old man from Glenmore Park was arrested following extensive investigations by the Child Protection and Sex Crimes Squad, police said.
    He was charged with numerous sexual assault offences committed between 1969 and 1990 against five children, all of whom are now adults.
    Would you excuse him because he commited these acts as you say “over 10 years ago?”

  58. New Zeal says:

    Liam probably found out about it recently?

    Liam read Meredith’s diary in 1995-96 and found out that she was uncertain of the paternity of at least one child. At that time she did not suspect both children were not Liam’s. That’s ten years that Liam has known. It took him five years before he took legal action, and that was only with the prompting of his new wife, who no doubt has her own agenda.

    For a more complete rendition of the story go to:
    http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-69.htm

    The particular form of deceit that Meredith has perpetrated is more of a moral crime in the society that we live in. That is reflected in the Appeal that Meredith won. In a similar respect a man committing adultery is a moral issue not a legal one, or would you like it to be?

    Try reading here:
    http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/conceive_away_overview.htm

    for a balanced analysis of the whole adultery/paternity problem

  59. Intrepid says:

    Dear Mark,
    I re-read and understand that aspect of your point, and don’t diagree with you on it.

    Point1#

    competent people are needed who can mediate between the parties

    Those in postions to find common ground represent the establishment, or are often in bed with the government and are responible for the dysfunctional system as it stands. All the past decisions have hidden the workings and led to the slower reaction of men to the agenda of those said to be moderates.
    Many men have read the writing on the wall and now understand the bureaucracy quite well.

    The “in the best interests of the child” mean’s the ex-wife get the kids( because of old school ideas) and all the cash( for new school ideas), regardless of how bad the ex-wife was, is or will be, period!

    A major reform must occur with the mediators being replaced with two mediators that rep both sides well. The neutrality of your “golden calf” mediators has been ruined by some, or most, of those taking part in the gradualist agenda. This isn’t my opinion only, for there are millions of men across the world saying the exact same thing. In each country their is a CSA, USM etc. playing the hide the court case and mediation and always siding in the best interest of the state (whose political base is of the effeminate). Hiding this dysfunction allows it to continue.

    Thus they want your following point:

    Point#2

    and it would have been better for all involved if the parties had remained anonymous.

    Finally you show your bias here is the following quote of yours:

    Point#3

    you don’t just cut children out of your life regardless of the mothers dishonesty

    I gave you the court documents to show you that the father hasn’t cut out the kids at all! You have not acknowledge this yet(i’m still waiting)and go on as Kent full steam ahead with the status quo agenda.

    You do not support the lawyers or their system. I understand that, yet you aren’t talking about any changes to them and not saying like Shakespeare “In the next revolution we should kill the lawyers.” So therefore you mean staus quo by inaction or non-protest. You instead show you status quo in less of a denial way in defending the mediator’s ground already covered in detail.

    I hope you to be a more honest broker than Kent, and that will be proven in accepting facts and not rearguing that ground yet again later, like your acceptances means nothing if acknowledged.

  60. starr says:

    ZEAL
    “The particular form of deceit that Meredith has perpetrated is more of a moral crime in the society that we live in. ”

    don’t you think we need morality back in our times?

  61. Mark says:

    Intrepid

    I did not mean that Liam has cut the children out of his life. I was not aware of what had happened there. I was speaking rhetorically in that this would be the ideal. As for the family court, I agree that there is a bias against men. male judges are very patriarchal and female judges are very female-chauvinist. both serve to treat women as victims. as well as that, judges are able to make law and ignore legislation whenever they choose. the other major problem is the lack of proper inquiry and the qualitative nature of legal analysis

  62. Mark says:

    thought I need to be more clear. the ideal would be that a father in such circumstances would NOT cut the children out of his life. it is my understanding that Liam has not cut the children out of his life

  63. New Zeal says:

    don’t you think we need morality back in our times?

    Starr, it would be nice to have more morality. Before contraceptives, adultery was a punishable offence. We are a lot more sexually permissive than we used to be. What do we do? Learn to live with it, or go back in history or become born again Christians?

  64. Truth_In_Parenting says:

    Plain and simple – whether you like it or not – Paternity Fraud can only be perpetrated BY a woman.

    Plain and simple – this comes down to basic decency and honesty. Like it or not, Meredith Magill admitted openly to the courts that she KNEW she was lying when she named Liam as father. She KNEW who the father was, and also named HIM in court as well.

