Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 93 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/flfl1154/git/flwg.com.au/sources/global.php on line 625
View topic: Paternity Fraud: Another attempt to limit fathers DNA testing their children – Family Law Web Guide
Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Paternity Fraud: Another attempt to limit fathers DNA testing their children

Governments are working hand in glove with feminists to limit fathers being able to DNA test their own children without 'permission' of the mother and the State.

Moves such as these are just another sneaky way to try and stop fathers verifying the paternity (or not) of their children, without the 'permission' of the mother and the State.
"Non-consensual genetic testing may involve physical harm, where a bodily sample is taken by force, or emotional harm, where the paternity or identity of the individual is questioned, or genetic predisposition to illness is identified without that person's consent," Mr Debus said.
Fathers are parents, until proven otherwise, and as such should not need the 'permission' of mothers and the State to have parental responsibility for and care of children, including quasi medical matters such as DNA testing.

The Age (Melbourne)
9 November 2008

Genetic trophy hunters may face jail
By Josh Gordon Federal Politics

DNA theft could soon be a crime that attracts a two-year jail term amid concern that information gathered through genetic testing on tiny body samples is being misused.

Federal Police Minister Bob Debus has warned that the rapid development of human genetic technology allowing testing on hair, saliva and cheek cells "have made tighter laws necessary".

"Non-consensual genetic testing may involve physical harm, where a bodily sample is taken by force, or emotional harm, where the paternity or identity of the individual is questioned, or genetic predisposition to illness is identified without that person's consent," Mr Debus said.

A discussion paper prepared for federal, state and territory attorneys-general found that increasingly sophisticated technology allowed genetic information to be obtained from minute samples left on a glass, cigarette, toothbrush, comb, an item of clothing or on a tissue.

It warned of an "increasingly common fear" about "genetic trophy hunters" - people attempting to get samples to access genetic information on celebrities and public figures.

The report, by senior legal bureaucrats, said there was also concern that genetic information could be misused by employers, insurers and others for discriminatory purposes.

Push for jail terms for FATHERS for DNA testing their own children

The Australian said
A husband who suspects he is not the father of his children could be jailed for two years if he steals hair or saliva for DNA testing, under legal changes being proposed by the Rudd Government.
Again, the State (aka Government) intrudes into family life and sets itself up as THE PARENT.

Another way of controlling fathers and empowering mothers (women).

The essence of these proposed changes is to diminish the father as a parent (and make him go cap in hand to get 'permission' - in other words to make him know his 'position').

Feminists and bureaucrats have been pushing for some time (even under Howard Liberal govt) to have this changed and to require the knowledge/authority/permission of the mother or the State (probably a family court).

The aim is to inform the mother so that she is prepared to fight.

For a father to have to seek permission would act as a disincentive if the man was not 100% sure and didn't want to create waves or upset the relationship.  If he did, then had the test and found out that the child was in fact his, the relationship with the mother would be poisoned.

The Australian
11 November 2008

Push for jail terms for theft of DNA
By Leigh Dayton, Science writer

A husband who suspects he is not the father of his children could be jailed for two years if he steals hair or saliva for DNA testing, under legal changes being proposed by the Rudd Government.

Similarly, a private investigator would not be able to obtain a sample of someone's DNA for testing without their permission.

If adopted, the DNA theft laws would also make it illegal to conduct a genetic test on a sample obtained without consent and to disclose the results of any such test.

The proposed changes to the criminal code are contained in a discussion paper released by Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus yesterday.

However, Mr Debus, who has portfolio responsibility for criminal law within the Attorney-General's Department, said: "The proposed new offences don't interfere with the use of DNA testing by the police or courts or lawful access to private paternity testing by parents and guardians."

The proposed laws would not cover overseas online genetic testing services such as 23andMe and deCODEme.

The Australian Law Reform Commission's David Weisbrot said multinational protocols and strategies - such as those adopted for child abuse and sex crimes - must be set up to handle DNA theft laws.

The discussion paper on DNA theft was based on recommendations of the ALRC's 2003 report Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia, which highlighted the need to tighten laws in response to advances in human genetic technology.

The recommendations were accepted in December 2005 by the Howard government, but not acted on. In 2004, the British Human Tissue Act was amended to make DNA theft a criminal offence. The UN's Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in 2003 adopted the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data.

