Aziliz,

You are being a little melodramatic.

The problems you raise with paternity fraud being actionable are almost all questions of evidence. Courts decide such matters on a regular basis.

Yes, some aspects of paternity fraud ought not to be actionable, such as the parental costs paid by a live in father who then discovers he is not the biological father. I agree it would be impractical for courts to sort out whether the father really knew or not, etc, so these expenses are not something the court should involve itself it. However, if a man is not a custodial parent, but is being asked to pay CS then you can be 99% sure he is paying because he believes the child is his. If it turns out otherwise, he ought to be able to recover his money.

Would the kids be disadvantaged by such actions of course, but only in the same way children are disadvantaged when their parents have to pay back stolen money or money received in error. The world can't function on the basis parents are immune from responsibility just because the children might also be affected.

Now on a different issue, does anyone have any ideas how the system could be fairer for people in Nat4's position. I too would like to try again, but finances make it almost impossible.

I can see that most of the population of Australia are fair minded and prefer to deal with the truth rather than lies and deceit. The people who find excuses for deception are usually the ones who would consider being deceptive themselves. You can skirt around the issue as much as you like but mark my words 'when these children become adults they will want to exercise heir own brand of justice ' 2 of these children are males. How ironic it will be if they become victims themselves and they use the same 'Magill' case law to address the any issues of fraud/decit/deception in their own adult lives. The posts in favour of Meredith Magill will definately have the sanction of her very high powered legal team Clayton Utz.
Cheryl King ( Chezzie ) 35 Moselle street Box Hill Victoria 3128 ph 0416 031145
www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au

"Don’t think I don’t notice you just insult and don’t debate or answer questions—nor has Chezzie. Look at your nick:‘scrap’n’(fighting)‘mafia’(a group of men involved in extortion, drug-smuggling, gun-running and prostitution).

You describe yourself as a thug—you have the same opinion of yourself that I do"

To all those here, I am a MUM....A WOMAN... I have fought for 12 years in and out of court for justice for disenfranchised fathers. I have seen first hand the destruction that women wreak on their partners during divorce, and it is from THIS standpoint that I argue the validity and legality of the CSA and Family Court.

Azliz - I expect a written retraction and apology for your liablous comment regarding the "origin" of my nickname. Had you but asked, I would have happily explained where it came from, but again, you pass uneducated and ridiculous judgements upon others whom you do not know, nor care to listen to.

Scrapnmafia is really telling it like it is. You go girl ! WHO IS Aziliz who will not publicly identify herself? I won't try and flush her out because she is obviously a coward and hides behind the forum safe non identification. Come on Aziliz - where do you live ? What is your hidden agenda. Have you also deceived your family and maybe feeling guilty.Will the Magill landmark case give legs to someone who knows about your own issues ?
Chezzie - Cheryl King 35 Moselle St, Box Hill Victoria 3129 - Ph 0416 031145

There would be no paternity fraud if all birth certificates issued included true paternity status. Could be just a footnote to the father’s details. A simple asterisk could indicate “Not biological”. Perhaps other condition codes and accompanying explanations could also be included to fully qualify the context of paternity.

The man can then consider his options – right then and there - allow him 30 days to decide. No need to “change his mind a few years down the track”. We have the science – cheap, accessible, and accurate. Marxists can willingly pay.

"The man can then consider his options – right then and there - allow him 30 days to decide."

'30 days' to make a decision about something that is going to impact on you for the rest of your life! GEE that is generous.

It would pretty hard to make a clearly rational decision in that time.

The term 'emotional blackmail' comes to mind.