CA: Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

SAN FRANCISCO
Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, October 23, 2004



a.. Printable Version
b.. Email This Article




A man who helped his lover raise a child from birth to age 2 1/2 before
learning that the girl wasn't his biological daughter can't recover the
money he spent on her, a state appeals court has ruled.

"A child does not come with a money-back guarantee of paternity,'' the Court
of Appeal in San Francisco said Thursday. The case raised the question of
whether an unmarried man, who said he was misled into believing he was the
child's father, can sue the mother for the money she allegedly obtained
under false pretenses. The court -- the first in California to address the
issue - - said such a suit would violate "fundamental public policies of
this state'' on child support and children's interest in a stable family.

The plaintiff, Richard McBride, said in his suit that Garianne Boughton told
him in December 1996 that she was pregnant with his child. McBride, who was
been living abroad when he received the news, returned to the Los Angeles
area and took a teaching job to support them. He continued working for a
year after the girl was born in May 1997, then stayed at home to care for
her while Boughton returned to work.

Eventually, the couple split up and Boughton attempted to limit McBride's
contacts with the girl to two weekends a month, McBride said. In October
1999, he filed a paternity suit requesting custody. Two months later,
genetic tests showed he was not the biological father.

He then dropped all claims for custody or fatherhood and sued Boughton and
her partner, who McBride said was the girl's father, for reimbursement of
money he had spent during the time he believed he was the girl's father. The
court did not specify the amount of money he was seeking.

Thursday's ruling upheld a previous dismissal by a judge in Humboldt County,
where the woman, her partner and the girl now live.

Even if McBride could prove he was deceived into supporting the child,
allowing him to recover the money from the couple now responsible for her
support would potentially harm the child, said Justice Ignazio Ruvolo in the
3- 0 ruling.

He said dismissal of the suit would encourage unmarried men in McBride's
position to undergo early testing if they are uncertain about paternity - an
incentive that already exists for married men, whose fatherhood is
conclusively established by law after two years. It would also discourage
them from forming emotional ties that they were ready to drop based on
genetic tests, Ruvolo said.

"The potential emotional and psychic costs to the child of such a rupture
are far more significant than any financial injury a grown man might suffer
from mistakenly supporting another man's child for a temporary period,'' he
said.

Russell Gans, a lawyer for the mother and her partner, said they denied
making any intentional misrepresentations to McBride and were pleased at the
dismissal of a suit that was "very intrusive upon their family.''

McBride's lawyer could not be reached for comment.


------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

"Dusty" wrote in message
...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

SAN FRANCISCO
Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, October 23, 2004



a.. Printable Version
b.. Email This Article




A man who helped his lover raise a child from birth to age 2 1/2 before
learning that the girl wasn't his biological daughter can't recover the
money he spent on her, a state appeals court has ruled.

"A child does not come with a money-back guarantee of paternity,'' the
Court
of Appeal in San Francisco said Thursday. The case raised the question of
whether an unmarried man, who said he was misled into believing he was the
child's father, can sue the mother for the money she allegedly obtained
under false pretenses. The court -- the first in California to address the
issue - - said such a suit would violate "fundamental public policies of
this state'' on child support and children's interest in a stable family.

The plaintiff, Richard McBride, said in his suit that Garianne Boughton
told
him in December 1996 that she was pregnant with his child. McBride, who
was
been living abroad when he received the news, returned to the Los Angeles
area and took a teaching job to support them. He continued working for a
year after the girl was born in May 1997, then stayed at home to care for
her while Boughton returned to work.

Eventually, the couple split up and Boughton attempted to limit McBride's
contacts with the girl to two weekends a month, McBride said. In October
1999, he filed a paternity suit requesting custody. Two months later,
genetic tests showed he was not the biological father.

He then dropped all claims for custody or fatherhood and sued Boughton and
her partner, who McBride said was the girl's father, for reimbursement of
money he had spent during the time he believed he was the girl's father.
The
court did not specify the amount of money he was seeking.

Thursday's ruling upheld a previous dismissal by a judge in Humboldt
County,
where the woman, her partner and the girl now live.

Even if McBride could prove he was deceived into supporting the child,
allowing him to recover the money from the couple now responsible for her
support would potentially harm the child, said Justice Ignazio Ruvolo in
the
3- 0 ruling.

