Damages claim following false paternity
A husband and wife got married, lived together for a few years, but one day the wife began having an affair with another man who worked with her.
The woman gave birth to two children while married, one of whom was born to the man she was having an affair with. But another child was registered as her husband’s son, even though he was also the lover’s son.
The father for years Paid child support The first, knowing that he was his biological father. However, for reasons not specified, the father had suspicions over the years that the son to whom he was paying child support might not actually be his biological son.
To speak with a lawyer, call: 077-997-4020
The couple divorced and even separated. Divorce Agreement Which determined that the husband would pay child support to the mother in the amount of 1200 NIS per month.
For 13 years, the husband paid the child support. Finally, he demanded Edit Paternity Test In order to find out whether his son is indeed his biological son.
A paternity test revealed that the child’s father was the man with whom the woman had an affair.
Now, the husband has filed a tort claim against his ex-wife, claiming that her behavior caused him emotional harm, and also claiming that she must repay him the amount of alimony he paid her for 13 years.
The father’s claim in the tort claim
The father claimed that the mother was negligent towards him because she hid from him the fact that he was not the father of their common son.
In addition, he claimed that the mother violated a statutory duty which constitutes a wrong in the field of tort law.
The duty that the mother violated, he claims, is the receipt of something by fraud, with the fraud being manifested in the fact that for years the mother received child support. Foods Unlawfully and fraudulently.
The defendant mother’s claims
The mother, on the other hand, claimed that the father’s claims were seriously flawed. She claimed that the father never treated his son like a real son, and never cared for his needs.
In addition, she claimed that he always knew that he was not their real son but chose to remain silent on the subject in order to use it as a bargaining chip.
The court’s decision in the lawsuit
Between two polar versions forced Home Family Law In Nazareth to decide within the framework of a procedure TAMSH 14907-12-13 Y. P. N. A. P..
The court discussed the difficulties faced by both the father as plaintiff and the mother as defendant in this lawsuit. For example, it determined that the defendant had a heightened duty of care in circumstances where she knew from the outset that the minor was not the plaintiff’s son.
The court noted that the greatest difficulty on the part of the defendant is the continued inaction on its part. The defendant remained silent for many years, even after The divorce from the plaintiff and did not act to settle the matter of the minor’s paternity.
On the other hand, the court determined that the plaintiff also had evidentiary difficulties, among other things, since while his own testimony was unreliable, no additional evidence was presented that he could and should have presented.
The court ruled that: “In these circumstances, as often happens, including in the case before me, I believe that the truth does not lie entirely on one side or the other, and in some of the issues, truthful reports were provided by both parties and in others, false reports were provided by one of them.”
As for the father’s version, the court ruled that, contrary to his claim, the evidence presented shows that the father suspected from day one that the child was not his biological son, but did nothing about it until a long time later.
On the other hand, the court rejected the mother’s version that the father used the fact that their son was not his biological son to serve as a bargaining chip, for the simple reason that “her version borders on the absurd… It therefore appears that this is a claim that was actually invented for the purpose of the current proceedings. The court believes that a person who knows or fears that the minor is not his son will not shoot himself in the foot and state in a divorce agreement that he is the minor’s father and that he owes him child support, but will raise this before the court or within the framework of the divorce agreement.”
However, the plaintiff did not prove that he had indeed paid the child support in full and continuously for 13 years.
The plaintiff presented no records or references regarding payment, nor any evidence that he withdrew this amount in cash from the bank. On the other hand, the mother never filed a claim for child support, which led the court to award the plaintiff compensation for this component by way of an estimate.
The court also ruled that the plaintiff did not prove that he had indeed suffered mental harm as he claimed, since he did not even bother to attach a medical opinion.
Regarding the reimbursement of alimony payments, the court ordered the plaintiff to be compensated in the amount of 6,000 NIS. Regarding the emotional damage, the court ordered the plaintiff to be compensated in the amount of 75,000 NIS.
Contributor’s fault
But that is not enough. The court reduced the amount of compensation described above by half, because it found that the plaintiff contributed to the incident for which he filed the lawsuit.
The court ruled that the plaintiff’s contributory guilt was manifested in the fact that he sat on the stand for years, and always had a suspicion that he was not the biological father, but for years he chose to do nothing about it.
Click here to contact her and receive legal advice on divorce!