    Liam never denied he loved the children, he never treated them differently – it was MEREDITH who halted contact, it was MEREDITH who obliterated the ties between child and parental figure.

    Please also note very VERY clearly – Liam Magill has never once attempted to claim back any child support payment. He has never ONCE requested this – I can assure you that if the CSA was required to repay the monies, it would be a sum FAR above the amount awarded. If you read carefully, you will see that it is nothing to DO with child support payments.

    It never ceases to amaze (or dissappoint) me, that this poor man has been emotionally and psychologically devestated, and the Womens’ Groups in Australia are doing their best to twist the entire situation around to make it out to be “a deadbeat dad trying to avoid his responsibilities”.

    Do not forget for one minute that it is not only the “father” and “child” that are being deceived here. When you consider that the child is named in Births Deaths and Marriages, on the Medicare documenation, on all the Educational Board files, on the Family Court and CSA documents – as having “father A”; when the mother knows (or suspects) that it is “father b”…there is a level of deceipt that goes far beyond any “honest error” could explain away.

    Do not try to cloud this issue by labelling anyone – this issue is nothing other than one person deceiving another, in the most haenous manner imaginable.

    And before you ask….I’m female, and a mum. If women want equal rights, then they have equal responsibilities. Like it or not.

  65. Intrepid says:

    Kent with Zeal says to Starr,

    go back in history or become born again Christians?

    Thus speaks the Born Again New Agist. Keep things as my Zealot’s desire, or become a cave man and a realious zealot. How about some place in between either group of Zealots.

    Dear Mark,
    Thanks for being clear and reasonable.

  66. New Zeal says:

    It never ceases to amaze (or dissappoint) me, that this poor man has been emotionally and psychologically devestated, and the Womens’ Groups in Australia are doing their best to twist the entire situation around to make it out to be “a deadbeat dad trying to avoid his responsibilities”.

    I’ll help you with some Truth In-Parenting: The High court found that 60% of Liam’s emotional hurt stemmed from the separation and not from the deceit. Many of us separate from our partners but do not use that hurt to try and extract money from the supposed perpetrator of our broken dreams.

    I have no doubt that Meredith was a low down deceitful woman and have little respect for what she did. We all get treated like crap by people some time or other in our lives. Shit happens.

    How much punishment would you like to mete out to Ms Magill? When will your anger be fully resolved? If she gets a wacking great fine, is that not going to impact on the children who are still in her care? Should she, once the children are all over 20, be sent to a limestone quarry to chip away at rocks for five years?

  67. Mark says:

    New Zeal wrote: “We are a lot more sexually permissive than we used to be. What do we do? Learn to live with it, or go back in history or become born again Christians?”

    New Zeal, satan is the ultimate narcissist. whether or not you are a spiritual person i think you will get the idea, that embracing the values of selfishness, deceipt and hedonism has not made the world a better place. the court must denounce paternity fraud or ‘sperm donor’ will be the next use society has for men other than as soldiers, workers and slaves. In my opinion only parliament should rule on this. I don’t trust the courts to give this topic justice

  68. Truth_In_Parenting says:

    How much punishment would you like to mete out to Ms Magill?

    Whether or not you like it, our laws exact metered punishment for those who break it.

    She defrauded numerous government bodies in Australia; she lied to everyone around her, with seeming impunity, she has received Legal Aid and assistance from the most expensive of Lawyers – all at the cost of the Vitorian people, mind you – I think the “punishment” should fit the “crime”, as would most normal human beings.

    When will your anger be fully resolved?

    Understand something very important here – what you perceive as ‘anger’, is more akin to moral-outrage. And why not?

    Should we not be outraged at this?
    Should be not be outraged that someone be treated so contemptuously – and yet STILL be treated as though HE is the criminal.

    If she gets a wacking great fine, is that not going to impact on the children who are still in her care? Should she, once the children are all over 20, be sent to a limestone quarry to chip away at rocks for five years?

    If you do any sort of investigation, Zeal, you will discover that Meredith Magill owns property in Victoria, worth far in excess of the judgement awarded to Liam. Furthermore, her family are millionaires many times over, and it is a running joke in the area in which she comes from as they renamed the town “McClellandville” – as her family are one of the wealthiest and most politically influential families IN Victoria.