He said dismissal of the suit would encourage unmarried men in McBride's
position to undergo early testing if they are uncertain about paternity -
an
incentive that already exists for married men, whose fatherhood is
conclusively established by law after two years. It would also discourage
them from forming emotional ties that they were ready to drop based on
genetic tests, Ruvolo said.

"The potential emotional and psychic costs to the child of such a rupture
are far more significant than any financial injury a grown man might
suffer
from mistakenly supporting another man's child for a temporary period,''
he
said.

Russell Gans, a lawyer for the mother and her partner, said they denied
making any intentional misrepresentations to McBride and were pleased at
the
dismissal of a suit that was "very intrusive upon their family.''

Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it is very
intrusive for you to demand it back!" What a winner that fool woman is.
gag


McBride's lawyer could not be reached for comment.


------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

Once again a woman gets away with it.

I wonder... If a the situation were reversed and a man received money
from a woman under false pretenses, if the man would be forced to
repay???



On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:51:11 -0400, "Dusty" wrote:




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

SAN FRANCISCO
Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, October 23, 2004



a.. Printable Version
b.. Email This Article




A man who helped his lover raise a child from birth to age 2 1/2 before
learning that the girl wasn't his biological daughter can't recover the
money he spent on her, a state appeals court has ruled.

"A child does not come with a money-back guarantee of paternity,'' the Court
of Appeal in San Francisco said Thursday. The case raised the question of
whether an unmarried man, who said he was misled into believing he was the
child's father, can sue the mother for the money she allegedly obtained
under false pretenses. The court -- the first in California to address the
issue - - said such a suit would violate "fundamental public policies of
this state'' on child support and children's interest in a stable family.

The plaintiff, Richard McBride, said in his suit that Garianne Boughton told
him in December 1996 that she was pregnant with his child. McBride, who was
been living abroad when he received the news, returned to the Los Angeles
area and took a teaching job to support them. He continued working for a
year after the girl was born in May 1997, then stayed at home to care for
her while Boughton returned to work.

Eventually, the couple split up and Boughton attempted to limit McBride's
contacts with the girl to two weekends a month, McBride said. In October
1999, he filed a paternity suit requesting custody. Two months later,
genetic tests showed he was not the biological father.

He then dropped all claims for custody or fatherhood and sued Boughton and
her partner, who McBride said was the girl's father, for reimbursement of
money he had spent during the time he believed he was the girl's father. The
court did not specify the amount of money he was seeking.

Thursday's ruling upheld a previous dismissal by a judge in Humboldt County,
where the woman, her partner and the girl now live.

Even if McBride could prove he was deceived into supporting the child,
allowing him to recover the money from the couple now responsible for her
support would potentially harm the child, said Justice Ignazio Ruvolo in the
3- 0 ruling.

He said dismissal of the suit would encourage unmarried men in McBride's
position to undergo early testing if they are uncertain about paternity - an
incentive that already exists for married men, whose fatherhood is
conclusively established by law after two years. It would also discourage
them from forming emotional ties that they were ready to drop based on
genetic tests, Ruvolo said.

"The potential emotional and psychic costs to the child of such a rupture
are far more significant than any financial injury a grown man might suffer
from mistakenly supporting another man's child for a temporary period,'' he
said.

Russell Gans, a lawyer for the mother and her partner, said they denied
making any intentional misrepresentations to McBride and were pleased at the
dismissal of a suit that was "very intrusive upon their family.''

McBride's lawyer could not be reached for comment.


