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

True Story…..You Be The Judge

Filed under: General — Blah @ 1:34 am Sat 4th July 2009

Man meets a lady in 2003. They have a casual sexual relationship. Nothing more, nothing less. The man uses condoms every time. Lady says she is pregnant to the man. 2004 a son is born. Man is adamant that he used condoms every time. So man asks lady for a DNA test. Lady agrees and the DNA test was done. The lady gives the man the results which states that he is 99.9% the father to this child. So man accepts the fact that he has become a father due to the results of a DNA test. Lady says to man “I want the DNA test back to destroy the evidence as she didn’t want the son to find out that this has ever happened. Man didn’t think that there was anything wrong with this, so he gives the DNA test back to the lady. He says to the lady that he will do everything he can to support his son. The man has never lived with this lady, so he was picking his son up either every weekend or every second weekend to spend time with his son. He paid for most of the necessities for his son i.e. nappies, formula, wipes, baby food etc. Spending almost $6,000 dollars in the first three years of the child’s life. He set up a bank account with the lady in the form of a trust for their son. Man putting into the account over 5 years of the child’s life $6,500, lady only putting $125. Man paying $60 a fortnight into the lady bank account to pay for daycare. Although the lady wasn’t working she wanted time out from her son.

2007 man meets a new chick. Remembering that he isn’t in a relationship and hasn’t been since his son was born. Man tells lady that he has meet a new chick as the lady confronts him about this as she has her suspicions. Man tells lady that the chick also has a daughter the same age as their son. Lady goes very sour towards man and says to him either he ditches the chick or he will never see his son again. In 2008 man tells lady that he has entered a relationship with the chick and the lady starts to threaten man with their son. Man says to lady that he wants to have a relationship and still see his son. Lady wants control and starts to restrict the time the man is allowed to spend with his son. However the mans parents are allowed to visit
the son or pick him up to have him on the weekends. With complete restrictions as the lady is telling the mans parents that the chick and her daughter are not allowed to see the son. Or are not allowed near the mans parents house when the son is there. The man’s parents grow tired of this control and confront the lady telling her that she cannot tell them who they can have in their house or what they can do in their house. Lady doesn’t like this at all and so restrictions were tightened and the man began to not see his son unless he visited him in the sons hometown. The lady in a year, being (2008), put a restraining order on the man, although the man never harassed or went to her house unless he asked. The lady phoned telecom and said that the man was ringing her house every five minutes and that he was annoying her, although he wasn’t ringing every five minutes and all he wanted to do was talk to his son. So telecom wrote
the man a letter warning him that he will pay severe consequences if he did not stop annoying the lady, how ever the man told telecom to take a look at the phone calls made to the lady’s phone and that it was only on a Wednesday night that he was ringing the number as that was the only time he was allowed to phone that number to talk to his son. The lady also tried to make the man sign a contract that she had written up. So that if she was ever taken to court for parental custody and she won the battle that he was to sign over the trust account for their son into her name and also give her the mans motorbike that he owned. She
also always talked about a trump card that she had. She brought this up right at the beginning when the man entered a new relationship. And so she was going to use this against the man if he was ever to take her to court. It never had the man worried as he new he had done nothing wrong but wondered what it was.

Nearly a year went by and unlike every other year of his sons’ life the man had him every weekend or every second weekend, he had only seen his son a handful of times. The man wanted to spend Christmas 2008 with his son and the lady agreed as long as the chick and her daughter weren’t going to be around. The man isn’t a liar and told the lady that they were going to be there, so the man was denied a Christmas with his son. So to this day the father still has the sons Christmas presents sitting in the spare bedroom. The mans son was nearly turning 5 in 2009 and the man didn’t want to miss his sons birthday. So the man asked the lady if he could spend some time with the son on his birthday. The lady denied him that as well. The lady asked the man to go to the trust account and get some money out so that she could pay for their sons’ uniform and stationary for school. The man said he would do so if he could see his son. The lady kicked up a stink again and said no that the man couldn’t see his son. So the man told the lady she couldn’t get any money out until he got to see his son. He thought he would try a different angle on her but she still didn’t budge. Because the bank account had duel signatures on it, they both had to go into the bank and sign for the money. Well the day after the phone conversation about the money, the lady went into the bank and withdrew $500. That is the max you can take on a duel signing before the bank will ask any questions about the account or so the man was told when he went into the bank to see them about the missing money. What the lady had just done was fraud! And yep she got away with it too! Frustrated by it all the man decided that he wanted to see his son and he sought legal advice. And so the battle began.

The man was told that he had every right to see his son from what the lawyer had heard of the story so far. So they decided to write the lady letters stating the obvious and what the intentions were if she didn’t want to give the man access to his son. Within that week of pursuing legal advice, the man finds out that the lady is uplifting his son and shifting. The lady wasn’t telling the man where they were going or the new phone number. So the mans lawyer quickly gets these letters to the lady before she goes. The lady gets a lawyer and the lady’s lawyer tells the mans lawyer that he is not the father and that he knew that he wasn’t from the get go. Confusing the man as the man had seen the first DNA test and its result, which stated he is the father. The mans lawyer says to him that he needs to have a DNA test to confirm that he is the father. The man tells his lawyer that there was already an existing DNA test and so the lawyer contacts the company who did the DNA test only to find that the evidence had been destroyed. The man finds this interesting as the DNA company had two letters in a folder stating that the man had written them a letter requesting that the evidence be destroyed. There was also a letter in that folder from the lady requesting the same thing. Problem was the man didn’t write that letter, and everything in that letter he supposedly wrote was incorrect. The DNA labs don’t check by contacting you personally to see if you actually wrote that letter. They just assume that because it is signed with the same signature that is on the original DNA test that that is suffice to go ahead with something. (Boy were they wrong with this case) So the man agreed to another DNA test and the mans lawyer wrote to the lady’s lawyer requesting a DNA test be done. The lady’s lawyer replied straight away agreeing to the test. There were restrictions however as the man wasn’t allowed to be present at the testing of his sons DNA test and the lady. But if the man dropped a camera off at the DNA lab that the staff would take a photo of the mans son so that he could identify it was infact the correct child having the test done. Three weeks later and the results arrive. The man is 99.9% not the father of the son.

