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.