Is he going to have to prove that she intended to defraud him? Because that could be pretty tough. She's obviously going to claim she thought he was the father... whether or not she really did.

As a friend of this family, this coverage is missing quite a lot of important information, which the one-sided deposition fails to mention. First, the mother never sued for child support or asked for alimony, the money was totally discretionary on the part of Douglas. Two, the man who was chosen to be this girl's father, Underdrew Douglas, doesn't seem to value the incredible gift he was given. People agonize over giving up their children to others, or even letting others into their children's lives. He should be grateful first of all. Thirdly, he threatened paternity tests but made little effort to get to know the girl for the first 10 years of her life, while the mother never prevented him from seeing or visiting the daugher or from doing a paternity when the girl was younger and it might have been less emotionally-damaging. Finally, it was the father, Scamdrew Douglas, who had the paternity tests done, WITHOUT TELLING EITHER THE MOTHER OR THE DAUGHTER, then REVEALED THE RESULTS TO THE DAUGHTER , without preparing either of them for the inevitable emotional result. He did this while the mother was discovering she had uterine cancer. The question actually becomes, if he really wanted to continue to be her father, why would he do everything to burn that bridge so thoroughly? I doubt the daughter will ever want to see that man as a father again, after so sound and sneaky a rejection. I think Mr. Randrew Douglas should stand up to his role as a father and apologize to his daughter before he does anything else.

Sounds like he may well be an asshat, but paternity isn't a gift that the mother bestows upon the man of her choice. He either fathered the girl or didn't. If he didn't, and if he WANTED to adopt this girl, it would be a different matter, but it wasn't presented to him that way, was it?

I agree if he had doubts, he should have been tested earlier, and that all of this really sucks for the poor kid. At the same time, the mother should have said, "I think you're the father but there is a slight chance you might not be" back in the beginning, and a lot of this could have been avoided.

"Men deserve to know whether they actually are the fathers of the children they're told they are. A pity he waited to do the DNA test."
-------------
I think a lot of men are brought up in our culture, and typically reinforced by the media, that women are these angelic mother figures who have deep maternal bonds and would never do anything so horrible. Many guys are brainwashed to believe this and probabaly more so when this child was born than now.
Some paternity studies have shown that 5%-13% of fathers listed on birth certificates are not the actual fathers. Which is anywhere from 1 out of 20 or about one out of every 8.

"Apparently, she could just count on him to "do the right thing." A pity it wasn't mutual"

Spot on.

"the man who was chosen to be this girl's father, Underdrew Douglas, doesn't seem to value the incredible gift he was given"

Some 'gift.' She moved back to the States within 4 months. And in any case, that 'gift' wasn't hers to take away from the REAL father (the one she'd known was at least a possible candidate, a possibility she chose to conceal from Douglas). It's also a 'gift' that she's been very quick to withdraw unless further funds are forthcoming (even though she has no (flimsy) excuse to believe that he's the girl's father now)

"Thirdly, he threatened paternity tests but made little effort to get to know the girl for the first 10 years of her life,"

A little hard to do when she's been moved accross the Atlantic don't you think?

"while the mother never prevented him from seeing or visiting the daugher or from doing a paternity when the girl was younger"

Oh yeah? Says who? Want to bet that his memories of the time will be significantly different from yours/hers?

"WITHOUT TELLING EITHER THE MOTHER OR THE DAUGHTER, then REVEALED THE RESULTS TO THE DAUGHTER , without preparing either of them for the inevitable emotional result"

I'd be very surprised if the mum didn't know (or at least strongly suspect) that he wasn't the Dad. She chose to conceal that from her daughter for 14 years.

She's kept her daughter from getting to know her biological Dad for all this time, and I suspect that it was the thought of losing the pay-cheque which was the main reason for that state of affairs.

"I think Mr. Randrew Douglas should stand up to his role as a father and apologize to his daughter before he does anything else"

In fact, you actually mean that he "should stand up to his role as a dupe and mobile ATM and apologize for having the temerity to seek restitution for the mother's behaviour" don't you?