This blew everyone away and nothing was adding up! Now it is a fight to get the money back that the man spent to support this child. Even getting the money back from the bank account is difficult as the lady refuses to sign a piece of paper allowing the man to get the money back from the trust account they set up for this child. The lady is now fighting stating that the man knew all along that this child wasn’t his. Although on the birth certificate it has the mans last name. The lady has called the man Dad from the get go and allowed the mans family to be auntie’s, uncles, grand parents and great grand parents to this child.
The mans family believed this child was his because of the first DNA test done. And so they accepted the child into their family. Now if you knew this mans family, very giving, conservative, contributing members to society. They have their heads screwed on properly if I can describe them like that, you would know that they wouldn’t take this lightly and allow the man to father a child that wasn’t his when he wasn’t in a relationship with this lady. Who would? It just doesn’t make sense to say you would be happy to father a child that isn’t yours and you aren’t in a relationship with a woman!

I am the chick whom is in a relationship with this man that I am writing about. I feel for fathers out there! Especially in cases like this. If this happens regularly? Which you don’t hear much about! My partner and I as in the article I have called him the “man”, feel so helpless because at the moment there has been nothing thus far that we can do legally we think and the lady has gotten away with everything. I haven’t stated our opinions about the matter because I want to hear yours. It may help us decide where to go from here and what we can do to make this right.

I feel so sorry for the child. At the end of the day he has lost a dad that he has only known! A family that he has only known, and he may never know whom his real father is!

Anyway that’s about me, and this is my partners’ story. You be the judge!


  1. I pity your partner. And such things are quite common. Maybe not exactly similar instances but male partners being exploited by female partners is nothing new and funnily the so-called LAW supports such females in exploiting the male partners more. This is called as public harassment / Legal Terrorism.

    Guess there is nothing much your partner can do! Maybe he can fight back but, sure that he won’t get complete justice. And from what you have written above, looks like there is no evidence as of such that proves that he is the father of the child and also you mentioned that she doesn’t work. So, sounds like she lives on benefits. What kind of money could you expect back from her? That’s where courts come into picture to show sympathy on such helpless females. Good luck anyways…

    Comment by Men At Risk — Sat 4th July 2009 @ 2:20 am

  2. Hi Taurbee, you have written this very well. IMO.

    Well, sometimes I get so angry with what women get away with. And to be honest, and in this frame of mind … I personally would try putting fraud charges on her for falsifying his signature.

    I wrote about a man sometime ago who went into medical care and the mother took care of the son for a week. She went to WINZ and claimed she was the full time caregiver and received a few hundred dollars and started on a higher paying benefit.

    In the meantime IRD has to ask him for CS and sent him a letter which … get this … stated he owed for several years.

    She had been claiming a DPB for their son while the father raised him alone. And something like 5 years of it.

    He has to prove he raised his own son who is now 18.

    Anyhow, hang in there. I hope this thread can give you some ideas on how to deal with this.

    Comment by julie — Sat 4th July 2009 @ 2:53 am

  3. If this matter is taken to the NZ Family Court the man will be deemed the social father of the child. Pity he didn’t get better advice many years ago.
    It is the poor child being stuffed around in this scenario.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 4th July 2009 @ 10:10 am

  4. Allan, why do you say ‘social father?’

    Is he not the father?

    Comment by julie — Sat 4th July 2009 @ 1:20 pm

  5. Good point Julie, what on earth is a “socail father”????

    Comment by dad4justice — Sat 4th July 2009 @ 1:31 pm

  6. Well there isn’t much your man can do but wait till the son is 18 basically. The courts are a joke and the law allows these “people” to get away with it. Stories like these are all too common here in NZ and men still get bad press and get called dead beat dads etc. Family law in NZ is a joke. Pure and simple.

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 5th July 2009 @ 10:24 am

  7. And yes, social father is an offensive term.

    Comment by Scott B — Sun 5th July 2009 @ 10:30 am

  8. So true Scott. Agree with you 100%…

    Comment by Men At Risk — Mon 6th July 2009 @ 12:47 am

  9. for alot of men out there they only have the word of the woman that they are the father of said child/ren and in alot of cases that word dosent mean much at all

    Comment by ford — Thu 9th July 2009 @ 2:04 pm

  10. Your man is a fool for not realising what was happening earlier. There is nothing he can do as there is no proof showing he was deceived into thinking he is the father. A friend of mine his brothers friend went thru a similar but not exact same experience and he got no money back (even though the mother was working and living comfortably) for a child he supported and thought was his for 15 years and turned out not to be. Chalk it up to experience and move on with your lives dwelling on it is not going to get any results and as said in a earlier comment the court system is a joke the only thing your partner is going to get out of it is more debt. He won’t get his money back.

    Comment by Johnny T — Mon 20th July 2009 @ 2:16 pm

  11. Sounds like someone has been watching way to much days of our lives if you ask me. Actually im sure i saw this episode a few months back.

    Comment by David Creek — Mon 12th October 2009 @ 1:26 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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