Professor Weisbrot said that, during the ALRC's public hearings, people were most concerned about the misuse of personal genetic information by insurers, employers, angry spouses and journalists tracking down "famous DNA".

"At the time, there were stories about US president Bill Clinton who had his bodyguards collect a pint glass after he had drunk from it in a British pub," he said.

Professor Weisbrot noted that newspapers also reported a plot by "genetic trophy hunters" to acquire a sample of Prince Harry's DNA.

Central to the new discussion paper is the notion - detailed in the ALRC report - that non-consensual genetic testing can cause many types of harm, including physical harm if a person is assaulted in order to obtain a sample.

People can also be harmed emotionally if, for instance, their kinship or identity is questioned.

Men's Rights Agency co-director Sue Price said any decision to criminalise non-consensual genetic testing would be "well over the top".

"I had hoped that this had died a normal death, but it seemsthere are still people looking to prevent DNA testing," Ms Price said.

Liam Magill, who was awarded damages of $70,000 in 2001 after DNA paternity testing proved a family friend was the biological father of his two youngest children, agreed.

"The introduction of legislation that looked like this would be a total farce," he said.

Additional reporting: Matthew Clayfield

Paternity tests prove hundreds of men duped

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
11 November 2008

Paternity tests prove hundreds of men duped
By Kelvin Bissett

Mothers are being forced to pay back as much as $60,000 to men they wrongly claimed fathered their children following a contentious reform of child support laws.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal 18 men, cleared by DNA testing, have made use of changes permitting them to claw back funds paid through the Child Support Agency.

More than 300 men have been cleared by DNA of being fathers. Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show orders for $171,567 to be returned have so far been made against the mothers.

Angry women's groups said last night that it would be the children at the centre of the disputes who would suffer most if money were paid back.

The money is being garnisheed from mothers' incomes by the Child Support Agency in the same way that payments are taken from the wages of non-custodial fathers.

In each case the duped men were able to prove beyond doubt in the courts they were not the fathers based on DNA paternity testing.

The new law, section 143 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, requires the Family Court to consider issuing orders for repayment where paternity is successfully challenged and child support has been paid. The law allowing such repayment debts to be collected by the Child Support Agency became effective on January 1 last year.

In the biggest case, Queensland man Ken Rodgers obtained orders for the repayment of $60,000 after making child support contributions over a decade to a woman who refused to even send him a photograph of his alleged child.

But not every man who is disproving paternity using DNA testing through the courts is getting his money back.

A Child Support Agency spokesman said courts decide on a section 143 order based on "particular circumstances of the parties".

But making mothers pay back child support was last night condemned by women's groups.

Sole Parent's Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said garnisheeing a mother's wages would only hurt the child.

"The money has already been spent on rearing the child," she said. "If the mother is forced to pay it back, its hard to imagine the child won't be disadvantaged."

She said men should raise doubts about paternity when they are first told they are a father.

Men's Rights Agency director Sue Price said men wrongly named as a father of a child were entitled to justice. She said all child support payments made by a man should be "refunded in full" by the Child Support Agency where paternity is successfully challenged and then recouped from the woman.

"A woman's knows who she's been with in a particular month," she said. "They must know if there is any doubt about whether the man they are pointing their finger at is actually the father."

The repayments are being made despite a landmark 2006 High Court ruling that stripped a $70,000 compensation payment for pain and suffering to father Liam Magill.

The High Court ruled there was no legal obligation for husbands and wives who cheat on each other to disclose their infidelity.

I'm not this kid's dad, so give me the money you stole by lying and false pretenses

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
11 November 2008

I'm not this kid's dad, so where's my money?
By Kelvin Bissett

It will take 233 years for Ken Rodgers to recoup the money he paid for a child he never fathered.

Over a decade he forked out $71,000 supporting a son he was told was the result of a drunken fling in 1993.

The payments, of up to $200 a week through the Child Support Agency, meant the Townsville man was unable to buy a home of his own.

But despite never seeing the mother again, he agreed to do the right thing and provide financial support to the boy when told he was Brady's father two years later.

"I was no scumbag. I grew up in a decent family and we took these things seriously" the 38-year-old aircraft mechanical engineer said.