    So you tell me how much of a financial impact it is truly going to make? She has lied her way into a rather nasty mess – both ethically, legally, and emotionally….I feel rather confident that she’ll be able to lie herself into financial assistance from someone else, don’t you?

  69. Intrepid says:

    Wow! Truth in Parenting you have nailed Zeal completely in your inside knowledge of this case. Thanks for putting the disinformation campaign down for the count.
    Cheers to you all, and lets hope Mr. Liam can win in the upper court.

  70. Cheryl King says:

    Does anyone want to know about the biological father? His name is Derek Rowe. Yes he and Meredith made 2 children and they both allowed Liam to support the children emotionally and financially for a decade.
    Meredith left Liam in 1992. Liam paid child support until 2000 32%( for 3 children ) Derek Rowe & his wife Veronica Rowe ran away to Qld to get as far away as they could. Meredith’s parents the Mighty McClellands were CONSPICIOUS by their absence during all court hearings. There is a great deal more to this than meets the eye.
    Cheryl

  71. New Zeal says:

    Whether or not you like it, our laws exact metered punishment for those who break it.

    Well that’s not how the supreme court saw it. There was sufficient doubt to preclude the presence of fraud. Sorry about that.

    Furthermore, her family are millionaires many times over, and it is a running joke in the area in which she comes from as they renamed the town “McClellandville” – as her family are one of the wealthiest and most politically influential families IN Victoria.

    So because she comes from a rich family then a financial suit is justified. If so then, $70,000 isn’t going to be much of a punishment is it?

    If you are going to make things like how much money Meredith’s family has relevant then you also need to realise that Liam married/ had child to Meredith while she was barely 20 and he was in his late 30’s. The possibility of a young wife prefering a young lover is a risk you take when marrying someone almost half your age.

    This case would be wrapped up ever so much less painfully if the focus was on Liam getting money back from the CSA for monies falsely paid. I am sure that the stink that has been kicked up will get the legislators into law making mode to ensure such a travesty does not happen again.

    Any public spat over children and biological vs non biological parenting is not going to do the children concerned any good and it is tragic that people go to such lengths to appease their anguish.

    I’m sorry, Cheryl, I don’t support any full on adversarial court proceedings over children. I have seen too many children get hurt. Quite frankly, I don’t think it is a sign of good parenting, and the only winners are the lawyers. The $70,000 that Liam might have received in the earlier settlement is probably nothing compared to the amount of money that has been spent to date in the courts.

    Your pain may never be properly appeased but I am sure that lawmakers will act to diminish the chances of it happening again in the future.

    Best of luck anyway, in what is probably an uphill battle from now on.

  72. Truth_In_Parenting says:

    What I found mildly annoying before, in your comments Zeal, has become completely hilarious.

    Your constant attack against the ‘persons’, not the situation is just cracking me up!!!

    I’m wondering where you get your information from – the appeal that was upheld was NOT in regards to the Tort of Deceipt….the appeal was because Meredith didn’t want to pay back the money she was told to!!!

    However I do agree that the amount initally awarded isn’t anywhere near enough. I think the going rate of punishment for defrauding the Federal Government, obtaining monies by deception, and lets throw in FRAUD for good measure – to the degree this case encompasses – would be a jail term of no less than 15 years (give or take for parole). And no, that’s not what I want for her…I could think of thousands of punishments worse…but then, I’m female too – and she’s proved that everybody is capable….

    Just that most NORMAL people don’t.

  73. Truth_In_Parenting says:

    Forgot something…sorry everyone…

    You guys obviously have no experience with adoptees and what they go through. After an upbringing with foster parents, biological parents are often meaningless.

    Are you making this claim from direct personal experience Zeal? Are you an adopted child? Or is there some published research that you are basing the statement on?

    I am quite interested, because I doubt that any of the counselling services, and adopted persons’ supports groups would agree with you there.

  74. Cheryl King says:

    Every child has a basic human right to his true paternity, identity, heritage, bloodline, medical history and above all the honest TRUTH.
    If no lies had been told and no deceit had been committed. We would not be having this discussion.

