Here in the US we generally consider France to have relatively socialist mores and laws.  Oddly however, the French courts seem much more friendly to the victims of misattributed paternity.  Take this case:

Husband makes cheating wife pay for time spent raising lover’s child

The London Times, London, U.K., from Adam Sage in Paris, May 3, 2005

A FRENCHMAN has won a ground-breaking ruling against his former wife and her lover, ordering them to pay back the money that he had spent on bringing up a child he had mistakenly assumed to be his own.

The man, named as G in the ruling, was awarded €23,000 (£15,600) after a DNA test revealed that he was not the father of the 13-year-old child, Astrid.

He had raised her as his own daughter, paying for her food, clothing, toys, schoolbooks and holidays, the Caen Appeal Court in Normandy said. It added that his former wife, B, from Cherbourg, had always had doubts about the identity of Astrid’s father: she was unsure whether it was her husband or her lover.

The judges said that she had committed a “fault” by failing to tell her husband that she had been having an affair at the time of the conception and that she did not know whose daughter Astrid was.

The court denounced the lover, named as L, who suspected that Astrid might have been his child, but who also failed to air his suspicions.

In the ruling, the wife and the lover were ordered to pay the former husband €15,000 in compensation for the money that he had spent on Astrid. “It has not been proved that he would have voluntarily carried out his natural duties (towards Astrid) knowing that he was not the father,” the judges said. They were required to pay a further €8,000 to cover the “moral and psychological damage suffered by G, who finds himself deprived of his fatherhood of Astrid,” the court ordered.

Maître Gérard Méjean, a French family law specialist, said: “In this type of case, mothers who cheat are condemned to pay. They can no longer make and unmake fathers with impunity.”

Pierre Murat, Professor of Law at Grenoble University, said: “The court has taken account of the good faith of the father, who believed the daughter to be his own. The difficulty is evaluating exactly how much a man has spent on a child. That’s very complicated.”

The case arose when B left her husband, sought a divorce and married L — with whom she had been having an affair throughout her first marriage. She decided to settle the issue of Astrid’s paternity once and for all and asked a laboratory in London to carry out a genetic test. In France such tests only can be ordered by a court. When scientists said that they were 99.85 per cent certain that L was the father, a French judge gave him parental authority and changed Astrid’s surname.

The girl, who had been living with the man she had thought to be her father, G, was told to move in with her mother and her real father.

In their decision the Caen judges said: “The situation with which she is confronted is particularly disturbing,” adding that she was subjected to “psychological pressure”. The court granted G’s request to continue to see Astrid.

About 3,000 French people go to court every year to demand DNA tests to settle such disputes. Many hundreds more ask for private tests to be undertaken abroad, most notably in Britain, Belgium and Germany.

The demands for DNA tests often involve men setting up home with a woman who already has a child. Many say that the child is theirs to simplify administrative procedures with France’s bureaucracy. Should a couple separate, the man may deny paternity to avoid paying an allowance and ask for evidence to prove his argument.

In one recent case a man was held liable in a civil action after his teenage “son” raped a woman. He was ordered to pay her damages. But he told the court that the boy was not his, and produced a DNA sample to prove it. He won his case.

Encouragingly both the deceitful mother and the lover were held accountable for damages, and the victim no longer had to pay supp0rt for the child who was not his.  Contrast this with the outcomes seen in courts in the US today.  This does not happen here in the US, where women are allowed to perpetrate such fraud with impunity.  We, and other nations with legal precedents taken from English law, will go to any lengths to continue payments to undeserving women, even to the extent of ruining the men supposed to support them.  Take this case from Australia.

Paternity fraud ‘dad’ loses appeal

The Age, Australia, November 9, 2006

A man who sued his former wife after paying child support for two children fathered by his wife’s lover today lost his appeal to the High Court.

The judges unanimously ruled that the case for paternity fraud brought by Liam Neale Magill failed.

Three judges held that no action for deceit could lie in representations about paternity made between spouses.

Three other judges held that there could be circumstances in which such an action might succeed but they were exceptional and did not cover Mr Magill’s situation.

However, the court also rejected an argument put by Mr Magill’s former wife Meredith that the Family Law Act ruled out any action for deceit.

The court was told the Magills married in April 1988 and separated in November 1992, divorcing in 1998.

They had two sons and a daughter between April 1989 and November 1991 with Mr Magill naming himself as father on their birth registration forms.

After separation Mr Magill paid child support for all three children.

But in 1995, Mr Magill learned that Ms Magill at least suspected that her husband was not the father of her second son and in April 2000, DNA testing established that Mr Magill had fathered neither this boy nor the daughter.

She subsequently acknowledged a sexual relationship with another man which started after the birth of her first child.

Mr Magill’s child support payments were adjusted to allow for past overpayments and an extinguishment of arrears.

Mr Magill sued, launching a case for deceit in the Victorian County Court, claiming damages for personal injury in the form of anxiety and depression resulting from fraudulent misrepresentations.

He also claimed financial loss, including loss of earning capacity by reason of his psychiatric problems and expenditure on the children under the mistaken belief he was their father, plus exemplary damages.

He was awarded $70,000 from his ex-wife, including $30,000 for general pain and suffering, $35,000 for past economic loss and $5,000 for future economic loss.

The County Court found Ms Magill’s presentation of the birth registration forms to Mr Magill constituted the deceitful representation by Ms Magill that he was the father.

But the Victorian Court of Appeal reversed that decision on grounds that Mr Magill had failed to establish the essential elements of the offence of deceit.

He then appealed to the High Court, which delivered its decision today.

Outside the High Court in Melbourne, Mr Magill showed little emotion.

He thanked his lawyers and the public for their support during his legal battle, which began more than seven years ago.

Mr Magill said his partner, Cheryl King, had made a brave stand by representing him in a second case against the Child Support Agency, which he lost last week in the Victorian County Court.

“She (Ms King) had the guts to stand up on her own with no legal representation against the might of the Child Support Agency and the government and whatever legal weight that they had and I thank her for that,” Mr Magill said.

Mr Magill’s lawyer Vivien Mavropoulos said 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”.

AAP

Not only did this sorry individual not win the case, he was held accountable to pay legal fees for the eighteen month defense of the case by the Child Support Enforcement Agency.  Effectively they are making an example of him for having the gall to challenge the state enforcement of this unjust paternity ruling.  How dare he seek justice?  Further, he has suffered arson attacks, threats against him and a home invasion by unrelated parties in a campaign of terror against him for bringing this case to court.

It is time that we men stand together and put an end to this injustice.  We can all take an individual stand by boycotting the institution of marriage wholesale, but collective action is needed to address legal inequities in family law.  This same website provides strategies for success in bringing paternity cases to court here.  This is must know information for men and attorneys who represent them.  Bookmark this page in the event of future needs.  You just may find you need it.