But as the years rolled on, Mr Rodgers became increasingly frustrated at the lack of communication from the mother, Christine, despite his payments. Requests to meet Brady were dodged as the mother moved around Australia, from Hobart, to Launceston and Perth.

Addresses were never long-lasting and even pleas for a photograph went unanswered. At one point he hired a private investigator to track down his alleged child.

Finally, in 2006, he obtained a stay order on his payments along with an order for a DNA test, in the face of threats and protests, from the mother, to prove he wasn't the father.

In 2007, in a hearing in the Federal Magistrate's Court, he obtained an order for $60,000 to be repaid under Section 143 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.

He was the first to get access to the new repayment policy.

However, any celebration from his court outcome was short lived.

Mr Rodgers learned the woman was a Centrelink client and is only required to pay the minimum $12.70 a fortnight. "I estimated that at this rate it will take me 233 years to get it all back," he said.

Now married to Anong with a five year old, Mr Rodgers, 38, said the amount he was paying from his income each week had stopped him buying a house for years.

He is especially bitter that a home in Townsville that could have been purchased five years ago for $150,000 was worth $300,000 by the time he was in a position to buy, when freed from his child support obligation.

Mr Rodgers said there were several men Christine had been seeing at the same time in 1992. He claims, based on discussions with mutual friends, that his name was the only one Christine could remember from that period so that's why he was targeted.

"It's terrible what was done to me, and really I want something done so I can get all my money back," he said.

Child support payments given back to duped 'dads'

The Courier Mail
11 November 2008

Child support payments given back to duped 'dads'
By Kelvin Bissett

Mothers are being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to men who paid child support over decades but were wrongly named as fathers.

The payouts follow a contentious reform of child-support laws.

In the biggest case, Queensland man Ken Rodgers obtained orders for the repayment of $60,000 after making child-support contributions for a decade to a woman who refused to send him even a photograph of his alleged child.

The Courier-Mail can reveal that 18 men, cleared of fatherhood by DNA testing, have attempted to reclaim funds already paid to the mothers through the Child Support Agency.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show orders for the return of funds totalling $171,567 have been made against mothers.

The money is being garnished from mothers' incomes in the same way that payments are taken from fathers.

In each case, the men were able to use DNA tests to prove in court they were not the father.

The new law, Section 143 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, requires the Family Court to consider issuing orders for repayment whenever paternity is successfully challenged. It came into effect on January 1 last year.

But not every man who successfully disproves paternity is getting his money back, documents show.

Since July 1, 2006 and October 13, 2008, 344 men have obtained orders cancelling Child Support Agency declarations following DNA tests that proved they were not the fathers of the children in question.

The move to make mothers pay has been attacked by women's groups.

Sole Parents Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said forcing mothers to return child support would hurt the child, both financially and emotionally.

"The money has already been spent on rearing the child," Ms Swinbourne said.

"If the mother is forced to pay back these funds, it's hard to imagine the child won't be disadvantaged.

"Men should raise their doubts about paternity when they are first told they are a father.

"If they raise it later, someone should tell them it's too late," she said.

Solo Mums Australia for Family Equity spokeswoman, Elspeth McInnes, doubted whether women took "a deliberate course" of setting up the wrong man for child support.

"I doubt whether making the mothers pay it all back is going to help," she said.

But Men's Rights Agency director Sue Price said men wrongly named as fathers were entitled to justice.

She said all child-support payments made by a man should be refunded by the Child Support Agency, where paternity was successfully challenged, and then recouped from the woman.

"A woman knows who she's been with in a particular month," she said.

"They must know if there is any doubt about whether the man they are pointing their finger at … is actually the father."

Ms Price said there should be mandatory DNA testing either at birth or before Child Support Agency orders were made.

Lone Fathers Association Barry Williams said women who identify the wrong man for child support should be held accountable.

The repayments are being made despite a landmark 2006 High Court ruling that stripped a $70,000 compensation payment for pain and suffering to duped father Liam Magill.

In 2000, Mr Magill learned through DNA tests that he was not the father of two of the three children born during his four-year marriage.

But the High Court ruled there was no legal obligation for husbands and wives who cheated on each other to disclose their infidelity.

The court decided disclosure "should be left to the morality of spouses".


