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.