------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---


begin 666 chronicle_logo.gif
M1TE&.#EAE@`5`,00`,_/SY^?GZ^OKQ 0$# P,'!P(^/CU!04-_?WR @(&!@
M8$! 0._O[X" @+^_OP```/___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````"'Y! $``! `+ ````"6`!4```7_("2.9&F
M:*JN;.N^"S/=&W?*[O?"\[A7!@*@)%(&P$,%!T^G*/1""*"$84)BA0
M&PF"5B9()!4+@L)! P`N0(!PC#&6TA9'YC',8E4"D!(P@"?#%+$$P.`00$
M3( V`0\$. (#8@9A`0*# H/138,!0^$):8"* X)BGTB!@]4#PL\``V2,P@+
M#W "M2- #P92JR4,#$H;0^5!:,08X#3* "]M E4#-72(M3?R".2NM[C)PX#
M!R(.RR+*#80H]2 ]-/D[.[R#IX)SFX(X3%@8( 6!6("O#$!S!DM9P$4"G#$
M``$!`PT&%$'(0"&?.@4:+9PG))(1P6T_[0J8$)6O$7[X'F$0*E!@0%0V.#
M,^#3(VX$-(JP2*"*NW2H%/;$N,E@`P('#IP2(%6!,ELE&ARHJ2R!$U,)%. L
M$-:4`:H/%(#=TROJL !@HYN,@IH
MH\P@I@='B*$UX*6W, TPPQX`,7O/V#P%AA`H^!RU8/3#PA=E7?`@=S`$R9
M!%4E3:+_HT`]EK9O%6RL"HKP)L$D[2N2!##7,!``1L.(=BT@L"O-JS'$Q/
M3LGKRST.!$RI6FK=]753U"UO@RSB 4LSVO[B!]\]D+=+M?O@]!=PB1"9
M%?2UU\MLU*4F7_\5R@B"63L$( *%.$=,J `]:7F@D`!*"%,@HD!U,\"VJX
MB'V8'6+B?@]8*. `0&D(T]KVS
MF3,'F((*A.PD\,9P&=+7"SP6?);@;8@E@`P+!G76(@D(/C6ZH)%42?VB8
M3(OLA:2,`"I5DN4\/#4)1F)[F#)$FL%I=Z$(!1#@Q9Y'M0$%`@4IH)1IM0`0
M2EZAB+%(&P+T,F@ZQ"P2BE?HA))6D4"L$RA]4A73T3]/FE7&84H!(,M"T3'1
M!ID*$,$`:2,Y0!DNA `@!X IC3 `G;OZ:NDW`ARSQRK^P&?%K*R4ZQR-,U&
MU.PX`82YR+ G,##19\Y8BHMLZ?DZSK;"Q".NM %(V\ XJXB;C&$!A*-."$
M,X*W[)2S10VDH8&O0L,,/ )'NKPW(0F\#&.A&3(-X\$L9@VAV"5+R%%L!T
7[#$[^]8`78C[]#1&BFW[/++.80``#L`
`
end

"cloaked" wrote...
Once again a woman gets away with it.
I wonder... If a the situation were reversed and a man received
money from a woman under false pretenses, if the man would
be forced to repay???

No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any
contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift,"
which is not subject to recovery, even if he had relied on some
misrepresentation.

If someone were to give you money under the mistaken notion
that you had something worthwhile to contribute to society, but
found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to
return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R]

"teachrmama" wrote...
Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it
is very intrusive for you to demand it back!" What a winner that
fool woman is.

His failure to determine paternity before handing over a dime was
his his own misjudgment. Anyone who gives their money away,
voluntarily, without due diligence, are not entitled to get it back.
Caveat emptor. [R]

"Roger B." wrote in message
. ..
"teachrmama" wrote...
Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it
is very intrusive for you to demand it back!" What a winner that
fool woman is.

His failure to determine paternity before handing over a dime was
his his own misjudgment. Anyone who gives their money away,
voluntarily, without due diligence, are not entitled to get it back.
Caveat emptor. [R]

Nonsense!! She NEVER had a right to cheat and lie to him. She committed
fraud. Then, when he attempted to deal with the issue, she told him "Go
away! You're bothering me!" like the spoiled, self centered brat she seems
to be.

"Roger B." wrote in message
. ..
"cloaked" wrote...
Once again a woman gets away with it.
I wonder... If a the situation were reversed and a man received
money from a woman under false pretenses, if the man would
be forced to repay???

No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any
contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift,"
which is not subject to recovery, even if he had relied on some
misrepresentation.

If someone were to give you money under the mistaken notion
that you had something worthwhile to contribute to society, but
found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to
return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R]

I can only imagine how you make a living, considering how you defend those
who cheat others on this thread.

In article , teachrmama says...