The Courier-Mail's series on the legal issues affecting Australian families will continue with a look at claims that allegations of abuse and violence are going unreported to satisfy co-operative parenting laws.

Men's suspicious minds better at spotting infidelity

The Australian
14 November 2008

Men's suspicious minds better at spotting infidelity
By Leigh Dayton, Science writer

Men are born with a highly tuned infidelity detector designed by nature to help them ensure they are supporting their genetic offspring and not those of an interloper.

It's so sensitive, though, that suspicious men are prone to see cheating when it doesn't exist, according to US evolutionary biologists.

The new findings fit with statistics reported yesterday in The Australian that one in five fathers who seek private paternity tests have their suspicions confirmed that they are not the biological father of the child.

Writing in next month's issue of the journal Human Nature, a team led by Paul Andrews of Virginia Commonwealth University report that in their study of 203 young couples, men's hunches about fidelity or infidelity were 94 per cent correct. Women got it right only 80 per cent of the time.

Dr Andrews's group found men were more likely to catch a philandering partner, detecting 75 per cent of infidelities, compared with 41 per cent caught out by women.

His team found nearly 30 per cent of men confessed to cheating, whereas only about 18 per cent of the women owned up to a dalliance.

Rob Brooks, an evolutionary biologist at the University of NSW, said yesterday: "It makes perfect sense."

According to Associate Professor Brooks, since men could not be sure they had fathered their partner's child until the advent of genetic testing, they had evolved unconscious methods of detecting infidelity.

Dr Andrews agreed, telling New Scientist magazine: "When a female partner is unfaithful, a man may himself lose the opportunity to reproduce and find himself investing his resources in raising the offspring of another man."

Associate Professor Brooks said that was reflected in the anger and shame men felt when tests proved they were not the father of a child they had helped to raise. "Shame is the basis of a lot of male pride," he said.

"It's part of the evolved mechanism that makes men not tolerate infidelity."

He noted that there was more media ridicule when Tony Abbott was found not to be the father of a child he had long believed he fathered out of wedlock than when the religiously conservative former health minister originally acknowledged paternity.

Canadian researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, meanwhile, have shown that even when a baby does not resemble its father, mothers and their relatives refer to the similarities between bub anddad.

"The woman's parents are particularly tuned to assuring the father of his paternity," Professor Brooks said.

"Nothing brings out male insecurity like having a child.

"If men are going to abscond, they're going to do it in the lead-up to the birth or right after."

Women seeking paternity testing to impose paternal responsibilities

The Australian
14 November 2008

Furious dads not only ones wanting tests
By Leigh Dayton and John Stapleton

Angry fathers wanting to shirk financial responsibility are not the only group of people going to court over paternity issues.

In an analysis of legal cases in which people intentionally seek a genetic test, US researcher Gregory Kaebnick found that women seeking testing to impose paternal responsibilities were also highly represented.

Dr Kaebnick - from the Hastings Center in Garrison, New York - also found two other categories: women attempting to deny paternity rights, and men seeking to obtain them.

Lyn Turney, a sociologist at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne who has studied the experiences of people involved in paternity tests, said that Dr Kaebnick's categories also applied in Australia, although people had many motivations for wanting DNA paternity tests.

"I think most fathers (who seek testing) have a genuine desire to be the father of the child," Dr Turney said.

James Fitzclarence would certainly agree. His relationship with his child's mother broke up shortly after she became pregnant. From previous experience, Mr Fitzclarence had come to believe he could not have children and this was the child he had always wanted.

Despite his wishes to be involved, the child was born without him even knowing. He hired a solicitor and with the co-operation of the mother, who had previously declared she was not certain he was the father, he paid for genetic tests.

They proved he was the father of his daughter Katya, now four years old. Eventually, he was able to establish a close relationship with her.

"For me, DNA testing has been a very positive thing," Mr Fitzclarence said. "I have another little girl now from another relationship and she has a sister. They all love each other dearly and get on very well."

"Joan James" - who chose not to use her real name, to protect her now six-year-old son - had a very different experience. After a short relationship she became pregnant and the father disappeared.

"He refused to acknowledge he was the father," said Ms James, who has since married. "He would not pay for or take a (paternity) test."