  75. New Zeal says:

    There is a summary of the Magill case at:
    http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-69.htm

    with the following discussion:

    Another issue is whether the present legal position is fair as between spouses. If wives are to be held accountable to their partners for their lies as to fidelity and paternity, why should husbands not be held to the same standards? Consider the male spouse who fathers a child to a woman other than his spouse. Even if a DNA test were carried out for that child, the female spouse would not necessarily know about it, let alone be able to force such a test. (Perhaps our compulsory DNA test at birth could incorporate mandatory notice to any spouse of the father!). This situation is unlike that of the Mr. Magills of this world, who both know of the child and can check the paternity of their children. And were a female spouse to find out her male partner was the father of someone else’s child, would she be able to sue him for deceit, based on any loss she might have suffered as a result of this fact (for example, where he has provided support to the other child, which money could have instead benefited the female spouse and their children)? Perhaps the question has not arisen precisely because of the difficulties in establishing deceit in such a case. If the father mentions nothing to his wife of this other child, what representations has he made to her? How would this spouse both act to her detriment (for example by staying with the father) and suffer loss (given that she may well be worse off if she left)? And yet this case and Magill both involve lies about fidelity and paternity which have financial and emotional consequences for the families involved.

    Moreover, although the child support legislation permits recovery of child support payments where paternity is later disestablished, parents who fail to receive appropriate levels of child support after separation due to the lies of the paying parents could not hope to be compensated for their losses even could they later prove the truth. Deceit would be unlikely to help them.

    Again, how would a parent receiving child support (or not as the case may be) be able to show they had acted to their financial detriment based on the lies of the paying parents? Showing they had struggled would not suffice. When child maintenance was handled through the family courts, there was even a reluctance to collect old arrears on the basis that the needs of the child had since been met. Whilst the Child Support Agency now attempts to collect all arrears, however old, when a review of an assessment is sought, parents need to show special reasons why any change to an assessment should be backdated. Proof of deceit might amount to a special case but in assessing what change if any ought to be made to a past assessment, the decision maker would have to go through the three step process set out in the CSAA for changing an assessment of child support and factor in the overall financial situation of all concerned including the capacity of the payer to meet any retrospective change to child support. This puts payee parents, most of whom are women, at a severe legal disadvantage as compared to fathers challenging paternity, whether via deceit or s 143 of the CSAA. One wonders why a lie like that of Mrs. Magill, which may well have been intended to keep the family together, should be granted a legal advantage over a lie which might be designed to deprive a mother and child(ren) of child support to which they would otherwise have been entitled.

    This leads us to the next question, which is why deceit should not apply to all lies spouses tell, not just those that involve the birth of a child. For example, many spouses would say that were they told of any infidelity by their spouse, they would end the relationship. No doubt partly because of this, many spouses lie about fidelity, or lie by omission. One can easily imagine a circumstance in which a parent could argue a compensable loss arising out of such a lie (including suffering emotionally from learning of the infidelity). Indeed, given decisions like Magill, why are we not compensating would-be-mothers who have been lied to about their spouses’ intentions as to fatherhood and thereby deprived of having children? Take Mrs. Unlucky, a traditional woman with no shortage of suitors, who married in her early thirties. She made it very clear before her marriage that a key priority for her was having children and her husband-to-be said he shared this dream. After many years of trying Mrs. Unlucky discovers that her spouse had a vasectomy before she even met him. The couple eventually separate, but the alarm on Mrs. Unlucky’s biological clock is sounding and her age is no advantage to repartnering. What loss has Mrs. Unlucky suffered in missing out on motherhood?

    Truth_In,

    The same link outlines the appeal court decision as follows:

    “there was no evidence on which the learned judge could find that [Mrs. Magill] intended [Mr. Magill] to rely on the forms, except for the purpose of signing them and agreeing that the children should be registered with the family name of Magill, or that he did rely on them for any other purpose.”

    In other words the birth registration has as its purpose the linking of the child’s name to that of the parents for birth records. It does not serve the purpose of declaring a biological connection. There is no clear statement to the fact: “I hereby declare that this child is the biological child of the man whose name appears on this form”.

    It’s a simple technicality. Add to that the uncertainty that Meredith had regarding paternity that ONLY a DNA test could clear up and the appeal was accepted.

    Look, Cheryl, I sympathise with your position, and I think this case will eventually cause a lot of things to happen which wouldn’t have otherwise, but at some stage you have to say ‘stop’, that is enough, and just get on with living.

  76. New Zeal says:

    Truth_In_Parenting,

    Regarding adoptees. I know two adult adoptees, one who has made no attempt to find her biological parents. It means nothing to her. She has two sets of step parents to choose from as a result of a adoptive parental separation. They look after her as if she was their own skin and bone.