My brother was nearly caught in a similar paternity trap. He married a woman with a toddler age son. He didn't know her at conception or during pregnancy at all. She had no name on the boy's birth certificate. She named a man as father (as required to do) when she got state benefits and that fellow demanded a paternity test. It showed him not to be the dad.

The marriage to my brother lasted until the boy was around 6 years of age. After the divorce, the woman (actually the woman's mother that knows how to wring the most out of the system) tried to get child support as well as spousal support for the boy.

My brother went to court and eventually won, at great cost. It was really tough on everyone involved. The fact that he did not sire the boy was irrelevant to the court.

"doesn't seem to value the incredible gift he was given"

Wow, and I thought herpes was the gift that keeps on giving.

I'd rather have herpes than be nailed for supporting a kid who isn't mine.

Yes, but did she KNOW? If DNA tests weren't around back then, how could she have? Obviously, for him to buy it, they were having sex. Unless there's a lot more info than we're given, he's not going to win this.

I have zero sympathy for men in this situation if they don't get a paternity test as soon as the child is born.

This guy wasn't defrauded - he put blinders on, and now he wants a do-over.

It's quite possible that this mother honestly thought this guy was the father, but was mistaken, and that's not fraud.

And even if she knowingly pointed the finger at the wrong guy, I think it's still his responsibility to verify the claim before coughing up any money. To me, it's like paying your credit card bill and then years later, claiming there were fraudulent charges and trying to get them reversed. Maybe the charges were fraudulent - but my right to object goes away if I don't bother to read my bill.

There's these things, they're called condoms...

Mandatory. Paternity. Testing.

Guys, don't trust anyone these days. Even your beloved wife of 20 years. Always get paternity tested. Save yourself the financial destruction and get that test.

Seems sort of silly to NOT get testing done, like it is silly NOT to get a prenup before you marry anyone.

There's this method, it's called Vasectomy...

I cannot believe some of the comments I am reading in response to this post. Do these people really believe that our constitutional rights should be violated, just because they think it feels better that way. Some of these posts are justifying what the mother did and how the man victimized the child. This is outrageous. The mother knew that she had sex with more than one person and chose to victimize the child, the man, and all others emotional hurt in this situation. Please properly educate yourself on the effects of paternity fraud, before you start judging paternity fraud victims, or start sending me your paychecks every month so you can help me pay for the defraud money I pay each month. I bet it will change your mind quickly. This whole thing does not benefit anyone but the mother. If that is all you care about then it shows what kind of character and ethics you really have. For those of you that do not like our constitution and want to keep making exceptions, then go live in another country where you have no rights and everyone just craps on each other. This kind of abuse has got to stop and accountability has got to start happening on the mother part for this to end.

no, Melissa, regardless of what the guy did or didn't do, he was defrauded. The fraud exists without his input.

Who knew what, when, is irrelevant now. I wouldn'a sued the Mom at all, since I'd bet she doesn't have any money. It's amazing how much money you can spend when it's someone else's. Nah, I'd get much closer to the daughter now that she can make her own decisions...

and explain to her exactly what her mother has done.

It's all too easy for the mother to block your access to the kid, esp. if you don't live in the same town... even worse, continent. It doesn't take minutes to get a restraining order, to prevent him from seeing the kid, if she wanted to.

What really stings for this guy, is that he thought he was doing the right thing financially for the kid. Whatever his deal with not connecting to the kid is, he did that much. Being in the UK or abroad, he prolly could have just skipped it.

also? When the mother starts blocking your access to the kid, there isn't much to be done, so you just have to wait to have the relationship with your child as an adult. The courts will not force her to allow your access.

Yes, but did she KNOW? If DNA tests weren't around back then, how could she have? Obviously, for him to buy it, they were having sex. Unless there's a lot more info than we're given, he's not going to win this.

Posted by: momof4 at September 21, 2010 8:23 AM
-------------------------
"Did she KNOW?"

She knew she was having sex with more than one guy. She definitely knew that.

I have zero sympathy for men in this situation if they don't get a paternity test as soon as the child is born.