She claimed it took nine months of stressful legal action to obtain a court order demanding the man take the test. Despite a positive test he has continued to deny any association with the child, even refusing to sign documents needed for Ms James to acquire a passport for her son.

According to Dr Turney, emotions surrounding disputed paternity are often intensified by the marketing of paternity tests by private firms and the vocal concerns of fathers' rights groups.

"These situations often arise in very volatile relationships that have already broken up," she said. "There is already unhappiness and no longer a relationship between the partners."

The external push for "peace of mind" tests can bring about a less traumatic end to an already damaged relationship.

This week's release of a discussion paper for public consultation about new laws covering DNA theft has fuelled the emotions of people involved in paternity disputes. The proposed laws would make it unlawful to obtain a sample of someone's DNA for testing without permission.

Not everyone in a dispute disagrees with the premise of consent. Mr Fitzclarence sought permission from his child's mother and even Ms James backs the proposed law.

"It's really, really important that there is regulation to ensure genetic testing is used responsibly," she said.

Your Comments:

Yesterday Carol Overington* wrote; that an angry man would creep into a little girls bedroom and yank a chunk of hair. She could have as easily wrote; a suspicious dad obtains a hair sample from his daughter.(not nearly as emotively charged) any father with a daughter knows that if a DNA was required, obtaining hair from a hairbrush is much easier. If the rate of 20% of non-paternity holds true for the rest of the child support cases, that would mean somewhere between 200,000 to 300,000 men are paying child support for children who are not their off-spring.

* Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
The Australian | 13 November 2008
Bigger issue is men who don't pay child support | By Caroline Overington

One in five doubting dads proved right by DNA tests

The Australian
13 November 2008

One in five doubting dads proved right by DNA tests
By John Stapleton

At least one in five DNA tests sought by fathers doubting their paternity return a negative result, representing more than 1200 Australian men.

This is consistent with results overseas.

While there are no hard figures, industry sources estimate there are at least 6000 paternity tests conducted every year, two-thirds of these with the mother's involvement.

Genetic Technologies conducts more than half of all the paternity tests undertaken in Australia. Its business development manager, Ian Smith, said its negative rate was about 20 per cent.

Mr Smith said if Australia were to jail fathers who did DNA tests off their own bat, it would be only the second country in the world to do so, after France.

"I am sure that many of the people we have tested have had a positive outcome, have had great peace of mind as a result, and it has allowed them to stay in a relationship or bond with a child," he said.

Under legislation being considered by the Rudd Government, these fathers could be jailed if they conducted this test or took a DNA sample from their child without the permission of the mother or a court.

Martin Hunt, 27, a machinist from Adelaide, would have faced jail under such legislation. He was 17 when his then girlfriend became pregnant. Four months into her pregnancy they broke up.

Mr Hunt saw the boy every weekend and paid out $10,000 in child support, which he has never recovered.

When his "son" was three years old, Mr Hunt decided to obtain a DNA test through an online laboratory in Canada. When the result came back negative, he had the test repeated in Australia, with the same result.

"I was shocked, upset. The fact that I spent three years of my life being lied to," he said. "I read that first letter over and over again. It was just unbelievable to me. It is hard to put into words.

"I took the mother to court for a year to get my name off the birth certificate.

"I believe DNA tests should be mandatory at birth for all parties. It would stop the lying."

DNA BioServices director Gary Miller said about one in four of their tests was negative.

"I think everyone has a right to know if they are bringing up their own child," Mr Miller said.

"We live in the 21st century. If you have parental responsibility, you should be able to check the paternity of a child."

Director of Queensland DNA Andrea Hayward also said about 20 per cent of their tests proved non-paternity. "The stronger message is that 80 per cent of those people who have doubts get good news, and have their doubts wiped away," she said.

Ms Hayward said considering the many thousands of dollars involved, a great deal of heat would be taken out of the situation if the Child Support Agency demanded a paternity test before payments began.

"It's better if everyone knows early. Then people don't bond with children and later find they're not theirs."

John Flanagan from the Fairness in Child Support group said legislation to jail fathers if they obtained a DNA test was outrageous. "The Family Court often deliberately obstructs fathers seeking natural justice through a DNA test," he said.

"There is no reason why someone who wants a DNA test on their child shouldn't be allowed to do so.

