Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:17:33 +1100

From: Andrew Robertson

Subject: Rees v Darlington, cont

While some parents would and do take that step in mitigation, I don't think it could be suggested that it is unreasonable to keep the child and seek compensation for the financial loss. The Australian case Cattanach v Melchior is an interesting one because the parents were not wealthy and genuinely needed compensation for the financial burden that they (or rather one of them) had taken reasonable steps to avoid (by seeking sterilisation).

Andrew

At 06:47 PM 9/12/2003 -0500, Jason Neyers wrote:

But the "extremely negative non-monetary consequences" may be largely avoided by giving up the child for adoption, a course of action that no one wanted to pursue in any of the cases.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>