Woman’s dying wishes determined by Facebook relationship status

on March 23, 2019 by admin

Melissa Dunn, a mother-of-two from Dapto, died on March 11 after a short battle with cervical cancer.

The Facebook profile of a woman who recently died from cancer is among the resources used by a court to determine who should carry out her final wishes.

Melissa Dunn, a mother-of-two from Dapto, south of Wollongong, died on March 11 after a short battle with cervical cancer.

However, she failed to leave a will outlining what she wanted to happen to her body, leading to a dispute between her mother Sharon, and Nikola Dragarski, the father of one of her children, about whether she should be cremated (her mother’s wishes) or buried (her partner’s preference).

Mr Dragarski sought urgent orders in the NSW Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to have himself named as Ms Dunn’s defacto partner and next of kin.

The court heard the pair’s relationship began in 2003, they started living together in 2010 and their daughter was born the following year.

The couple then separated in March 2016 and, in August that year, Ms Dunn moved into her own house at Dapto.

Despite this, Mr Dragarski still spent time with Ms Dunn, visited her at the Dapto house and they continued having sex. Mr Dragarski told the court he considered they had resumed their relationship, especially when she moved back in with him in March 2018.

However, in a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Michael Pembroke ultimately found the relationship had not resumed – despite Mr Dragarski wanting it to – and that he could not legally be considered Ms Dunn’s next of kin.

He pointed to Ms Dunn listing herself as “single” on her Facebook profile, the fact that Mr Dragarski wasn’t on her ‘friends’ list and noted that another status update she wrote on January 9 this year read: “I am still at his house, we still [sic] not together though. Kids are great”.

He also noted Ms Dunn was a member of an online dating website around May 2018, had listed her mother as her emergency contact on her admission to hospital, and was receiving a single parenting payment from Centrelink.

He rejected Ms Dunn’s decision to move in with Mr Dragarski in March 2018 as evidence of their relationship resuming, instead finding that she had done so in order to be closer to her daughter.

Mr Dragarski’s application was dismissed and control of Ms Dunn’s affairs awarded to her mother.

Can you sue for divorce caused by a cheating partner in Australia? Short answer, ‘No’, sort of

on March 22, 2019 by admin

Changes were made to the Family alienation-of-affection-law Law Act in 1975 that did away with moralising about infidelity. Married partners now have to be legally separated for 12 months before they can seek a divorce.

Adultery no longer serves as legitimate grounds for divorce in Australia, and cheating spouses and their partners cannot be pursued legally for “emotional distress” or any other kind of loss incurred by the breakdown of a marriage.

There is some wiggle room when it comes to a property settlement in a divorce, where judges do make allowances for partners if one is found to have engaged in the “wastage of matrimonial assets” through gambling, the use of escort services or other extreme circumstances. The judge would have to find the spouse’s spending to be “wanton” and “excessive.”

According to lawyers engaging in these cases locally, it is generally not difficult to prove your case and come out victorious against your spouse’s lover.

All you really have to prove is that actions were undertaken to alienate affection that was there previously. The claimant doesn’t have to prove that the cheating partner even had intercourse as part of their affair.

However if they can prove intercourse, that can be another charge, which is called criminal conversation.

Many call this kind of legislation antiquated and archaic and say it should be abolished, but many appreciate the continuance of the centuries old laws. A local North Carolina lawyer did just that in 2010 releasing a statement praising a jury’s decision to award US $9 million to a woman who had used the laws to pursue her husband’s new lover.

“In an age when “the sanctity of marriage” is a political phrase, alienation of affection laws continue to protect the value of marriage. These cases tell those who would seek to damage another’s marriage that this is simply unacceptable.”

Some of the other arguments in favour of alienation of affection have to do with the financial loss incurred by divorce, where claimants can recoup after the fallout.

Some limitations have recently been placed on the laws, including a statute of limitations and that the proceedings must be filed before the divorce is finalised.

In the US, it is a different story

According to the “broken heart” law, if your husband or wife cheats on you and it ends in divorce you are able to sue for damages. And the payouts can be in the millions.

But the person you sue is not your ex-husband or wife. It’s the individual they had the affair with.

It’s called “alienation of affection”, a common tort law, which finds the “other man or woman” at fault for a failed marriage, and makes them pay damages for the love lost.

The law explains it like this: if that third person hadn’t come between these two, the marriage would still be together. So the jilted partner is able to sue for damages to their love lost, often due to an extramarital affair.

The law is most commonly associated with North Carolina in the USA. Similar versions of it are recognised across a number of US states including Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah. About 200 suits of alienation of affection are filed in North Carolina each year, with the vast majority settled out of court.

In 2011 a judge ruled that a husband’s mistress pay damages to a jilted wife to the tune of over $42.1 million.

Donald Puryear had reconnected with old flame Betty Devin at his father’s funeral in 2007 when she slipped him her phone number. Two years later in 2009 just before divorce proceedings were finalised with his wife Carol Puryear, she filed a civil lawsuit against Devin, citing “alienation of affection” caused by the actions of her husband’s mistress.

