- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 864
- Points
- 0
Fri, Jul 17, 2009
The New Paper
I don't want your money
by Hedy Khoo
AFTER fighting and winning a long legal battle for child maintenance from the man she claimed was the father of her daughter, a Singaporean mother has had a sudden change of heart.
Jane (not her real name), 29, has decided not to fight the appeal brought by the defendant and consented to have the court orders cancelled last Wednesday at the Family Court.
'I am tired of the matter. I feel physically, mentally and emotionally drained. I just want closure and to lead my own life,' she told The New Paper.
With the cancellation, Jane will not receive any child maintenance and has to pay her own legal costs.
The parties involved cannot be named as the case involves a minor.
In December 2008, the Family Court ordered the man, John (not his real name), 28, to pay a monthly maintenance of $450, including arrears from August 2007 to November 2008.
John insisted the child is not his but declined to take a DNA test to prove that he is not the father.
His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was granted. The hearing was scheduled at the end of this month.
Jane said: 'I am confident I would have won, but it is meaningless. This is not about winning anymore.
'I have not received a single cent from him and I can see that he is not going to pay up. I have already spent more than $30,000 on legal fees. I don't want to spend the rest of my life chasing after him.'
The New Paper reported on their case last year.
Between 2001 and 2005, Jane had relationships with two men - her boyfriend, a 33-year-old pilot, Bob (not his real name) and John.
In May 2005, she went on a holiday to Sydney with John and later discovered she was pregnant.
Assuming he was the father, Bob proposed to her and they got married. But when the baby was born in January 2006, a DNA test revealed he was not the father and he annulled the marriage.
In August 2007, Jane sought child maintenance from John, whom she was sure was the father. But John disputed this in their long legal battle.
Jane said that one of the conditions for the cancellation of the court orders was that John would withdraw his appeal.
She refuted speculation that she was dropping the case because she was getting married.
'I have a stable relationship with my current boyfriend, but we are not getting married. Even if we were, this has nothing to do with the case,' she said.
'I have nothing to hide. My boyfriend knows about my past, the court case and accepts my child.'
In the judgment for the first trial, the judge said that while she did not condone Jane's past behaviour, she found her to be honest and sincere in court and ordered John to pay her the maintenance.
John, 28, told The New Paper last Thursday: 'I did not want to pay because I refuse to be liable since I am not the father of her child.'
He said he was relieved the case has ended and he can get on with his life.
'Throughout the process, I felt disappointed and hurt.'
Not intimate
He claimed he was never intimate with Jane during their four-year relationship. In his affidavit in August 2007, John said he never had sex with Jane.
Asked why he did not take the DNA test, he said he did not feel it was necessary.
'I know I am innocent. I do not need to take the test to prove my innocence,' he said.
John's lawyer, Mr Irving Choh, said the law cannot compel anyone to take a DNA test. A judge is also not supposed to make an unfavourable judgment against someone who declines to do so.
John said he was heartbroken when Jane broke up with him in 2005. He said she never told him she had another boyfriend during the Sydney trip.
'Even then, I loved her very much and wanted to continue our relationship, but she broke up with me to marry the other man,' he said.
Two years later, he was shocked when Jane phoned to tell him that the child was his and sought maintenance.
'I was angry at being sued. It is not about the money. She didn't care for me. I was just a cushion for her to fall back on,' John said.
Jane is relieved to finally have closure.
She said: 'I feel a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. The only regret I have is that the money I spent on the legal fees could have been put to better use for my child.
'But I felt I was right to sue for maintenance. I only feel sad for my child. She has learnt to say 'I want daddy', but her father doesn't want her.'
The New Paper
I don't want your money
by Hedy Khoo
AFTER fighting and winning a long legal battle for child maintenance from the man she claimed was the father of her daughter, a Singaporean mother has had a sudden change of heart.
Jane (not her real name), 29, has decided not to fight the appeal brought by the defendant and consented to have the court orders cancelled last Wednesday at the Family Court.
'I am tired of the matter. I feel physically, mentally and emotionally drained. I just want closure and to lead my own life,' she told The New Paper.
With the cancellation, Jane will not receive any child maintenance and has to pay her own legal costs.
The parties involved cannot be named as the case involves a minor.
In December 2008, the Family Court ordered the man, John (not his real name), 28, to pay a monthly maintenance of $450, including arrears from August 2007 to November 2008.
John insisted the child is not his but declined to take a DNA test to prove that he is not the father.
His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was granted. The hearing was scheduled at the end of this month.
Jane said: 'I am confident I would have won, but it is meaningless. This is not about winning anymore.
'I have not received a single cent from him and I can see that he is not going to pay up. I have already spent more than $30,000 on legal fees. I don't want to spend the rest of my life chasing after him.'
The New Paper reported on their case last year.
Between 2001 and 2005, Jane had relationships with two men - her boyfriend, a 33-year-old pilot, Bob (not his real name) and John.
In May 2005, she went on a holiday to Sydney with John and later discovered she was pregnant.
Assuming he was the father, Bob proposed to her and they got married. But when the baby was born in January 2006, a DNA test revealed he was not the father and he annulled the marriage.
In August 2007, Jane sought child maintenance from John, whom she was sure was the father. But John disputed this in their long legal battle.
Jane said that one of the conditions for the cancellation of the court orders was that John would withdraw his appeal.
She refuted speculation that she was dropping the case because she was getting married.
'I have a stable relationship with my current boyfriend, but we are not getting married. Even if we were, this has nothing to do with the case,' she said.
'I have nothing to hide. My boyfriend knows about my past, the court case and accepts my child.'
In the judgment for the first trial, the judge said that while she did not condone Jane's past behaviour, she found her to be honest and sincere in court and ordered John to pay her the maintenance.
John, 28, told The New Paper last Thursday: 'I did not want to pay because I refuse to be liable since I am not the father of her child.'
He said he was relieved the case has ended and he can get on with his life.
'Throughout the process, I felt disappointed and hurt.'
Not intimate
He claimed he was never intimate with Jane during their four-year relationship. In his affidavit in August 2007, John said he never had sex with Jane.
Asked why he did not take the DNA test, he said he did not feel it was necessary.
'I know I am innocent. I do not need to take the test to prove my innocence,' he said.
John's lawyer, Mr Irving Choh, said the law cannot compel anyone to take a DNA test. A judge is also not supposed to make an unfavourable judgment against someone who declines to do so.
John said he was heartbroken when Jane broke up with him in 2005. He said she never told him she had another boyfriend during the Sydney trip.
'Even then, I loved her very much and wanted to continue our relationship, but she broke up with me to marry the other man,' he said.
Two years later, he was shocked when Jane phoned to tell him that the child was his and sought maintenance.
'I was angry at being sued. It is not about the money. She didn't care for me. I was just a cushion for her to fall back on,' John said.
Jane is relieved to finally have closure.
She said: 'I feel a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. The only regret I have is that the money I spent on the legal fees could have been put to better use for my child.
'But I felt I was right to sue for maintenance. I only feel sad for my child. She has learnt to say 'I want daddy', but her father doesn't want her.'
