ONE PENNY PER WEEK

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 128, 28 February 1928, Page 11

ONE PENNY PER WEEK

ORDER FOR UPKEEP OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD WOMAN ACCEPTS LUMP SUM IN IGNORANCE One of the smallest maintenance orders yet made against the father of an Illegitimate child was made by Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday when ho ordered a young Greek named Manohile Andanaris to pay a married woman, Daisy Monsetyos, the sum of one penny per week for the upkeep of her child. In giving his reserved decision in the matter, Mr. Salmon, S.M., said that some time ago the young Greek had been declared the father of complainant’s child and an order had been made for 15s. per week against him. Sometime afterwards, a relative of the defendant had talked the matter over with the mother and asked her if she would accept a lump sum in full settlement and have the order cancelled. In giving her evidence Mrs. Monsetyos stated that she had been told that Andanaris was in ill-health and might not be able to keep the child in future. She was also told that he could leave the country when he wanted to, and that if ho did so she would get nothing towards her baby’s support. Finally sho accepted £6O in a lump sum so that the order could be cancelled. Mrs. Monsetyos stated that she was acting under a misapprehension of the law at the time and for that reason sho took the money. She was about to marry her present husband (Monsetyos) at the time, and that being so sho thought she would agree to the settlement and take one lump sum instead of the 15s. per week. Now, however, she had applied to the Court to have the old order renewed. Mr. Salmon said he did not think it was lawful for the complainant to have been given the <£6o when she was acting in ignorance of the law. It was not in the child's interests that she should accept this small sum for its future upkeep when the father would have had to keep the child until it was sixteen years of age. The .£6O, however, which she had accepted would cover the 15s. per week up till May, 1929. In the meantime there would be nothing to stop defendant leaving the country, as complainant's acceptance of the money in agreeing to settle tho whole affair had done away with the past order. However, eo that Andanaris would not be able to leave New Zealand the Court would now make an order for one penny per week in tho mother’s favour. Although the order was for such a small amount, it would stop defendant going out of the country. When the £6O had all been .used up by May of next year, then the Court would review the matter of future maintenance.