Superior Court Judge Carl Fox ruled in 2011 that Ms Devin, the new wife of Mr Puryear, pay more than $14 million (US $10 million) in compensatory damages and $28.1 million (US $20 million) in punitive damages to Ms Puryear, the former wife of the trucking company owner.

“For my client, it was not about the money,” Stephanie Jenkins, Ms Puryear’s lawyer, told the News & Observer at the time.

“It was about sending a message that people should be held accountable for their actions.” Apparently a defendant’s ability to pay does not come into account when awarding such a sum.

A similarly massive payment was ordered to Keith King, who founded a BMX Entertainment company. A judge ruled that his ex-wife’s lover Francisco Huizar III pay Mr King $12.35 million (US $8.8 million) for alienation of affection and “criminal conversation” with his then wife.

Five years after King married his wife Danielle King he discovered “flirtatious texts” with her lover. He said after that his marriage was “destroyed”.

“There’s not a doubt in my mind, and I’ve always said, “If it wasn’t for him. If it wasn’t for him.””

Huizar’s lawyer Cheri Patrick strongly criticised the ruling, calling the law “archaic” and saying the ruling “demeans the obligations of spouses in a marriage and should be stricken.”

Who is a parent? Sperm donor heads to the High Court to clarify parental rights

on March 7, 2019 by admin

A sperm donor and the mother of his biological child are headed to the High Court to determine his parental rights, in a case that has sparked calls for pre-conception agreements in Australia. sperm donor dad

The Newcastle man, known in court documents as Robert Masson, is seeking to be recognised as a legal parent in a bid to stop the mother and 12-year-old daughter moving to New Zealand.

Mr Masson and the mother, known as Susan Parsons, have been close friends for at least 25 years and conceived in 2006 using “informal artificial insemination”.

The business manager aged in his late 40s is listed on the girl’s birth certificate. He has been an active part of her life and she calls him “Daddy”.

The case is headed to the High Court in April.

Professor Fiona Kelly, from the La Trobe University Law School, said she believed the presumption should always be that a sperm donor is not a legal parent. But she said pre-conception agreements should be allowed in complex cases.

“What some other countries have done … they allow for a pre-conception agreement between a mother and a donor or two mothers and a donor or whatever combination of people that overcome that presumption [that the sperm donor is not a parent],” she told The New Daily.

“In the small number of cases that deviate from the norm, you enter into a pre-conception agreement and I think that’s the cleanest way to deal with it.”

Mr Masson’s lawyer, Tahlia Bleier from Steiner Legal, said there were serious legal and social questions to be determined.

“It is the fundamental right of every child to have the law constructed in a way that makes clear who their parents are,” she said in a statement to The New Daily.

“If the law is ambiguous, then the High Court must remove that ambiguity – and this case will do just that.

“The High Court’s determination of this matter will have ramifications across the country for children and sperm donors fulfilling a parental role in a child’s life.”

The Family Court of Australia in 2017 found the man was the girl’s legal parent, after finding Ms Parsons and her partner, Margaret, were not in a de facto relationship at the time she was conceived.

But the full Family Court found state law in New South Wales has an “irrebuttable presumption” that sperm donors are not parents – unless they were married or de facto with the mother – and said the federal law did not stipulate otherwise.

Professor Fiona Kelly said the federal act does not clarify cases involving a single parent using artificial conception, meaning the High Court ruling would have implications for single people using known donors.

Attorney-General Christian Porter has intervened, filing a submission to the High Court to argue that the federal law definition of parent applies and supersedes state law.

“I intervened to explain to the High Court that in the Act the word ‘parent’ has its ordinary, contemporary meaning and that this ordinary meaning should be determined by interpreting the Commonwealth laws in all the circumstances,” Mr Porter said in a statement to The New Daily.

“The Commonwealth has not argued for any particular, specific, iron-clad rules about who is and is not a ‘parent’ based on genetics and relationship status.

“Instead, the Commonwealth’s position is simply that the term ‘parent’ should have its ordinary meaning and that will depend on a number of factors which may be relevant, including the intentions of those involved in raising the child, and other social factors and particular features of the actual relationship in question.”

A spokesperson for Victorian Attorney-General Jill Hennessy confirmed the state would also be making a submission, but has not done so yet.

All attorneys-general in the country were invited to make a submission.

The Family Court in 2017 found both parties had shielded the daughter – as well as a younger daughter to the Parsons using another sperm donor – from hostility about the legal stoush.

Mr Masson has been with his partner Greg for six years, while Susan and Margaret were in a developing relationship from 2006.

The Family Court did not consider that relationship to be de facto until later, excluding Margaret from automatically becoming the 12-year-old girl’s legal parent.