"Roger B." wrote in message
...
"cloaked" wrote...
Once again a woman gets away with it.
I wonder... If a the situation were reversed and a man received
money from a woman under false pretenses, if the man would
be forced to repay???

No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any
contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift,"
which is not subject to recovery, even if he had relied on some
misrepresentation.

If someone were to give you money under the mistaken notion
that you had something worthwhile to contribute to society, but
found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to
return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R]

I can only imagine how you make a living, considering how you defend those
who cheat others on this thread.
====
Electrolux?
====

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Roger B." wrote in message
t...
"cloaked" wrote...
Once again a woman gets away with it.
I wonder... If a the situation were reversed and a man received
money from a woman under false pretenses, if the man would
be forced to repay???

No. The money was given voluntarily and not pursuant to any
contract or other reciprical obligation and as such was a "gift,"
which is not subject to recovery, even if he had relied on some
misrepresentation.

If someone were to give you money under the mistaken notion
that you had something worthwhile to contribute to society, but
found out that they were wrong, you could not be compelled to
return the money, the truth notwithstanding. [R]

I can only imagine how you make a living, considering how you defend those
who cheat others on this thread.
====
Electrolux?
====

chuckle

snip

SAN FRANCISCO
Man who learned child wasn't his can't recoup costs
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, October 23, 2004



a.. Printable Version
b.. Email This Article




A man who helped his lover raise a child from birth to age 2 1/2 before
learning that the girl wasn't his biological daughter can't recover the
money he spent on her, a state appeals court has ruled.

"A child does not come with a money-back guarantee of paternity,'' the
Court
of Appeal in San Francisco said Thursday. The case raised the question of
whether an unmarried man, who said he was misled into believing he was the
child's father, can sue the mother for the money she allegedly obtained
under false pretenses. The court -- the first in California to address the
issue - - said such a suit would violate "fundamental public policies of
this state'' on child support and children's interest in a stable family.

The plaintiff, Richard McBride, said in his suit that Garianne Boughton
told
him in December 1996 that she was pregnant with his child. McBride, who
was
been living abroad when he received the news, returned to the Los Angeles
area and took a teaching job to support them. He continued working for a
year after the girl was born in May 1997, then stayed at home to care for
her while Boughton returned to work.

Eventually, the couple split up and Boughton attempted to limit McBride's
contacts with the girl to two weekends a month, McBride said. In October
1999, he filed a paternity suit requesting custody. Two months later,
genetic tests showed he was not the biological father.

He then dropped all claims for custody or fatherhood and sued Boughton and
her partner, who McBride said was the girl's father, for reimbursement of
money he had spent during the time he believed he was the girl's father.
The
court did not specify the amount of money he was seeking.

Thursday's ruling upheld a previous dismissal by a judge in Humboldt
County,
where the woman, her partner and the girl now live.

Even if McBride could prove he was deceived into supporting the child,
allowing him to recover the money from the couple now responsible for her
support would potentially harm the child, said Justice Ignazio Ruvolo in
the
3- 0 ruling.

He said dismissal of the suit would encourage unmarried men in McBride's
position to undergo early testing if they are uncertain about paternity -
an
incentive that already exists for married men, whose fatherhood is
conclusively established by law after two years. It would also discourage
them from forming emotional ties that they were ready to drop based on
genetic tests, Ruvolo said.

"The potential emotional and psychic costs to the child of such a rupture
are far more significant than any financial injury a grown man might
suffer
from mistakenly supporting another man's child for a temporary period,''
he
said.

Russell Gans, a lawyer for the mother and her partner, said they denied
making any intentional misrepresentations to McBride and were pleased at
the
dismissal of a suit that was "very intrusive upon their family.''

Unbelievable!!! "I stole money from you for 3+ years, and it is very
intrusive for you to demand it back!" What a winner that fool woman is.
gag


McBride's lawyer could not be reached for comment.

I wonder if he can sue her again for palimony and/or lost wages since
he supported her while she was knocked up with some other guy's child.
Also, he was a SAHD to the child while the whore worked, which proves
he was obviously deceived about paternity. What man is going to quit
his job to care for some other man's child? Women stupidly do it all
the time for their husbands' children from previous relationships and
marriages. But men, never.