    The other adoptee made contact with her birth parents and moved to be near them. After initial warmth, the mother became quite hostile and so she moved away again. She continues to have contact with at least one sister (all children are full siblings, having same mum and dad). There is no meaningful relationship between the mother and the child that was adopted out.

    From that pure anecdotal experience I made my statement that biological parents can often be quite meaningless after a lifetime of adoptive parents.

  77. New Zeal says:

    Every child has a basic human right to his true paternity, identity, heritage, bloodline, medical history and above all the honest TRUTH.
    If no lies had been told and no deceit had been committed. We would not be having this discussion

    On the note of children’s rights, every child has the right not to have their parents cat fighting in public. The eldest child is 17 now and only has to type in ‘magill vs magill’ and get access to full public details of his father vs his mother. What is more important, the child’s right to a utopian world consisting of no deceit, or to being able to grow up in a safe environment relatively free of undue stress, with support from significant others (including the biological father)? I guess it is your choice. The situation is what you make of it.

  78. Intrepid says:

    every child has the right not to have their parents cat fighting in public.

    Once again the defender of the child here uses children to defend the myself, his political party in power and his zealot agenda. Bravo! How low will you go?

  79. New Zeal says:

    Once again the defender of the child here uses children to defend the myself

    You were referring to this, Intrepid:

    Every child has a basic human right to his true paternity, identity, heritage, bloodline, medical history and above all the honest TRUTH.
    If no lies had been told and no deceit had been committed. We would not be having this discussion.

    Comment by Cheryl King – Wed 26th July 2006 @ 3:37 am

    I would be careful who you describe as having a zealot agenda. Cheryl happens to be the current spouse of Liam Magill, here defending her actions on the basis of the children’s rights.

  80. Cheryl King says:

    In order to have any relationship with a child, you need to have the cooperation of the custodial parent. Meredith has no intention of allowing the children to stay connected to Liam. She did allowed them to perk up to a journalist-a total stanger and quote for the Nation to read…”I hate my old dad” ” “he’s the dud dad ” All this before the the trial, Meredith ( as the custodial parent) had a choice to ban all media . She chose not to. This would have saved a lot of grief. She was also maybe hoping to get public sympathy. Zeal should be her PR representative.

  81. New Zeal says:

    The eldest child and the only biological one and the only one the father is appearing to accept as his child, is now 17 and well and truly old enough to make contact and live with the father if he chooses. Once he leaves school he could enrol in an institute near his dad (you both) and live with him (you both) -something to look forward to. The mother’s cooperation seems irrelevant.

    It does not help Liam’s case much if he is expressing such shock at not being the biological father of the other two to the extent of hostile litigation against the mother. Such sentiments reflect a certain voluntary disenfranchisement from those children. You can’t have it both ways: take legal action against the presence of non-biological children in your family AND have free and easy access to them.

    If Liam was to work through the biological problem and accept the two younger children as his social/psychological children, then he might have greater chance in the eyes of the court, Meredith, and the children of proving some merit as a father. I dare say it is not hard for a child to consider his dad a ‘dud’ if he wants to distance himself from a warm human relationship on the basis of lack of biological connection.

    Cooperation goes both ways. Yes, Meredith was a low down scumbag of a person for deceiving her spouse, but to carry on labeling her as such has only contributed to the alienation between Liam and his child(ren). Liam’s half of the cooperation might be advanced if he/you were to start forgiving Meredith and focus on what is important which is the future and stability of the children, children who have come into this world with no control over whether the father that was present in their lives was the biological father or not.

    For good advice on how to succeed in the family court refer to:

    http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p3

    This advice would include not naming any of the parties (eg the biological father of the children) involved, in a public forum such as this.

    Your case, although throwing up a lot of issues surrounding paternity appears to be purely a case of one parent seeking to exercise damages against another parent for marital misdeeds.

  82. Intrepid says:

    Nice try Zealot Kent. You know that statement was address to you and your possible sidekick, and not the women who postions are quite opposed to yours, from what I’ve been able to garther. You are losing it now, trying to make me out to oppose a probable ally. Sophist is as sophist does. Anyone following this discussion is going to see you very clearly. By the way I’m still waiting on your NAMBA position.

  83. New Zeal says:

    Intrepid,

    what is NAMBA? find me a link.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar