A TV producer is suing his ex-wife for more than £300,000 (NGN 90,000,000) as he claims she tricked him into thinking her son was also his for 17 years.

Chris Lewis, who worked for the BBC for more than 30 years, has accused Nicola, 48, of duping him about the paternity of her son Charlie over the course of the teenager's entire childhood.

Mr Lewis, whose company Chris Lewis Media worked on the London Olympics, only learnt the truth after taking a DNA test and now believes Charlie, 19, was fathered by a secret lover of his wife.

He believes his ex-wife's affair took place just months after the couple got married.

And he claims that Nicola accepted maintenance payments towards his upbringing after they broke up.

The legal papers he has submitted say she 'induced' him into thinking Charlie was his child after she fell pregnant in 1995 - later naming him on the birth certificate.

The couple separated three years later and he was listed as the father in the divorce and financial remedy proceedings.
In 2013, when the child turned 17, they both took DNA tests and were devastated by the results.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3055948/Television-producer-suing-ex-wife-350-000-claiming-lied-17-years-claiming-father-son.html

Good luck, Chris.

That's a better way to go about it.

cococandy:
That's a better way to go about it.

What would u propose in this case?

pickabeau1:


What would u propose in this case?

He's going about it the best way.

What should I say again?

For me I find it absolutely shocking whenever I learnt of stories like this. I dont think there's no amount of money that would heal whatever this man has suffered. He would have invested time, money and energy into caring for the now teeanger. Anyone who lives in UK would understand how hard it is to bring up child in that country. Imagine if the man were to be a nigerian and learn the child he helped raised is not his after almost two decades would hurt like mad.

cococandy:

He's going about it the best way.

What should I say again?

Must every thing be a fight?

I wanted to hear your opinion since you thought tgere was a better way

Legal options also have issues but what will u suggest since he lost a lot of money to this fraud

pickabeau1:


Must every thing be a fight?

I wanted to hear your opinion since you thought tgere was a better way

Legal options also have issues but what will u suggest since he lost a lot of money to this fraud

Who told you I'm fighting you?

Anyway Read my first post again.

I said 'that's a better way of going about it'

You know, as against killing or doing anything violent that may lead him to jail and compound his losses.

Now that he has taken it to court, the judge will determine what's best. Maybe a fine or repayment. Even though I can say if all the money is returned to him (if at all possible) there isn't much that will pay him back for what he really lost (a son).
But It will help him prevent further losses that could occur if he takes the law into his own hands.

cococandy:


Who told you I'm fighting you?

Anyway Read my first post again.

I said 'that's a better way of going about it'

You know, as against killing or doing anything violent that may lead him to jail and compound his losses.

Now that he has taken it to court, the judge will determine what's best. Maybe a fine or repayment. Even though I can say if all the money is returned to him (if at all possible) there isn't much that will pay him back for what he really lost (a son).
But It will help him prevent further losses that could occur if he takes the law into his own hands.

But your suggestion is exactly what he has done
Your initial post suggested there was a less attritional route

pickabeau1:


But your suggestion is exactly what he has done
Your initial post suggested there was a less attritional route

No pickabeau.

My first post is 'that's a better way to go about it.

Meaning he's doing it the better way compared some other guys who have been in his shoes.

You misunderstand that post.
Or maybe just looking for something that's not there

I didn't say 'there's a better way to go about it'.

cococandy:


No pickabeau.

My first post is 'that's a better way to go about it.

Meaning he's doing it the better way compared some other guys who have been in his shoes.

You misunderstand that post.
Or maybe just looking for something that's not there

I didn't say 'there's a better way to go about it'.

Lol
You are right...its that's not there

My bad

Legal option is definitely better than murder however will you get that sense of justice considering he would have been barred from DNA much earlier or d results not regarded even if had one

pickabeau1:


Lol
You are right...its that's not there

My bad

Legal option is definitely better than murder however will you get that sense of justice considering he would have been barred from DNA much earlier or d results not regarded even if had one

Well I didn't see where it says that he was barred from DNA much earlier in the post.
So maybe then he didn't ask for it.

But it could get worse than that.
The legal option in my opinion only helps him avoid as more losses as possible.
It doesn't really guarantee him justice.

If the woman's defense can prove she didn't intend to defraud him, he may not be given any financial settlement on that score.
she could say she slept with the other man within days of sleeping with her husband and didn't know the pregnancy wasn't her husband's.
'Didn't care to know' isn't a crime.
'Was reckless' isn't a crime. Too bad huh?
The law is kind of too straight forward it is almost tricky. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
If they can't prove intent to defraud, there goes the case.
They can prove she cheated on him (which is not a criminal offense) and she can pay emotional damage for that if applicable.
But they may not really be able to prove that she set out to defraud him(which is the criminal offense. Or should be if it isn't already).
Except they can find correspondence between her and the real father of the child in which she let slip that she knows he's the father and her ex-husband is not. Then he can have something to hold on to.

There's not much justice in all of that for him.
Just the lesser of two not-so-good outcomes.

In these paternity fraud cases, DNA does not really help

It typically allows the woman to have a strong say in who she thinks the father and bam!.. you are liable

cococandy:

Well I didn't see where it says that he was barred from DNA much earlier in the post.
So maybe then he didn't ask for it.

But it could get worse than that.
The legal option in my opinion only helps him avoid as more losses as possible.
It doesn't really guarantee him justice.

If the woman's defense can prove she didn't intend to defraud him, he may not be given any financial settlement on that score.
she could say she slept with the other man within days of sleeping with her husband and didn't know the pregnancy wasn't her husband's.
'Didn't care to know' isn't a crime.
'Was reckless' isn't a crime. Too bad huh?
The law is kind of too straight forward it is almost tricky. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
If they can't prove intent to defraud, there goes the case.
They can prove she cheated on him (which is not a criminal offense) and she can pay emotional damage for that if applicable.
But they may not really be able to prove that she set out to defraud him(which is the criminal offense. Or should be if it isn't already).
Except they can find correspondence between her and the real father of the child in which she let slip that she knows he's the father and her ex-husband is not. Then he can have something to hold on to.

There's not much justice in all of that for him.
Just the lesser of two not-so-good outcomes.

pickabeau1:
In these paternity fraud cases, DNA does not really help

It typically allows the woman to have a strong say in who she thinks the father and bam!.. you are liable

any link of such examples?

I'm just finding it hard to believe a DNA result would say something different in a contested paternity case and the man will still be ruled as the father.
If there's no contest, then it is a different thing.
And if there is a contest with no DNA testing, it is also a different thing.

cococandy:
any link of such examples?

I'm just finding it hard to believe a DNA result would say something different in a contested paternity case and the man will still be ruled as the father.
If there's no contest, then it is a different thing.
And if there is a contest with no DNA testing, it is also a different thing.

links abound

don't have the time now to search them out

google "paternity fraud dna"... you will see

I doubt she would have know the true father was as she was cheating in the marriage.

I pray God heals him.

Hope that was not his only child?