This guy wasn't defrauded - he put blinders on, and now he wants a do-over.

It's quite possible that this mother honestly thought this guy was the father, but was mistaken, and that's not fraud.

And even if she knowingly pointed the finger at the wrong guy, I think it's still his responsibility to verify the claim before coughing up any money. To me, it's like paying your credit card bill and then years later, claiming there were fraudulent charges and trying to get them reversed. Maybe the charges were fraudulent - but my right to object goes away if I don't bother to read my bill.

Posted by: Melissa at September 21, 2010 8:23 AM
______________________
Wow! Talk about bending over backwards to justify dishonest, unethical, immoral and fraudulent behavior.
"She called him and told him she was pregnant and he was the father."
She didn't say "hey I've been sleeping with x-number of guys and your one of the potential fathers." Just because the guy may have been naive and thought he was dealing with an honest woman doesn't mean that she is entitled to fraudulentley make him think he has a daughter and steal $700,000 dollars from him.

If my bank deposits 1,000,000 in my acount accidently and I go spend it all tomorrow can I claim "I just thought I got a really big raise at work so I spent it all."
Melissa it's your attitude, as a female, that this is justifiable doesn't give me great confidence that many females' truly believe in equal justice under the law.

There's these things, they're called condoms...

Posted by: mcQuaidLa at September 21, 2010 8:30 AM
-----------------
There is also this thing called birth control pills. Which at this time are only available to females and women can claim they are on them or have an "oops." It doesn't justify what she did to him.

@ Jeff. Amen!

OK! Let me see if I understand the justification for paying child support. If you have sex with a woman and she has a child then you have to pay child support. Now, if the child is not biologically yours and it does not matter then doesn't that mean that anyone that had sex with the woman during that period of time should have to pay child support? Or do we word the law that a woman can go out and have sex with 5 different people and then she can decide who the legal father of her baby is going to be. Let's see now that I understand the logic here. Fathers 1 - 4 make annually $40,000 or less and father number 5 makes $200,000. Do you really understand your justification and the implications of what you are saying? Please educate yourself on paternity fraud. What about the child’s rights, what about the child’s true paternal family on the biological mans side, what about the child’s medical history, what about all the people that have been duped. What kind of logic is this? Wouldn't it be better if people were accountable, so these things would be minimized instead of perpetuated by the logic you are using?

"She knew she was having sex with more than one guy. She definitely knew that."

Oh, don't be so sure. Women have an interesting super power: after a sexual encounter, they can edit it to fit a later notion of what *should* have happened, in the view of the woman. In some cases, they can even un-have the sex!

Guys do a similar thing, except we simply call it lying about how many gals you bagged, because men only increase the number and the naughtiness. They never go downward, unless they are confronted by an angry, jealous S/O.

Thanks David! I am amazed at the rationale and logic some people use to justify something that is wrong. I call it the feel good method that can only look good on the surface as long as you don't give it any thought. When you start to analyze it for what it really is then you become outraged by how stupid and thoughtless their rationale and logic is.

Unfortunately as long as it is "only" happening to a man most in our society can justify it.

If these kinds of things were to happen to women there would be an uproar!

If she took the money with a gun, would it still be OK? Or do I have some sort of wierd ethical problem where I can't distinguish between wrong and wrong?

If she took the money with a gun, would it still be OK?

If she defrauded him, nothing makes that right. But if he'd been walking through a bad neighborhood flashing bennies at drug dealers and got robbed at gunpoint, we'd say he played a role in his own situation.

He made some poor decisions, and it's going to be very difficult for him to prove that she knowingly screwed him, especially since he willingly took on the role of father (even in a seriously limited capacity) for nearly two decades.

She begged him to marry her to save her Muslim parents embarrassment at having a grandchild out of wedlock. He agreed.

I wonder if religion played a part in this too. I suspect her parents who have also been embarrassed if it came to light that their daughter was sleeping around.

I think there are two points to this issue that should not be confused. One is the state. The state will defraud you regardless of whether or not you are are the father. It's just here to collect money from whomever for whatever reason, no matter how flimsy. Those people who prove they are not the father and are still persecuted, my heart goes out to them.

