Emily and Thomas didnt exactly set any marriage recordsthey managed a grand total of three years, which, looking back, seems about three years too many. They had a daughter together, then promptly divorced. Credit where its due: Thomas did the decent English thing and agreed with Emily that while she wouldnt go through the courts for child support, hed send her a tidy sum every month, bang on the 1st, no faffing about. That arrangement held upwell, until it didnt.
One dreary Tuesday, Thomas opened his post to find a letter that left him completely gobsmacked: Emily was demanding he be struck off as the father. Excuse me? To add insult to injury, shed attached a DNA test saying Thomas wasnt the dad after all. Turns out, Emily had been married to some bloke called Simon for several yearsand he was the father. So, Emily had been skipping between two husbands for a while there, while Thomas dutifully transferred his hard-earned pounds for five whole years.
Naturally, Thomas was furiouswho wouldnt be? But he figured the least he could do was try to get his money back. After all, the child wasnt his, yet hed been paying for her all this time.
Luckily, English law offers a handy little clause for exactly this sort of soap opera: if you have DNA proof the childs not yours, you can try to recoup your maintenance money. So now Thomas is taking Emily to court, demanding she refunds all the pounds and pennies.
The real question is: is Thomas in the right? Or is there more to fatherhood than what a swab says?
