A Melbourne man has sued his ex-wife for over $75 000 in child support payments after DNA testing revealed the child was not conceived by him. However, the Federal Magistrates Court seems to have reservation about granting the step-father a 'refund':

Provisions in the Family Law Act seem to suggest that a person acting in loco parentis may remain financially responsible for a child's wellbeing even if they are not the biological parent. However, evidence was presented to the Court that the mother had her doubts about the child's origin, but told her husband the child was hers because she thought it would have "more of a future" than with the biological father.

Previous case law supports a finding in the step-father's favour: in November 2002, similar facts lead to an award of $30 000 in damages; the key element in that case was the mother's intention to deceive, a significant element in the present case. The parties seem to be forgetting the welfare of the child, however. What does happen to the child rejected by his step-father and estranged from his real one, with a mother too empoverished by damages payments to pay the rent? (Though I suppose the same could be said of the step-father.) No doubt feminists would have something to say about the likely verdict here...