The second has to do with personal responsibility. If you are a man and a worldly Hollywood man at that you should not have such a flimsy excuse as "she made me do it". He married her because she made him do it. He accepted the child into his life because she made him do it.

If my religious family had a problem with an out of wedlock child I hold a responsibility to face them and whomever I choose to have a child with holds the responsibility to himself to allow it.

Yes men, I understand there are some women that are tricksters. And I'm sorry when the State gets involved but give me a fucking break. It's like when single mothers complain about men cheating and leaving them pregnant. It's human nature, when it comes to reproduction most people are assholes.

Well said, ppen.

To me, it's like paying your credit card bill and then years later, claiming there were fraudulent charges and trying to get them reversed. Maybe the charges were fraudulent - but my right to object goes away if I don't bother to read my bill. - Melissa at September 21, 2010 8:23 AM

Bad analogy. The fraud would be obvious to you if you looked at your bill. Do you think paternity fraud is obvious to a father who looks at his child? The better analogy would be that you bought what you were told was a Rolex, and then years later when you went to replace the battery, opened up the back and saw that the inner workings of the watch were really made by Casio. According to your logic, though, if that happened to you, you'd have nobody but yourself to blame for being conned.

This guy wasn't defrauded - he put blinders on, and now he wants a do-over.

He doesn't want a do-over, he wants justice. Furthermore, child support has no statute of limitations. It never goes away, and back support never stops accruing interest, even if you declare bankruptcy. And guess what? Women have been known to go after a guy for back child support well after the child is grown up! Therefore, it makes logical sense that child support fraud also have no statute of limitations.

It's quite possible that this mother honestly thought this guy was the father, but was mistaken, and that's not fraud.

The only way it wouldn't have been fraud is if she told every guy she had been sleeping with around the time of conception that he was a potential father and only a potential father.

Remember, there are 3 victims here, not just 1: There's Mr. Douglas, who was not only defrauded of his money, but also his time. Time and money that he may have rather spent on actually producing and raising his own offspring instead of someone else's. There's the daughter, who was defrauded from knowing and having a relationship with her biological father. And finally, there's the real father, who was defrauded from having the opportunity to love and support his offspring.

In Norway, if you are married and the wife is pregnant, the child is automatically considered yours. Is that the way it is in England?

I know a guy who signed a birth certificate knowing full well he was not the father. So it can happen both ways.

Anyone remember David Goldman? He was screwed after his wife took his kid to Brazil, divorced him, and then died.

It took five years to get his son back.

Why isn't he being held up as a hero? But then you criticize an innocent person for standing up for his rights not to pay or being not responsible for what isn't his.

Bunch of f'ing hypocrites.

I'm certainly not criticizing Douglas for trying to get out of this. I just think he could have made his life easier by taking a stand 18 years ago. Now he's pretty well fucked, however this turns out.

From the GS article: "It was her moral obligation to tell the whole truth to both men, but it was not her legal obligation."

Which is why people need to protect themselves, emotionally by screening their sexual partners carefully and physically by using their own birth control.

Ben, under your analogy, this is equivalent to buying a Rolex on the street. It's your own darned fault if you aren't suspicous and don't check whether or not it's real.

I would have a different reaction if this guy was married to the woman, or he had some reason to think they were monogamous - but they weren't even living on the same continent! That fact alone should have been a clue to any reasonably sentient adult that he might not be the only candidate for dad.

If this man can't be bothered to verify paternity until the child is almost an adult, then he volunteered for his current situation. It's not "justice" to put blinders on and expect the courts to rescue you years later when you realize you should have behaved differently.

Anyone who is defending this woman who lied and stole money from the guy: you can't win this argument. Sorry, you can't. I hope the guy cleans up and she has to pay back every cent. Women know EXACTLY who the father is--they just pick the one who is better off finacially. This crap makes me sick.

Guys, stay away from the over 35 childless women. The clock is ticking and you could be the next victim of fraud.

