Cuckolded men to sue deceitful wives

Started by alien, Apr 19, 2006, 04:14 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


Isn't the defense for that:

1:  You married me hence you should support me and the children I bear
2:  It's in the child's best interest, and I deem you a better man than the real father, so I dub you "Father" which includes all responsibility to me and the child  :?
3:  Don't you love me?  roflmao
4:  It was just a mistake (1 time thing) and I really wanted a family with you, hence I knew if I told you... you would have been upset with me and left me and my baby to fend for ourselves.


With the results of their past dalliances in their sweaty palms, men finally have the ammunition they need to declare war on the deceitful women who lured them into marriage, nest building and child rearing. And to think they could have been out there all that time having fun.

Oh yes indeed. Why if it wasn't for those pesky kids he could've been out banging all those wanton hotties out there. Thats all men care You've clearly solved the case Velma... :roll:

Sir Jessy of Anti

With regards to #1, the marriage contract doesn't imply deceit.  Just because you married someone doesn't mean you are agreeing to be defrauded or cheated.  

This is hardly the 1800's when men were routinely held accountable for their wives criminal actions.

Which is another interesting point, as feminists always say 'women were oppressed for thousands of years'.  Perhaps  they couldn't own property at some times in history, but they also weren't held responsible for their actions.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />


The most fundamental principle of management theory is that authority and responsibility go together.

As I understand it, the more responsibility, a person has, the more authority the person should have.

Let's suppose a person is responsible for all military operations of the U.S. in the middle east. Well, the person darn sure needs a lot of authority. On the other hand, if a person is responsible for making sure the coke machine work at the Pentagon, less authority is needed.

The system breaks down if a person with responsibility does not have reasonably equivalent authority.

What is my point? When a man was responsible for his wife's actions, he had authority over her actions. When a man was responsible for her children, he had authority over her sexual activities (he could actually get a little upset if she had sexual relations with another man, etc.).

Men now have little to no authority. Thus, they should have little to no responsibility. Well, that is at least the way I see it.


What a great article! Louise Evans, you are my hero!

Hey, let's take her femi-reasoning to the next logical step: if I became pregnant from an anonymous donor at a sperm bank and then have sex with my husband and trick him into thinking it's his child, then the anonymous sperm donor is really the guilty party because "he got me pregnant". I was but the innocent victim the whole time.

What Ms. Evans doesn't mention (and nor should she) is that if a woman has sex outside her marriage and has a child with another man, tricking both her husband and child, it means that the child will be blissfully unaware if his or her biological father passed-on a genetic disease or disorder which could show-up later-on in the kids' life. Ahh, such gleeful disregard for a child's health brings a tear to my feminist eye...


So if a man pokes another woman, he is a piece of s##t. If a woman lets  another man poke her, and she has a baby, its just a mistake that men are supposed to support. What pussywhipped piece of crap let this come to be? When I was growing up, a woman that fucked around on her husband was lucky to keep off the street, let alone get cucky to support her kid.
I spose it would be good to have an all new Justice system.
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.


Janet Albrechtsen responds to Louise Evans.
At least The Australian is showing some balance.
The highlighted bit has provided me with the counter argument I've been hoping for.
I suspect the reference to 1995 in the second par is an error.


Mendacious mums can't be let off lightly
If the High Court is too soft on women who deceive their husbands on matters of paternity, parliament will have to step in, writes Janet Albrechtsen
April 26, 2006
SOME issues are so fraught with emotion and hurt, they don't bear thinking about. It's tempting to put paternity fraud in that basket. But science is putting pressure on the law to confront this vexed issue. When a woman dupes a man into believing he is the father of a child she conceived with another man, increasingly, DNA tests end up delivering the shattering news. A father loses a child he thought was his, one he raised, loved and cared for as his own. A child loses a father and a family collapses. When that happens, what is the law to do?

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. And that has to be the worst of two difficult options.
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Sir Percy

Gwallan, what a post. Even my steed is impressed by the turn of speed there. I was half way through doing a cut and paste m'self!

For the benefit of our overseas contributors, Janet Albrechtsen is a fighter who uses logical arguement and facts as few in the Autralian newsmedia can bring themselves to do. She takes a lot of whacks from the lefties and feminists but gives better than she gets. Here she lays out all the pertinent arguements and proper analysis with economy, devoid of hyperventilation. More power to her pen. Nopw I must write and congratulate her.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Sir Percy

the AMA suggests that in Australia there are 200,000 families where the "presumptive father is not the biological father".


Australia's population is only 20 million. That's about the size of greater London or Tokyo. If 200,000 people were deprived of livilhood by a cyclone or an earthquake it would be considered a national disaster. But the honourable Justices of the High Court, led by the Misandric Kirby, are scared of opening a Pandra's box. That ain't no box. That's a thousand fucking container ship loads.



It is a gender-based CRIME.. Women's crime.

It is theft, deception and criminality of epic proportion.

There should be an Royal Commission into the whole matter.

('Scuse I, possums. Just having a hyperventilate. :D )
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Go Up