"Why should fathers have their lives ruined by having to pay tens of thousands of dollars for someone else's children?"

Editorial: Dad wants to know

The Australian
13 November 2008

Editorial

Dad wants to know

The truth may hurt but DNA paternity testing is a right

Proposals to protect more tightly our genetic information from misuse by individuals on grounds of privacy appear mostly unremarkable except for the issue of proof of paternity. This aspect of the law-reform discussion paper on non-consensual genetic testing, released this month by Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus, is indeed being discussed. Its recommendation that so-called theft of body samples for DNA testing be criminalised, with a jail penalty possible, is worrying fathers who suspect that children they have acknowledged as theirs are not theirs, and lobbies that act for them.

In the process, modern morals have been re-exposed. In a nobler age, it might have been the done thing for a well-off man to acknowledge all his wife's children, whatever his suspicions, for the sake of his wife's honour and the good name of his children. But we live in a freer, easier and scrappier age, where words such as adultery and fornication are rarely used, and children are no longer branded with illegitimacy.

It is hardly surprising figures have been produced claiming that one in five fathers who feel they have reason to want a DNA paternity test, and obtain one, find a child is not theirs. Some of us will be relieved the other four learn they can remain proud fathers. Many men treat unfathered children as their own anyway, out of affection and as a role.

But with so many relationship break-ups, child support courtesy of the Family Court is a big financial issue for many men, who should have the right to know that a child said by the mother to be theirs really is. If it is obviously painful for some men to be supporting a child living with the mother in the home of another man, then imagine what it feels like if they later discover they weren't the father, after all.

If men are using devious methods to obtain DNA samples, such as snipping the hair of a child or sampling saliva, without the mother's knowledge, it is often only because they are restricted by cost or procedure from establishing their responsibility through the Family Court and the Family Support Agency.

No former partner should be forced to pay maintenance for a child who isn't his. When there is arguable dispute over paternity, as opposed to spite, it is unfair to put obstacles in the way of testing. No-fault divorce has been with us for more than three decades, yet men forced to pay child support sometimes feel that shallow judgments are made - that men are deemed irresponsible and women innocent.

Now that the Home Affairs paper has placed this bone of contention before society again, the Rudd Government must accept that fixing one problem usually requires fixing all linked problems - and not creating new ones. If it chooses to ban informal DNA sampling not agreed by all concerned, the Government needs to protect in legislation a father's right as purported parent to authorise sampling, and to obtain without fuss or expense a sample and testing through the court.

It has been reported that several thousand DNA kits may be being obtained privately each year by fathers in Australia. If some in the Government and society regard this as a bit unsavoury, then all means should be provided publicly for paternity tests to occur. It is only fair and just, especially given that all means tend to be provided for men to be slugged with child support.

This is a vexed area touching on the nerve ends of society, and cases where a mother is ordered to repay support after a child is found not to be that of the former relationship or casual sex partner can be distressing. Then, either the man may mostly miss out because the mother has little money, or the child may in effect be financially deprived. But that is another discussion for another paper.

Devastation for dad who finds girl not his after DNA test

The Mercury (Tasmania)
13 November 2008

Devastation for dad who finds girl not his after DNA test
By Michelle Paine

A man who believed for nine years that a little girl was his says he is devastated after a blunt text message saying he was not her biological father.

The Hobart man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had sought a DNA test in the hope of maintaining contact with the nine-year-old girl, who lives in the UK with her mother, the Mercury reports.

But last week he received a blunt text message on his mobile phone.

It read: "Got the results. Im sorry. I will sort out the birth cert + there will b no more contact. Sorry."

"I just didn't believe it at first," the man told the paper.

The official papers came soon afterwards.

He came forward after it was revealed this week that mothers are being forced to pay money back to men they wrongly claimed fathered their children.

But this dad said that while he was going to get his money back, "I'd rather have my daughter".

He and the mother of the girl were university students in England when she became pregnant.

"We moved in together and decided to try to make it work," the man said.

"I was there when she was born. She was my responsibility."

Now he feels devastated - and has no chance of seeing her unless he launches a legal battle.

"We're still taking it in. She's still my daughter," said the man, who has since married.

"It never occurred to me I wasn't the biological father."
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets