Hey Romany I still have the marshmellows.

I think if memory serves me correctly that somewhere in the wedding vows is the phrase 'faithful from this day forward.'

It seems to me that the high court bent over backwards to find an excuse for ruling against the alleged father. Only a very foolish man would ask his partner if she was being faithful or being present at the birth of a child and ask "is this child mine?"

Research has shown that something like 40+% of women would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant. There was another case recently where the father had had a vasectomy and the wife fell pregnant.

He said, she said, "the vasectomy must not have worked." She was having an affair.

We already have a legal system that enters into the domain of 'private matters' between adults.

It would be really interesting to do a long term, large scale study on the rates of non-paternity.

Even today within maternity wards throughout the country if dad asks what blood group the child is? he will not be told.

Fortunately for men it appears that the male contraceptive may soon be available which unfortunately proved too late for me.

I wonder if this hypocrisy will ever end? Where women's rights are good and men's rights are bad.

Gee it's cold today and a big bon fire would be good

What is the percentage of men effected by paternity fraud?

If the man is a willing participant and he is thoughtful of an unwanted pregnancy he should take responsibility for the contraception.

Men are too QUICK to rely on the women and RELY on the method of contraception she maybe using.

Now let's all take a deep breath and say:

It is up to both the female and the male as consenting adults to take responsibility with contraception, remembering that no contraception is 100% effective.

Sex education has been an integral part of our education system for the last 40 years.

We can take a positive out of the latest statistic for under-age single mums and the decrease in their numbers

Akiva,

I was disappointed about the decision but to turn what was a test of the result of truth or lies into a treatise on men's v women's rights is a bit of a stretch. The court was not deciding on social issues or ethics, it was asked to review a lower court's decision on a point of law. That case, between those two parties, has now been decided. It's now for governments to review child support laws so that other step-fathers aren't caught by fraud.

The rate is about 10% of children are passed off as biological to their unwitting father. This has been know for about 15 years since the advent of DNA procedures but it never gets much press because it is politically incorrect as the inconvenient truth makes women look bad.

As Roama has indicated, it would be wrong to see the Magill decision as being one where the courts have considered paternity fraud not to be so bad. The courts had to decide whether Mrs Magill was guilty of deceit. It found that she had never actively represented to Mr Magill that the children were his. At most she had not disabused him of the belief that they definitely were. The court held that she was under no obligation to do that under the law of deceit.

This case prompted me to wonder how many women had been prosecuted for misrepresenting to the Child Support Agency that the person from whom they were asking to receive child support was the real father. However, when I looked at the relevant forms, I found that there was no requirement on the mother to make any such representation. All she needs to do is state some facts relating to marriage or cohabitation.

In particular, there is no requirement on the woman to state that no other man could be the father.

This skews the situation most unfairly against the man, because it means that the mother can extract money from the man, whom she presumably no longer cares much about, for the care of her children, whom she presumably does care about. The woman is in a very good position to know, or at least suspect, that the man is not the father, whereas the father may well have no reason at all to suspect.

The worst the woman need fear is that she may at some future time have to repay the money - if she has any.

The solution is not as simple as requiring a DNA test in every case - some men might prefer not to know - but a better balance still needs to be achieved.

Sylvia Else

Mr Magill's lawyer Vivien Mavropoulos was quoted in The Courier Mail as saying that the case had highlighted fundamental social issues in Australia.

"They are the importance of truth in relationships and marriage, a child's identity and heritage, parentage and the responsibilities that go with that and a person's blood line, health issues and medical history," Ms Mavropoulos said.

She urged courts, parliament and society to address the issues raised in Mr Magill's case "in a manner which is fair and just to all parties".

So will the senior managers at the CSA be counselled and lose their AWA bonus for not acting to correct policy that was obviously deficient and encouraged fraud?

After all, none of this would come as any surprise to them because there have been many similar complaints in the media over the years.

What about the Minister for Human Services, the Hon Joe Hockey MP? Would he be willing to explain why no action has been contemplated thuse far to correct the known deficiencies in government regulations? Maybe he doesn't get briefed or read the papers.

All morals and principals are lost in the persuit of power and wealth!
By their own hand the courts have demonstrated they are morally bankrupt.
Its a sad day when the courts themselves, bring the administration of justice into disrepute

Maternity fraud is when a mother convinces her childs father that he is the real daddy,when it is a lie.
Paternity fraud is when a man tells a child he is the real father when he is not,and the man gets some financial gain.
Maternity fraud is alive and well. Now DNA testing has brought out the truth.
I did notice that my friends two girls did not look like sisters.
Anglo Indians have always noticed their children may be born Brown or Black.
For generations people have put this down to "throw back."
Now with DNA testing mixed racial groups may find out the real truth.

This case is SICK and not bloody well fair for any hetro -sexual male living in the Western World and is likely to affect future fathers from entering into a fraudulent war zone for any possible budding relationship . This disgraceful legal precedence will leave a dirty taste in many shocked fathers from around the globe . Well done you corrupt judicial fools you are really making a great job of destroying the dignity of every man on the planet !! How far are you dishonest judges going to push men ?

So.... when are men going to be able to take legal action for such abuse of trust for financial gain. I would hope that any wrongfully targeted "fathers" could now investigate civil action against the "mother" of ex-conceived children, for whom they have been paying child support.

Don't men a have right to NOT pay for the support of children NOT conceived by them ? What a crock of sh1t this court decision is.
How contemptible is it that a man has to ask his partner; "Is that child mine?" as it is being born.

When are women going to stop accusing men of wrongs and abusing them just because they are male? Don't they get enough crap from life without being told to just shut up and pay up ?

Some young men I know have actually become so withdrawn from social discourse that they refuse to interact with women, since all they get is abuse. What is wrong here?

Iluvatar

"Don't men a have right to NOT pay for the support of children NOT conceived by them ? "

Yes, they have such a right, and Mr Magill has recovered the child support payments - at least in the sense that they have been used to cancel a debt relating to a child that was indeed his, and in relation to future liabilities for that child.

That's not what the case was about. Mr Magill had sought other compensation for expenditure he'd incurred (not child support) and emotional impacts. It's this compensation that the court has found he cannot obtain.

Sylvia.

There is a study by Kermyt Anderson of the University of Oaklahoma claiming that only about 2% of all men are bringing up children under the false belief that they are theirs. This includes where parentage is discovered for reasons other than suspicion about who the father is. For those with enough doubt to have the test done for that reason, the rate is 30% according to this researcher.

What the High Court is doing essentially is continuing the long trend since the 1970s of removing values from the decisions made in law and society in the Western world. That's fine for these judges who are no doubt rich and smart enough never to become the victims of paternity fraud. But it's a kick in the pants for the rest of us. Of course the 'M' word is now taboo anyway among such social sophisticates of the inner suburbs.

I usually try to reserve judgement on family law articles: emotions run high, and the legal proceedings aren't always viewed with disinterest by men who miss their children and despise their ex-wives.

That said, I'm disgusted by the court ruling. If the situation were reversed, the law would never tolerate a woman's trust and resources being abused in that manner.

What if, for instance, a woman gave her husband most her income to purchase life-saving drugs for disease she suffers, only to find he'd been buying generic paracetamol, and using the money to lavish gifts on his mistress? The judges would come down on him like a ton of bricks.

This is the ugly side of feminism in full view: women's rights are sacrosanct in all cases, but men have to take humiliation and deceit lying down, because society expects it of them.

If anyone wonders how important 'male genes' are to a male, they need only look to the Animal Kingdom and especially lions.
We all have seen the doco's where the new dominant male kills all the offsrping of the previous male so he can produce his own.

Fathering children is a very important part of being human and being male. Passing on Genes has always been the primary drive of the males and Kings of ancient tribal societies usually have polygamous marraiges to pass on their superior genes. Why superior ? because presumably they became king by being smarter or stronger than the previous one. Unless they are his own offspring taking the throne on the death of the original king.

But then.. we find other problems. If a new king is fathered by the old King, but has half brothers from other mothers, then it is not unknown for him to kill his half brothers AND their male children.

All this simply underlines the importance of passing on specific genes in the act of procreation. So the idea of another male having intruded to your wife would without question be a death sentence on the intruder.

So, any man discovering that 2 of his 3 children are not his biologically, has every moral right to divorce his wife, and keep the child which is his then build a new life

Just to add to what rogindon said, the subject literature review concluded that when a father is certain about paternity the rate of finding non-paternity is low (median 1.7%) but when the father is unsure about paternity the rate is high (median 29.8%).

People can draw their own conclusions as to whether Australian women are more active sexually than the world 'average' from the literature study.

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/A/Kermyt.G.Anderson-1/papers/abs_patconf1.html

The Magill case has been in the news for many years. ANYONE who tries to excuse away this appalling case of deceit is either drug effected or has a similar character to Meredith McClelland MAGILL. Liam Magill paid 32% of his gross salary before tax to this woman 'thing' called Meredith/ aka Pat mum/wife/spouse/fraudster/cheat/ etc. The damages of $70,000 Liam was awarded in 2002 were for his pain and suffering etc. Liam Magill was NOT refunded by the CSA for the 8 1/2 years of child support he paid for Derek Rowe's 2 children. This guy( mums lover-) Derek and his wife Veronica ( both cowards )sold up and ran away to Southport in Queensland. The CSA have quoted in an internal memo obtained through FOI have said "to take action against Derek Rowe was problematic" However the CSA still keeps Liam Magill on the CSA's payrole and in arrears. The laws need to be changed. NO DNA-No child support. It will stop this type of fraud in its tracks. The High Court was high on something except Justice. The decision is being laughed at by lawyers / Counsels from judiciaries overseas. It's a very bad decision for honest people and a good decision for the dishonest women ( and men ) who care to hide behind it.
Partner & Advocate for Liam Magill-Cheryl King- Chezzie- 35 Moselle Street Box Hill North Victoria phone 0416031145 kingcems@alphalink.com.au

Chezzie,

I'll be in contact with you soon. Do not despair. In my eyes this matter had to take its course. There was little I could do other than that, which I did over the past few years. But think of this High Court disgrace, not as an end, but as a beginning. There is still a lot more and bigger things to do. That chapter has closed. Now more chapters can be written. Think about that.

In the meantime, God bless you both.

Give my regards to Liam, never give up.

Time, justice and decency are on your side. Eventually, you'll win.

Akiva, well written & brutally honest,men & society legally screwed again. As you can see from the positive non feminist response it should be a wake up call to those who 'matter'but.......

The law should recognise a duty of care from women to advise men from assuming that ONLY they are the biological father following deliberate & voluntary sexual activity from these women with multiable male partners immediately prior to conception. Yes DNA Before child support, the lies are dead.

No women, no politician, no judge, no society, has the right to force parenthood onto a man whose children are not biologically his; that is his reproductive right, that choice is his alone…..just like…….dare it be said,.women’s reproductive rights.

In recent times we have had two world wars to resist oppression & what else, yet the world is now a more violent place than ever. History has always given us windows to look through & it’s there for all to see what happens when a society fails its citizens …this failure started forty years ago.

Rodney Macdonald successfully sued Kellie Gray in the District Court of WA and the judgement is on the www.PaternityFraudAstralia.com.au Web Site. Rodney was awarded only a small amount of damages and the mother did not appeal Judge Wisbey's decision in favor of Rodney Macdonald still stands- Mother Kelllie Gray has yet to pay Rodney the damages money but that was expected.
Cheryl- Chezzie -
www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au

Hi Chezzie [but I will continue to call you Shazza]

I did a learned submission to the High Court as a possible intervener but then forgot to send it - but probably the HCA would not have allowed it anyway

I will post it at my website shortly so you can see if you want to go anywhere with it

actually Shazza et al

I have reposted the maths behind the submission up top at http://www.csacalc.com

not sure if your lawyers ever read it

however I have yet the read the HCA judgment in full so I remain silent for now if a proper case for fraud was PUT to HCA

Divorce Doctor,

The case recently before the High Court had absolutely nothing to do with child support payments.

Sylvia.

Dear Sylvia
No the case before the High Court was about simple malicious trick or if you are politically correct then I would say it was fraudulent coercion on a grand scale, but a delinquent criminal mother sounds more to the point . I believe Liam and his legal team had every right to tackle a considerable injustice, and to address the Court on matters of personal compensation. Just put the jandle on the other foot for a minute, and think about this, how you would feel if this happened to you? I believe this case has crossed the lines of common sense and decency, and if the Prime Minister and Attorney General do not address it in the first instance, this will have serious repercussions for Western Societies downunder. The law must be changed to make it fairer for current dads and prospective fathers. Where is the balance here .

This verdict smells like and feel's like feminist jurisprudence.

For those of you thinking that justice is blind, it sure isn't and this is the way that men will be treated in the courts, thus, giving
carte blanche to the other sex to cheat, lie and deceive men at will
and walk-away scott free!

well Sylvia,

depends WHOSE case you speak of being "about"

here is summary

1. bloke is done over

2. lawyers see money and get mens groups to pass round hat

3. lawyers put case [not] to court to help femmos do more blokes over

4. Howard jumps in to amend nothing to get votes

winners - lawyers polies femmos and mens groups

losers - blokes, espec Liam

Whilst I believe that Mr Magill was well and truly done over emotionally by his wife, I don't believe that trying to ease his pain and suffering is something that the courts can do.

His wife, without conscience, had an affair, without either contraception or any measure to prevent STDs, thus actually putting Mr Magill's health at risk, after all, the wife didn't know who else her lover was bedding over that time. Having said that, Mr Magill did not own his wife's body, and he had no exclusive claim to its use for sexual gratification.

Unfortunately, no one seems to have bothered criticising the real father of these two children. As they say, it takes two to do the horizontal tango. This man must have been aware of Ms Magills marital status, but only thought of his own sexual and emotional gratification. He must have also had some questions as to whether he was the father.

Which comes back to the male versus female aspect of this discussion. Many men have conducted long term affairs with married women. I don't read any criticism of them here - something of a double standard I would say.

If the Courts were going to get involved in these questions every wronged wife would be able to sue her husband, or her husband's lover, for pain and suffering.

There are some areas in which people cannot let go. They live their lives through litigation, either in the State Courts or the Family Courts. Unfortunately this is one of those cases, where a wronged man cannot move on, but feels that by having his ex publicly crucified he will feel better.

The courts are littered with vexatious litigants who will spend huge amounts of money to try to prove that they are right, often amounts that far exceed any damages that may be awarded. The pain, however does not go away, and just triggers another round of litigation, like an addiction.

Sorry Mr Magill, the solution to your pain and suffering is not going to come through the law, and it never was.

I shake my head sometimes when I read some of the opinions that are posted. But you are all intitled to air your views based on the limited information that is avaialble. In fairness most people only have newspaper articles and the transcripts from the web site on which to form their opinion. The Magill case is complex, spans 7 1/2 years. How can one be expected to sum up Liam Magill's case which has been at foot for so long. One thing for sure, he sold his own modest home to fund the 1st 2 years of this case. He does not regret doing this. The money subsequently raised through donations would not have even paid a Barrister for one day in court. In all since 2000, Liam Magill has had the services of 1 Solicitor 3 Barrristers and one QC. No funding was provided to Liam Magill's legal team until he went to the High Court this year. That quota of the allocated funding for the High Court Appeal in April 2006 was paltry and the legal team were made to jump through hoops to obtain this assistance. On the other hand Meredith Magill has been fully funded since day one. Victorian Tax payers and Clayton Utz. Brian (DD)you don't have any of the facts. You will have to wait and buy the book. Cheryl King Melbourne

This case is not about adultery, who owns what body or contrapception. It is about the lives of a man & 3 children being used as toilet paper by our wonderful system & those who know how to exploit it. It is simply not fair to talk about women's rights in the context because there is nothing to suggest Liam did anything but trust & respect his wife. We also know he takes responsibility for his children. The point is that he suffers as result of fraud & should be compensated. If the system wishes to protect Meredith from liability for whatever reason, it must compensate Liam itself.
Howard had ample opportunity to act prior to Liam's case reaching the High Court & though his current rhetoric is merely vote-chasing, it does recognise an ill. If we wind up with genetic equality great, but Liam has to be given the right to rebuild his life. It is not enough to say "we are going to change the law". Each time I've read or heard something to that effect lately, I have wondered how it would help the poor bloke actually living the nightmare we are talking about.
And what about his little boy? Does Liam deserve the resources to give his son a decent life? The court knows there is a reasonable percentage of cuckolded fathers out there & that a precedent in Liam's favour could open the flood gates. Otherwise, the finding would have been different.

No human court can override the laws of nature.

This is true for paternity fraud as well as any other form of fraud.

Without a spiritual perspective, the tangle of human life has no meaning or solution, so no amount of words or legalities can bring any good.

The only way of being safe from fraud in the long term is to refrain from stealing and hiding the truth from others. By doing so, the truth is revealed and not hidden from oneself either.

When falling "victim" to fraud, rather than run to the courts, one should rejoice and seize the opportunity to grow: it is an opportunity to ask oneself, "where and when have I concealed the truth from others? how can I improve and eliminate these tendencies in myself?". One should also be grateful at the opportunity to pay back for one's old deceits. One should understand that the deceiving partner was only an instrument for receiving what one deserves, and thank them for that.

Yuyutsu

I can understand what you're getting at but...

'When falling "victim" to fraud, rather than run to the courts, one should rejoice and seize the opportunity to grow:

Yes you can grow, you can also grow more cynical and mistrusting too. This is a perfectly natural thing to do but it hurts society as a whole. I've met people who've been ripped off and have closed in on and live only for themselves. They're not necessarily bad or selfish people and they'll have no more kids, don't help charities, they don't harm but they don't help either. It's passive resistance and more and more people are doing these days.

'One should also be grateful at the opportunity to pay back for one's old deceits.'

It's better to do this yourself consciously with a good heart.

'One should understand that the deceiving partner was only an instrument for receiving what one deserves, and thank them for that.'

Or the deceivers could control themselves, not deceive and stop the vicious cycle there.

Remember also that this case involves young children who have no say in the matter. At least leave them out of it.

Dear Carnifex,

"you can also grow more cynical and mistrusting too"

Of course you can, but not if you reflect and find that you have done similar things, not been trustworthy yourself.

Graciously accepting the lessons we get through life is not passive-resistance: quite the opposite of resistance - it is liberation. Yes, it is better to get there "yourself consciously with a good heart" - but how many do? most people, to some degree or another, wait for calamities and prefer to learn the hard way.

"Or the deceivers could control themselves, not deceive and stop the vicious cycle there."

"vicious cycle" is the nature of the world. Just as one cannot stop the earth from going around itself and around the sun, one cannot fundamentally change human behaviour and motives. The most one can do is take care of their own moral and spiritual well-being and become "in this world but not of this world".

"they'll have no more kids, don't help charities"

Nowadays, having no more kids is in fact doing a favour to this overpopulated and over-heated world where humans are already far out of balance.
Also, there are many ways to be charitable other than openly donating to the formal and socially-recognized (tax-deductable) charities.

"Remember also that this case involves young children who have no say in the matter. At least leave them out of it"

While children are young in body, they are not young in spirit. They themsleves have not chosen to stay out of it, but rather to be born into this particular situation (in order to make amends for their previous actions and use life to learn their next lessons).

not read judgment in full but gist was

1/ litigation is blunt object in this "all fair in love and war" stuff but if you want fraud relief under common law then as Kirby said in granting leave, it must be "financially specific"

2/ one can not get up on common law [tort] IF it is in legislation

In FLAct we have

79A Setting aside of orders altering property interests
(1) Where, on application by a person affected by an order made by a
court under section 79 in proceedings with respect to the property
of the parties to a marriage or either of them, the court is satisfied
that:
(a) there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of *fraud*,
duress, suppression of evidence (including failure to disclose
relevant information), the giving of false evidence or *any
other circumstance*;

So when advising Shazza on this case, after discovering there WAS no "overpay" of CSA [but see below] I advised her on s 79A [going for 200 grand from memory]. She abused me for TELLING her there was no overpay

Her lawyers rejected s 79A based on NIHS and went ahead with "boo hoo case to nowhere"

Shazza came back to me and asked was there anything else under CSAAct and I spent considerable time again [FREE] researching and found a loophole where it says Liam can reclaim the CSA for the kid that IS his [about 50 grand from memory]

Shazza again put this to her lawyers [after saying she would NOT use lawyers if only I would help her find the argument] and once again NIHS said Shazza continued boo hoo

Seems HCA have agreed with me that BECAUSE her relief is in those 2 Acts her boo hoo tort can not get up

If the pass the hat did not pay for the blood sucking lawyers Shazza, then more the fool you - like don't shoot the messenger - YOU are the one who went the boo hoo path

Brian,(DD) You always excell at being rude. You also have lapses of memory from time to time. You were paid $200 by Liam & myself for your advice and your calculations. Please dont keep saying you did it for free. We sent you a cheque initially and you asked for the payment to be re-issued via money order. Maybe you have so many clients that you have have lost track of your records. As far as the advice you gave us, we thanked you and - right or wrong- we decided to not pursue that advice for a number of reasons. We never insulted you and we were never rude to you. We still refuse to get caught up in a slanging match with you. Gosh! go take a cold shower and cool down.
Cheryl King Melbourne

The judicial system is very broken. It must be fixed.
There are four people who can do the job:
Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
Everybody thinks Somebody will surely do it.
It is a job Anybody can do. But Nobody is doing it.
At least I'm trying. What are you doing?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
—VOLTAIRE
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
— ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)
Lawyers ! Respectable? Ned Kelly would shine over these people .They're thieves with a licence.
-Kangaroo Court (2005)

And where will it end? Will we once again see people being sued for 'breach of promise' over a broken engagement, with the woman claiming that she only had sex with the man because he promised to marry her, and that she is feeling hurt and pain because he changed his mind?

Would Mr Magill's hurt really been eased by $70,000 dollars, or the case really an attempt to cause Ms Magill financial pain in revenge for the the pain that she had caused him? Compensation or vengence?

Yes, he was wronged, he should not have been chased by the CAA without proof of paternity. He should not have been cockolded either.

But he should now move on: why should he destroy the rest of his life, with a loving partner, by focusing on the events of the past.

He has already lost contact with the child that is his, and the two that he thought were his, whom he loved: his actions have almost certainly poisoned any possible contact in future. He will probably lose his house, he has very little chance of regaining paid employment due to his focus on a legal remedy, that would never have eased his pain.

This is so sad. But the law cannot help, and never would have, even if he had 'won'.

Your words are very correct Hamlet [whether you be or not be]

However please be aware Liam HIMSELF has had NOTHING to do with any of this - he has simply been TOLD how to feel and WHAT to do

Let's be clear that this is a battle between two WOMEN

Returning to the discussion of ethics and this was a well conceived article, it will be interesting to see what take-up there will be of pre-natal and post-natal DNA tests. The tests will be conducted for other purposes in any event and time will make them cheaper.

At present a man is deemed to be the father because a couple were or had lived together and entry of the man's name on the birth certificate by either in the (hopeful) belief that the paternity is correct can and does result in unreliable birth records.

This has consequences for the exactness of State records and affects the ability to trace back later, for example in the event that health problems are identified.

From an ethical point of view, a child has a right to know his/her ancestry and it is of crucial interest to their treating doctors. Lack of knowledge of prior family history of conditions can threaten the life of the child. For example, a father's predisposition towards bowel cancer or diabetes.

No one out there has all the sad, sordid, bizarre, cruel & horrid details about the Magill case. Why would they . They have never been told. The opinions from everyone are based on what they have read.
In the meantime, we will now work very hard to try and bring about legislative changes that will hopefully stop this pain and suffering.
Cheryl King
www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au

What effect has 'no fault' divorce - no obligation at law on keeping covenants, moral agreements etc? Was it not forseen that if one makes infidelity an issue with few legal sanctions or religious sanctions, more people may choose to do it?

When might the human race comprehend that sex can = a child being created?

Unless one undertakes a pre-sex contract for future responsibility, and is required to give a DNA sample prior to a sex act from which a child might ensue, men and women will continue to have sex without too much concern for the potential 'consequences'. Contraception and safe sex ought to be an issue for both parties. Married or not. Every time.

Women are still going to carry each child. Men don't ever have to do that, so miss both the joy and the agony, or fully comprehend the bond with the child that can be created during pregnancy. Not always, of course, and not a challenge to real bondsof dads who are involved, present and also filled with fierce determination to put this child's best interest before theirs.

The question of DNA testing of a child is easy when the mother and child are known, but if the father has 'left the scene' for whatever reason. Any father could ask for a dna test at birth, just factor in the extra cost - financial and emotional on the outcome. The price of suspicion might be high. The whole issue could be determined by contract and agreement BEFORE a child is conceived? IE 'Yes, lets have a child, and I want DNA testing done at birth'. Or not.

Another issue is child support. Who is responsible for the economic maintenance of a child where one of, or neither of the parties wanted to be a parent?

There's always abortion, to end an unwanted pregnancy, but that choice is also driven by the opinions of others, the moral rights and wrongs, the rights of the child.

Why do people take more care over buying a dog that creating a child.

What woman wouldn't blister the paint off the hospital walls if she was accidentally given the wrong infant to change or nurse? It would be front page news nationally. So at least for women the community regards mothering as seriously important and identification of the correct child to nurture as absolutely essential.

Yet when there is talk at the hairdresser's, or in the media, about fathers not being told about their progeny, or being hoodwinked into believing that the child conceived with the day labourer was theirs, there is that well-knowing shrug of the shoulders as though ALL women have always been complicit in and needed, such fraud.

Then there is the feminist view: who cares who as long as some man pays? The feminists have no interest in children or families and use the presumed ‘good of the child’ as an easy rationalisation for fraud, or rough justice.

Now why isn't the same standard applied to men and fathering as it is to women and mothering? What evidence is there that fathers care less about their offspring? Are we saying that the father's bond is lesser and probably doesn't matter? Or that fathering is unimportant? Do men feel the pain of separation from their offspring any less than women and if so how is it quantified?

To agree with that line of thinking would be disgrace my own father and diminish the role he played in my life. It would also say something awful about my ethics and life choices.

We demand that men accept a greater role in the home but we are party to laws and customs that exclude and alienate men from bonding with the child and fulfilling their fathering role. It is not adequate to allege that a few men might avoid their responsibilities, because statistics of child neglect show that some women do the same and probably to worse effect.

I can see why men are outraged by the double standards that apply and are embedded in discriminatory government regulations and procedures. It is time for a change.

Once again we have a situation where a minority are influencing the laws being created for the majority. Lies, deception and fraud comming from either sex is not the common rule of human relationships. Supporting either sex perpetrating such ugliness for the sake of social or sexual politics is low. Women aren't wombs and men aren't wallets and the laws should reflect that understanding and not pit one sex against another in some twisted sexist deathmatch of winner take all. It really shouldn't be difficult for the courts to realize right actions from wrong and that our morals and values should relect in our legal decisions.

Whilst the judiciary might like to think they are appointed to “hold court over us”, they maybe need reminding that they are, in fact, not-withstanding the permanency of their tenure, really their to “hold court for us”. The difference, is subtle but profound.

“Holding court for us” reflects the public responsibility which judges have to conform with public perceptions of morality, as well as the law and when the two conflict, exercise prudence to resolve such conflicts. The sort of “Prudence” which was absent from the decision which inspired this article / thread.

In this case, as in too many issues which should be straight forward, political correctness and whatever it is which makes judges think they are indebted to the will of one gender, at the expense of the other, has prevailed.

The last time I looked, regardless of the consequences, honesty was considered a prevailing virtue. The actions of the woman in this matter were contemptibly dishonest and reprehensible. Any competent judge should be able to see this as plain as the wig on his head, maybe there in lies the problem, “competency”.

One solution which might help remedy a dire situation would be to make judges accountable to the public through direct election, as our American cousins choose, rather than a job for life.

Maybe another solution would be to cast the net beyond the realm of lawyers, lets face it, a good legal mind has nothing to do with ethicacy or morality. The best and most moral of judges might be, in our adversarial system, useless as a trial lawyer who is valued for excellence in the manipulation, conniving and contrivance of the interpretation of the law to the detriment of the meaning and spirit of the law.

Than God you are here Col. Some sanity. Like Cheryl, I can't believe the rubbish ppl are writing about this. Yuyutsu for example, wtf are u on about dude? What do u know about Liam & why do u think u are in any position to judge that he deserved what happpened not just to him, but also 3 innocent kids? Like quite a few posters here, u are in for a very nasty shock later in life.
There is still a predeliction with adultery in this conversation, which obscures the actual issue of fraud. Whether Meredith screwed around during the marriage, secretly joined the IVF program or experienced immaculate conception, is all totally beside the point. The issue is that she knew Liam was not the father & consciously decided to misrepresent the identity of 2 children for financial gain. This included the divorce settlement which cost him a home & superanuation just for a start, but was based on 3 children rather than a single child, as it should have. The system has failed to correct this fraud because the farudster "may be disadvantaged".
It is like me stealing your car & selling it to someone. Simple & plain.
And Suebdootwo, u take a breath & repeat after me ...
"I am a gender fascist incapable of understanding that women often exploit marriage, their children & the system for undeserved financial benefit. In Australia this is very common & likely represents the major cause of delinquency, declining literacy & other forms of disadvantage amongst our young."

Cotter, about the "no fault" divorce. This of course, translates as "the male is always at fault" divorce. If you philander on your wife, you are accountable. If you wife philanders on you, you are still held accountable. In short, a wife or mother can do pretty well anything - including as seen in recent cases, murder the child -& face no consequences.
By compariosn, she need only fabricate even a transparent allegation about literally any male on the planet & it will be pursued at his or taxpayers' expense.
Personally, I wonder how it will end up. Blokes have sat around like a mob of half-stunned imbeciles so far on this, back-peddling from the entire "all males were born bad" thing. Sooner or later though, something will snap & I expect to see some very sudden & radical changes. In a way, it reminds of the "prima nocturne" laws forced on Scotland by the English which attacked the paternal rights of native Scots & caused the violent, Scottish rebellion. The system is aware of this, censors father's rights issues & generally seeks to thwart masculine-based activism as a result. Eventually though, men & women will start acting outside the parameters dictated by the femo-Nazi establishment through our legal & governement systems. Then, we might get something done for our kids.

Nostradumbass,

There is no need for me to know the specifics of the Liam case, because it is a law of nature: no one can be cheated unless they have hidden the truth from others, and in general, nobody can get in life anything but what they deserve.

You are very correct in writing: "It is like me stealing your car & selling it to someone. Simple & plain." - the point is that the laws of nature operate equally on paternity as on cars (and as for me, if you took the trouble of stealing my old car, nobody would want to buy it from you anyway).

You can of course try to patch the leaks, but it will not stop the flood, only delay it for a while, so what's the point? it is better to accept graciously the consequences of our past actions, then get on with life.

The only long-term solution to being defrauded (if that's an issue for you), is to refrain from defrauding others.

Yuyutsu, "no one can be cheated unless they have hidden the truth from others, and in general, nobody can get in life anything but what they deserve."

Please explain?

How can you not be cheated unless you have hidden the truth?

Likewise
"The only long-term solution to being defrauded (if that's an issue for you), is to refrain from defrauding others."

Do you really believe that not defrauding others protects you from being defrauded? If so please explain how.

Is this some kind of extreme Karma belief?

R0bert

The greatest love of all is a parent's love for their child.
Paternty Betrayal must be the greatest betrayal of all!

www.fathers4equality-australia.org

You say,

The issue is that she knew Liam was not the father & consciously decided to misrepresent the identity of 2 children for financial gain. This included the divorce settlement which cost him a home & superanuation just for a start, but was based on 3 children rather than a single child, as it should have.

Well yes, that was what this case was about, as Kirby J clarified at Leave Hearing, ie deceit as a branch of fraud [common law], but of course the lawyers ignored his directions so he lost

Second problem is that Common Law don't apply if something is legislated and yes FLAct s 79A [AS I TOLD SHAZZA] provides that relief - BUT YOU HAVE TO ASK

Thirdly the matter of CSA paid/recovered IS also covered under CSAAct, so Common Law dont apply

The thing Kirby was "prompting" was the INTENT of the fraud, ie what is not covered by legislation is had Meridith/Liam and kids NOT been "DNAed"

IF one wanted to litigate under Common Law THAT was the only path, ie the 200 grand Meridith would have got simply by filling in the Form 101 at CSA [and she did not NEED birth cert as she was married to Liam]

Like neither is this rocket science or was Kirby talking in Swahili - but of course the lawyers did NOT want to Open the Floodgates [as in the RimmerGate case] so they remained silent

My explicit advice to Magill family was IF you want to litigate KEEP the kids out of it, ie KEEP the contact going as if nothing had happened, but Shazza abused me and said he could not possibly do that

The result is a victory for femmos and even Natasha Spot Destroyer this morning is pointing to the obvious "harm done by DNA tests" - well by using lawyers and taking their advice [in order to increase the boo hoo] the Liam case has done a great dis-service to any justice from these type of cases

R0bert,

The virtue of being truthful (Satyam) is mentioned in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Accordingly, the fruit of not hiding the truth, is that the truth will not be hidden from you either (just as the fruit of refraining from violence is that no violence will occur around you, and the fruit of refraining from stealing is that good things will come into to your life), so once the truth is not hidden, one sees clearly and cannot be deceived.

Of course, this does not happen instantly, because previous actions still have their course, but to the extent that I was able to follow those teachings, I have experienced them to be true.

Essentially, you have two choices: either everything is random/mechanic, or there is some sense in life.

If everything is mechanic, then why go on living, especially when death is inevitable and the final result is always the same? In fact, why would the world as a whole continue living? why should the laws of physics continue to operate for one more nanosecond?

But if there is a sense in life, and the physical world consistently follows the laws of physics, then what should be surprising about the spirit, or consciousness, also consistently following certain laws?

Yuyutsu, this is probably going off topic but!!

It would seem that what you suggest then leads to the assumption that when bad things happen to people it is a result of their own bad actions.

Liam gets ripped because he has done bad, a woman who gets raped deserves it because of her own bad actions (maybe the outfit she was wearing). It would become very easy to ignore the sufferings of others based on the assumption that their sufferings were always a consequence of their own actions.

"But if there is a sense in life, and the physical world consistently follows the laws of physics, then what should be surprising about the spirit, or consciousness, also consistently following certain laws? "

How do you then tell which actions are a result of which other actions? If I use a hammer to hit a nail there is nothing in physics to suggest that later the same nail or another one will come back and hit the hammer. Physics allows me to repeatedly hit an innocent nail with a hammer or with multiple hammers. The nail need never have attacked a hammer. I know that's not what you are saying but I don't see anything in physical laws to suggest the kind of link you propose in the non physical space.

The idea that only wrong doers suffer harm and wrong does not match with my view or experience of the world. Innocents have been harmed by others throughout history.

I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the harm done to Liam was the result of any general level of wrongdoing on his part, his ex chose to break their marriage vows, his ex chose to not use appropriate protection, his ex chose to leave him believing a lie when the lie was significant, his ex chose to seek personal gain from that lie. Not Liam's actions but the actions of another.

R0bert

this is a tragic story about two very unhappy people. Mr Magill was cheated and deceived and that is always an awful experience. He has lost three children he must have loved whether they were all genetically his or not. As a feminist and a human being I can feel nothing but great sympathy for him and for his children. I can also completely understand his anger. If it is true he was refunded his child support that is as it should be. However, it mustn't be forgotten that child support is given to support children - as the name implies - not necessarily wives, and it is not the children's fault that the sperm that made them was not his. Who is supporting the children now? Is their genetic father contributing to their upkeep or have they lost their standard of living as well as the man they must have loved as their father? They must also have lost faith in their mother and their ability to rely on her word - if not yet, because they are too young, then certainly they will realise this later. What a mess she has made of her life too.
As I was not privy to the case or the evidence I will not pass judgement on the court outcome. I will just ask one question, why are we so quick to use this human tragedy as a vehicle for expressing our own biases and prejudices about men and women and their propensity to lie and deceive? As Hamlet has pointed out, deceit and lying are human chracateristics, they are hardly gender based. And it is interesting how few posts mention the fate of the true innocent victims here, the three kids. If men are such loving and concerned fathers (and most of them, I am sure, are) why isn't their first thought for the devastation wrought on the children, rather than the injustice perpetrated on the man?

It’s great to read all the thoughtful comments and references here.

"the subject literature review concluded that when a father is certain about paternity the rate of finding non-paternity is low (median 1.7%) but when the father is unsure about paternity the rate is high (median 29.8%)" (Cornflower, Thu, 16 Nov 2006)

The study by Kermyt Anderson (2006) on Worldwide Non-paternity Rates - cited by rogindon and Cornflower above - shows that non-paternity rates differ vastly based on the paternity confidence of the men involved. The overall rate of non-paternity will remain unclear without data on the number of men with high paternity confidence and those unsure about paternity. This is an important article:

§ http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/A/Kermyt.G.Anderson-1/papers/abs_patconf1.html

Even if the extent of paternity fraud or mistaken paternity is a "relatively low" 1% to 3% in the general population, this does not in my view reduce the moral gravity of its social consequences for children, their misled ‘step-fathers’ and natural fathers all of whom suffer an identity fraud.

The social research on misattributed paternity in Australia is interesting too. Michael Gilding (2005) and Gilding & Lyn Turney (2006) - both articles are in the journal "People and Place" - argue that:

§ The view that between ten and 30 per cent of all births involve misattributed paternity is an urban myth. The data suggests that the number is closer to 1% and not more than 3% (Gilding, 2005)

§ The balance of public opinion is now in favour of DNA paternity testing even without the knowledge of the mother. Mostly, men & women in Australia hold much the same views on paternity testing (Gilding & Turney, 2006)

The latter article describes results from the Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor (SNTSM), which conducted representative surveys of public perceptions about DNA paternity testing in 2003 and 2005.

Our politicians should consider these public perceptions and the need to respect the parental rights of both women and men when reviewing the relevant legislation.

When frequency of paternity fraud in one’s own family reaches 33% (or of course Magill’s 66%), 1% to 3% seems a little on the low side. Regardless (we’ll never know until we routinely test), 2,500 to 8,000 children in Australia EVERY year, year after year, are fraudulently conceived. Add to that, a proportion of the 30% plus, abortions. Conceivably here, the 1%-3% rate may be a little higher.

Even at the more optimistic range of estimates, this adds up to a lot of abuse. If you consider that both the children and their social fathers will at some point in their lives care, then double these numbers to arrive at the number of people impacted. Multiply them many more times if you count the mother, the biological father, and the siblings.

But fathers must be either a resilient lot, or just plain stupid – they seem undeterred by the potential for 18 years of CSA abuse, the $200k or so in estimated costs to raise a child to adulthood, nor property settlements ranging from 66% to 80% and above. According to politicians and popular literature, fathers see very little beyond the consensual sex. Hell, things could get quite complicated if they were given similar reproductive choices to women.

Also of interest:

One in 25 Dads Isn’t Biological Father, British Study Shows

11 Aug 2005 (Bloomberg) – "One in 25 dads may unknowingly be raising another man’s child, according to a study by British researchers published in next month’s issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Researchers at John Moores University in Liverpool, England based their findings on a review of medical and social science research spanning more than 50 years. They determined that rates of paternal discrepancy, or PD, where a father is not the biological parent of his child, range from 0.8 percent to as much as 30 percent, with a median of 3.7 percent.

PD is generally a result of unprotected sex and multiple partners and typically associated with a woman having an affair outside marriage. The number of cases recorded is rising because of an increase in situations in which genetic discrepancies can be detected such as organ donation, male infertility treatment, screening for diseases and DNA profiling during police, judicial and emergency investigations, researchers said...."

Maybe the incidence in Australia could be closer to these numbers. 3.7% is sizeable: the $ amount of fraud is high because income and assets are affected (min $200,000 per case); and the effect on the families also has to be factored in. But just talking about $$, a company board wouldn't be very happy if 3.7% of employeees defrauded the company by a minimum of $200,000 (each).

Like ena, I've been a bit concerned at the lack of interest in the children's situation expressed in most of these posts. Also, the very black and white interpretations of many people as to who constitutes the "real" father in such a situation. Coming from a family in which my father has both genetic and adopted children, albeit in consensual circumstances, I can't help feeling that people are very quick to dismiss the bonds that develop from being the de facto parent. It's terrible that this man was so deceived, but could he really be so quick to decide he no longer cares for the children's well-being because they don't have his genes?

just started reading this case and only 6 beaks instead of 7

missing in action is Ian Callahan, mmmmm wonder if he elected to step aside so as to not let any of those White Industries skeletons escape from the tort cupboard?

R0bert,

Why do you consider this "off-topic"?

The facts are clear, Liam has suffered an expensive and humiliating fraud by the hands of his ex-wife (and so his children). The question is what to do about it: suppose a friend who really cares and obviously does not ignore Liam's sufferings, advised him: "go drink and drown your sorrows in booze", would he be a better friend than the one who says nothing?

According to the random/mechanical model, hiring a 'better' (more cunning) lawyer can solve such problems as Liam's. Also according to this model, man is capable of overriding the laws of nature by making and perfecting his own. Those who uphold this model then, come here and discuss the fine details of legal strategy and legislation.

Conversely, because I do not accept this model, I consider the above quite similar to the booze-solution and suggest an alternative way to solve Liam's problem from its roots, based on ancient teachings and a glimpse of me experiencing those teachings to be true.

"If I use a hammer to hit a nail there is nothing in physics to suggest that later the same nail or another one will come back and hit the hammer"

- but this is exactly what Newton's third law of motion states: http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/newtonLaw3.html

"I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the harm done to Liam was the result of any general level of wrongdoing on his part"

How many centuries of history did it take for Newton to make his discovery? just as physical science requires ongoing effort and discipline, so does researching the laws of the spirit and consciousness. Scientists today devote their life to the former, while ancient scientists like Patanjali devoted their life to the later.

As for "wrongdoing", I did not use this term and do not wish to judge anyone, but rather explain it just like any mechanical fact: it is not that any of this is necessarily bad, but if you prefer not to be defrauded, then the way to go is to refrain from hiding the truth from others.

the lawyers [judges, barristers, solicitors] have it all wrong for society [for themselves they have it right - making money]

the law should be for children [every child needs to know their parents and be cared for by as many interested parties who want to participate] noone should be forced to parenting or paying alimony child support. everyone participating in rearing kids should pay. fathers or mothers who don't want should not be forced.

if there is no agreement, then 50-50 shared parenting with alternate 1-week homes will solve the parenting time issue

Marie-Claude [not a lawyer, but psychologist in France]

Sylvia Else - 16 November 2006

Liam Magill has not recovered any child support payment.
Please be informed that there was no debt, owing by Liam Magill, as claimed by CSA who actually owe him E $40,000 and has refused to refund this money to him.

This money was an enforced draw down from Liam’s Superannuation Fund which is protected for him by a Court Order. It is not even classed as taxable income. All income taxes and child support taxes having been already deducted before the payments were made into the Super Fund. A straight case of double dipping by the CSA.

As far as the contrived notion of “future liabilities” is concerned, this is an insane feminist-type red herring. These “liabilities” are assessed a guesstimated “future income” of the liable father, but in Liam’s case there was no future income as through the experiences he suffered he became unemployed and unemployable and this situation is beyond redemption. It should also involve the likelihood of the “future income” of the recipient mother. Surely this woman is now capable of earning an income (from which she might also start to make repayments to Liam). She is also the child of elderly millionaire parents her future income is enormous.

The trial judge found that Liam had been deceived and actually awarded him $70,000 in compensation based on the facts of the case. The High Court also agreed that Liam’s wife deceived him. But they actually overlooked the issue of biological paternity when the wife became pregnant with someone else’s child(ren).

DIVORCE DOCTOR - BRIAN HOGAN

Having ploughed laboriously through your doctrinair ravings regarding the Magill case I have come to the conclusion that
• You really don’t seem to have grasped much about this case.
• You really don’t know anything about the amount of work done by “Chezzie” and the various lawyers involved.
• You really have no clue as to a man’s chances in the Family Court – fancy advising “Chezzie” to go for 200 grand under a reclaim of property per S79A – in the “Kangaroo Court”?
You must have been languishing in some myopic dreamworld to come up with something like this.
• You have totally ignored the moral victory achieved by Liam Magill when he succeeded in getting those High Court Judges to admit that deceit had occurred and then blatantly overlook the case of biological paternity as well as to reduce the very serious terms and conditions of marriage to nothing.
• You appear totally unaware of the massive amount of public and Parliamentary interest this has aroused around the world. This matter is very far from being put to rest.

So in future if you wish to make any comment on this case try to desist the egotistic urge of being critical and insulting to those who have worked so hard to bring it to fruition.

It must be you Shazza, back in disguise

OK I just read the HCA case and I must agree with you that my 200 grand increase in property orders was wrong, like go for a million Shazza - or more

The wife and her family and legal team were screaming out in HCA that they WANT to do a deal, not under s79A but s 79A[1A] ie by consent

233 The WIFE drew attention to four aspects of the legislation – those relating to property orders, spousal maintenance orders, financial agreements and child support.

234 Property orders. Section 79(1) of the Family Law Act gives the court power to make orders altering the property interests of spouses.[ ... ] And if the true paternity was discovered after s 79 orders were made, they could be set aside or varied under s 79A(1)(a) if the court is satisfied that "there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of fraud, duress, suppression of evidence (including failure to disclose relevant information), the giving of false evidence or any other circumstance".

Like what better admission can you have than than an admission [to try to defeat tort, but not getting up] that this and 3 other possible means are FULLY open to Liam

exactly as I said to you on 13 Jan 2001 - and HCA even "copied" my term "novel"

"As far as getting compensation etc from CSA we note your novel "claim" for having looked after her children for a considerable period of time, but we can not readily see how the Acts would allow for such.
However we note there was a property settlement based upon certain facts. Sect 79A of the FLAct allows the court to set aside such orders based upon fraud, duress etc and we would say you could well pursue such relief. The advised strategy would be to "do a deal" with the wealthy parents (for say $40,000 plus "wear and tear") in order to keep their daughter's dirty linen out of court.

Divorce Doctor- Gosh why didnt I think of that ? You mean -ask the parents of the mother to pay for their daughter's affairs?

Do you mean Robert & Yvonne McClelland of Sea lake in Victoria ?
The same Mr McClelland who was an ex counsellor in the former Kennett Governemnt?
The same Mr McClelland who used to be the Mayor of Wycheproof Council in the Mallee District ?
The same Robert & Yvonne McClelland who were conspicious by their total absence during their own daughters' trial and both appeals ?
The same McClellands who said that Derek & Veronica Rowe were Meredith's substiute and wonderful family and a "home away from home"
The same McClellands who kidnapped the 3 children away from Liam when he had them in his care in 1995 while their mother Meredith was hospitilised with a drug induced psychosis brought about by her use of amphetimines and marijuana ?
The same McClellands who live on 8 thousand acres and who will one day leave this multi million dollar property to their children including Meredith McClelland Magill. ( the mother that the CSA would be disadvantaged if she had to repay the child support for the 2 youngest children )
Oh those McClellands. How stupid of me not to think of that.!!
Cheryl King- Chezzie

sounds like the ones Shazza

but you forgot to say "the same ones screaming out to the High Court that Liam can not get up on fraud as a common law tort BECAUSE "fraud" is actually IN the legislation at s 79, SO Liam should ask the court to use THAT path"

but you have to ASK [use Form 1 at FCA, depose the High Court judgment as evidence/concession, it will never go before a judge, so you will be able to settle for what you like]

In fact Shazza, if you ask nicely [and if I get the time] I will do a Summary of Argument for you on this that will knock their socks off

Remember I got my stripes in the Full Court on s 79A over 10 years ago so know all about it

I would also include a Submission on why you should get a refund for ALL the child support, including the biolog kid [which is the reason CSA was so quick to fob you off by simply "reducing" your assessment from 32% to 18%, and not to 0% as per the legislation {by suitable argument}]

hamlett.to be or not to be.liam an cheryl have chosen to BE,to be heard and to BE making an impact.you are wrong,women sue men all the time for adultry.liam has sacrificed his house,car,pension and proberly alot more to try to change laws he should be compensated for his pain.there is more to this than just sleeping around they are kids,little babies he held in his arms at birth,whom he loved unconditionally,obviously you have no idea of how this feels.well i do,you are right money wont ever compensate but what else is there,at least it will compensate what he has lost financialy to pioneer the stand he made,the stand he made for me and many others.you cannot put this behind you,HIS kids will always be his past present and future.my ex tried to commit suicide over what had happend,i found her,i could of just left her there,suicide aint a crime in qld,but i took her to the hospital,i quit my career to look after my son,i still see him as my son and my stepson,i find out shes been injecting drugs and smoking ice,she trys to get me to commit fraud and tell centrelink they are living with her,i tell her no,so a week ago she snatches the kids and does a runner,on drugs,thanks liam,your words"there comes a time when you have to make a stand"im going to.my lawyer says i should be able to get custody,so im cashing in my super to do exactly that so i can give MY SON the life he deserves,hes only 2,i know one day im going to have to tell him the truth what he does with that is his bussiness.and yes i will be going for compensation because she told me there was no chance he wasnt mine and i have a letter written by her saying she knew from the day she thought she was pregnant she knew it might not be mine,so im going to stick it to her.

can anyone help me...

answer is no, you have chosen to use a lawyer in family law [lawyers' own contrived sandpit worth $20 billion pa to them]

you may however get a Xmas card from the lawyer's union

why do you think Liam lost mate?

i never said i thought liam lost.i think what liam and cheryl have done is huge.i dont think i could go on tv and do that, i still breakdown several times a day just thinking about it.i havnt made any applications to the family court yet as my lawyer was too busy.all i want to do is get the boys back where they are safe and away from drugs.if there are other avenues i should be taking please let me know,i have know idea where to start or what to do.if i was a rich man i would help liam,when she tried to commit suicide i gave up a $60,000 a year job to look after the kids and now shes dissapeared with them and im left on the dole,that alone has cost me nearly $30,000 the last 8 mths...

the sad story you just told SHOULD be told to a bit of paper called an AFFIDAVIT

The affidavit goes with an application [in this case an emergency INJUNCTION] because kids in danger [in your view]

Because it is emergency you can even get injunction made out over Xmas [termed Magistrate in pyjamas]

as for for lawyer, you have answered your own question mate - he has no concern at all for kids, he just wants your money

it is YOU that needs to get off arse and ACT [and it wont cost a cent]

what about the process of getting residancy.im just an everyday bloke and this is a very big grey area for me.i want to make sure i do this right.ive tried to find answers on the net about rights and laws but dont find anything.i will do this by myself but need a point in a few directions to help me along the way.i will do this emergency injunction for a start,thank you

good luck with applic [have you reported complaint to Mr Plod?]

if you need more specific help try http://www.csacalc.com - goto Other Help

yes i reported straight away and to docs,but they both said they cant do much without court order.iv printed out some forms for final orders and affidavit.havnt been able to find out anything about the emergancy injunction but will keep looking.im typing up a statement regarding the term of the relationship and all the specifics.will look at that web site and getting some free legal advice.thanks mate.

well i got the kids back,she left jack with me just before new years eve and i didnt give him back.she got an urgent recovery order out and an application for interim and final orders.i wrote my affidavit and annexed 92 documents then i filed them at the federal magistrates court.i represented myself at the first hearing and the judge left jack with me.at the next hearing today i got my stepson back living with me now as well.a trail has been set for june for which i will have a barrister.the mum told the judge that jack was not my son but he said because he was concieved and born in the relationship and because i have had substantial time with him he didnt want to here about it.how stressfull this is,i thought i would loose because of the dvo she has against me but the judge accepted that it was a one time event and the kids were not involved.my suspended sentence actually worked in my favour,the judge saying that this would further act as insurance that i would be no threat.this is such a big wieght off my shoulders,i hope the trail goes just as well.it also help that the mother lied all through her affidavit and my evidence proved alot of that.

I am so glad my brief instructions were able to spur you into action, and as you see as long as you ditch any lawyers it is not so hard

Where was this in Oz and who was judge [Fed magistrates are actually called judges according to Walters FM]

Only thing that concerns me is you say you have a barrister in June - is that Legal Aid?

im in brisbane,it was at the fed mag courts here.yes the final orders are at trail in june.i can speak well in court but have little knowledge of legislation and acts.i was going to get a barrister through a solicter.im just worried about loosing the kids.i dont want to let them down.i did better than the other barrister that was there.it was very streesfull but i had a lot of evidence with me.is a trail much differant than a hering.i would have to cross examine among other things.there was some new goods act that came out in december 2006.apparently i may have just set a precident for that.legal aid may contibute $1600.00 towards but i understand a barrister is about $2000.00 a day and the trail could go for 2-4 days.i could think of better ways to spend this money if a barrister wasnt neccessary.if theres any more hints you can give me or little tricks,im all ears.the judge said that because jack was conceived and born in the relationship he wasnt ordering any dna tests and because the family violance was an isolated incident and the kids are in no danger,plus the fact im still in the house that the boys grew up in and live near the school that my stepson went to last year,also the mother has to get a mental health assesment in short form for thr courts, that for the interim they should live with me.does this reflect in any way on how the final orders will be.im confident enough to try anything on my own so as not to run myself into the ground financialy,but with 2 young boys,great boys depending on me its a hard decision to make.please help me some more...

Please goto the website I gave above and click on email link [Other Help] - the orig emergency is over so now you need to keep powder dry so last thing kids need is to have the case on a public forum