DNA test proves man who paid $58k in child support isn’t the dad

on March 3, 2019 by admin

Kerry said he paid almost $60k in child support, but then found out his daughter wasn’t his.Source:Channel 9

A MAN who forked out almost $60k in child support payments wants his money back, after a DNA test revealed he isn’t the father.

Appearing on Channel 9’s A Current Affair, Kerry was a local footballer when he had a one-night stand with Julie.

Now a fisherman, he said the encounter 20 years ago lead to Julie revealing she was pregnant, and that the child was his.

Living in the coastal town of Cervantes in Western Australia, Kerry says he wants his money back from either Julie or the government for paying out $58k over 18 years for a child that wasn’t his.

“The bills started to pile up and I had to take action because if I didn’t, they would,” Kerry told A Current Affair.

“The first time they froze my account was during a fishing season. I had my passport frozen and told that it wouldn’t be reinstated until I had paid the bill in full.

“I had $26,000 taken out.”

But despite the growing debt, Kerry says he continued to make the payments as he believed the child was his, even though he was slightly skeptical because there were a ‘few suitors’ for Julie at the time.

Kerry finally got in contact with the DNA agency to confirm once and for all if Julie’s daughter was his. He claims they called him an idiot and told him to get a test as soon as possible.

“The consultant from Child Support, when he asked me, I can’t see a result for a DNA test here, I said, ‘Because I didn’t have one’,” Kerry said.

“And he pretty much on the phone called me a stupid idiot and to go and get one done as soon as I could.”

According to Kerry, not only did the test reveal he wasn’t the father, but Julie had also claimed that they were living together when she fell pregnant.

In a statement sent to A Current Affair, Julie said that for 18 years she and her daughter believed Kerry was the father.

“Over the last 18 years Kerry has had the chance to get a DNA test but as myself and Child Support could never get in contact with him, it never happened, and now he is coming out with accusations that are unfounded and untrue,” she said.

It is understood Julie will be required to pay back the child support, but as she no longer works, she will be paying just $49.80 a fortnight. But Kerry says he’d rather the Child Support Agency pay back the money for allowing this to happen.

“I’ve been hassled non-stop by Child Support, but the reason they thought I was the dad wasn’t right,” he said. “They accepted me as the father without any proof.

“That’s what makes me angry, really.”

Dad wins $500k after wife lied about paternity of their 3 children

on March 2, 2019 by admin

Richard Mason has won a $447,000 payout from ex wife after she ‘tricked’ him into believing his three sons were his for 21 years. Picture: Huw Evans Picture LibrarySource:australscope

A dad has been awarded $447,000 from his ex-wife after discovering he’d been “tricked” into raising three children he couldn’t possibly have fathered, as he was infertile.

Richard Mason, 55, realised his ex-wife Kate Mason had lied about the paternity of their three kids for 21 years when doctors diagnosed him with cystic fibrosis in 2016, revealing he couldn’t father children naturally.

As a result the horrified dad successfully launched a paternity fraud case to win back some of the $7 million he had paid her during their divorce, but as a result he’s heart breakingly lost contact with two of his kids, The Sun reports.

“You don’t know what’s real and what isn’t — it’s as if I’m living in The Matrix,” he told The Mail on Sunday.

“Someone says to you, ‘All you know and everything you thought solid and true is not real, and never did exist. You are not a father, you are not able to have kids, your name will not continue.’

“I still see what the boys are doing on Facebook and it’s heart-wrenching. It’s all been taken away from me.”

After making the startling discovery, the man sent frantic texts to his ex-wife, begging for “advice” as to how they tell the boys after being told it was 98 per cent certain he couldn’t have fathered a single child, let alone three.

His wife initially said, “Of course the boys are yours, no matter what the science might suggest,” but later confessed to the betrayal when confronted by her eldest son, revealing she’d had an on-off affair during their 20-year marriage.

Richard, who is a millionaire co-founder of internet comparison site MoneySupermarket.com, later had DNA tests and was heartbroken to find the 19-year-old twins were not his sons.

Their brother, 23, did not provide a sample for a test.

Mr Mason’s family has been torn apart as his relationship with the boys has been destroyed by the revelation.

He believes there must have been some doubt in his ex’s mind when she fell pregnant seven years into their marriage, and thinks she “tricked” him into bringing up the boys.

Kate confessed to cheating between six to 12 times with her colleague, but was adamant he couldn’t be the dad as the pair always used condoms.

His ex-wife only confessed 10 years after they divorced and he had already been ordered to pay a huge divorce settlement to raise the children.

According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 97-98 per cent of men with cystic fibrosis are born infertile and cannot father children without assisted reproductive technology.

The average CF patient only lives to around 37 and is diagnosed at birth, so the circumstances around Richard’s diagnosis are unclear.

The paternity fraud case came to an end recently when Kate agreed to pay an out-of-court settlement, but Richard feels his life has been “destroyed”.

However, the legal case allowed her to keep the biological father’s name out of proceedings.

It is not known if he is aware he is the boys’ dad.

Ms Mason and her sons declined to comment.