Anyone who is defending this woman who lied and stole money from the guy: you can't win this argument. Sorry, you can't.

No one is defending her. Some of us are saying this guy should have started asking questions before the kid was old enough to give him grandchildren.

Child support laws are a joke. My ex-sister-in-law split when my nephew was 3 months old. My brother is now a single parent to a 2 1/2 yr old little boy. Wanna guess how much child support she's paid in that time? Wanna guess how hard she's being pursued for it?

It actually works out, because as long as she's not paying support, she's not allowed visitation (not that she's even attempted to see him). However, if it were the other way around, my brother would be in jail right now. What a fair and balanced system we have, huh?

Melissa, there is no doubt that he should have done something 18 years ago about this. However, you ignore social pressure very conveniently, especially given the mindsets that existed even 20 years ago. Many jurisdictions in the west still hold to the "any child born into a marriage is a product of the marriage" ideal by laws. Combine that with "man up" attitudes and men want to do right and gasp want to help raise their own kids too.

Today, its a bit different and men are apt to question (and often excoriated for doing so as jerks to say the least). Every young man should be taught to trust by verify. Men are in charge of morality, women have abrogated any say in it for libertine freedoms under the guise of equality.

Given your view Melissa, I would expect women to never ever complain about paternity tests, even married women in a seemingly happy marriage.

Check out "paternity fraud" in Google News. There's a nameless man in Paris who's allegedly practiced, 55 times, a different type of paternity fraud - for money, of course.

Amy said:

"Well, that's dumb advice. Better advice is developing a system of personal ethics and learning to assess whether other people are ethical"

No. No. No. Do you really think you can tell anyone in this current atmosphere of "you can do whatever you want with no accountability or responsibility" to actually use a system of personal ethics?? And then to assess other people for potential partners?? Good grief give me a break. This is the world that liberals made, and everything is stacked against men in this liberal world...at least when it comes to divorce, custody, child support, and anything else related to dealing with the opposite sex.

Why take chances? Why risk all your money? Your career? Your possessions? Better to just use avoidance tactics. The really dangerous ones, in MY experience, and at least 10 guys I know at work, is that it was the over-35 that did them in. Maybe not in paternity fraud, but for sure in divorce. 35 seems to be the magic number, especially if there is children involved.

Amy, I would have stated it differently.

...Just because there are unethical people out there -- and there always have been -- doesn't mean you have to f*ck them.

Getting to know the person before jumping into potential parenthood with them seems prudent to me.

I don't watch t.v., but I am aware that awhile back a guy named Springer had a few episodes where women were having tests done to confirm a paternity that they were "certain" about. It ranged from a woman that cheated one time, to a woman who as it turned out, had a significant number of possibles. Actually saw a few of these episodes a few years back, it generally seemed to go like this: Woman goes on show, says soandso is the father of her baby, she talks about her time with him, and then discusses some of the other men, some of whom are also in attendance as guests.

In most all of these incidents women seemed to simply pick the best candidate for them and say "he's the one" as if it were a pronouncement from God, and damned if they didn't sound certain. Then the test would come back, and sometimes she was right, soandso was indeed the father. Othertimes, there would be two or three male guests as possibles, and it would turn out none of them were.
--------------

Melissa, he had blinders on, but she had cash register symbols in her eyes.
Here is an important piece of information...dirt bags can get women pregnant too. If you have sex with two men, you don't have some magic power that lets you know who the father is. You have a responsibility to be upfront, lying to someone saying it is certain, does not make them the bad guy for not assuming a lie.

So yes, this IS a clear case of fraud by a lying little bitch, and he should get every penny back. I WILL agree however that paternity tests should be a standard part of the process.

the only thing this guy is guilty of is believing the lies

he tried to do the right thing and she made him pay through the nose for it

she even made him pay 'extra' to see the kid. the fact that he paid it should speak volumes as to his desire to be a father to the kid

i always find it amusing (and so predictable) that the NAWALT crowd will bend an argument until it screams for mercy to impart some or all (the ideal situation) of the blame to the man

some people are just evil and rotten - gosh ! even some women - get over it ladies