She now has a 7-year-old son, Joel, from the escort whom she only knew briefly as ‘Michael’, but couldn’t remember much else
Seven years later, she’s now seeking child support for the fruit of the three nights she purchased
She petitioned the hotel that hosted her ‘sexvacation’, to get her escort’s full identity
Request denied, she sued to compel the hotel, to release the man’s identity
Throwing out her suit, the court said the woman was playing ‘father roulette’ and ruled the man’s right to privacy outweighed her right to know the father of her child
The woman whose identity is not revealed, sued the hotel chain in a bid to uncover the identity of a male escort who got her pregnant in furtherance of her paternity suit. She lost her case, after the court upheld the hotel’s decision to withhold male escort’s data from the paternity suit filed by the woman.
In her paternity suit, the woman,, claimed she fell pregnant during a three-night romp with a sex worker she knew only as ‘Michael’ at a hotel in Halle in 2010.
Nine months later she gave birth to son Joel, and had been attempting to track down ‘Michael’ in order to claim a support allowance.
I paid you, now you it’s your turn to pay: The former Joan is now seeking child support from the male escort she used 7 years ago
But a court in Munich has ruled the hotel chain does not have to give up the escort’s identity, saying the woman was playing ‘father roulette’.
Given that she knew him as “Michael”, but several men with the same name stayed at the hotel at the time. The court ruled that each of the four Michaels had a right to “control their own data and protect their own marriage and family”, the ruling said.
The case was heard at the Munich District Court because the hotel chain is based in the Bavarian city. Halle is in eastern Germany.
The woman – not named in the case – said she had got pregnant after staying with “Michael” in a room on the second floor. She now has a seven-year-old son called Joel.
The court decided that her lack of detail about the man raised the risk of personal data “simply being released at random”.
“Nor is it certain that the Christian name is indeed the name of the man in question,” the court said.
There were three other Michaels staying at the hotel on the night in question, and the court decided that it could not sanction giving out their details ‘at random’.
‘Nor is it certain that the Christian name is indeed the name of the man in question,’ the court added, according to the BBC.
A Munich court ruled that the secret lover remain secret. In shutting down the fishing expedition and upholding the right to privacy, the court said the man’s right to privacy outweighed the mother’s right to know the father, especially since there was no certainty Michael was his real name.
The woman’s vague descriptions of the man also harmed her case, the court said.
A Munich court ruled that the secret lover remain secret. In shutting down the fishing expedition and upholding the right to privacy, the court said the man’s right to privacy outweighed the mother’s right to know the father, especially since there was no certainty Michael was his real name.
Explaining the ruling, justices said: ‘The rights of the affected man and the protection of his marriage and family override the rights of the applicant.
‘Men have a right to privacy and intimacy… that protects them from having to reveal their sexual relations.’
An appeals court in Munich, where the hotel chain is based, also declined to review the decision and threw its weight behind the original verdict.
Given that she knew him as “Michael”, but several men with the same name stayed at the hotel at the time. The court ruled that each of the four Michaels had a right to “control their own data and protect their own marriage and family”, the ruling said.
The case was heard at the Munich District Court because the hotel chain is based in the Bavarian city. Halle is in eastern Germany.
The woman – not named in the case – said she had got pregnant after staying with “Michael” in a room on the second floor. She now has a seven-year-old son called Joel.
The court decided that her lack of detail about the man raised the risk of personal data “simply being released at random”.
“Nor is it certain that the Christian name is indeed the name of the man in question,” the court said.
There were three other Michaels staying at the hotel on the night in question, and the court decided that it could not sanction giving out their details ‘at random’.
‘Nor is it certain that the Christian name is indeed the name of the man in question,’ the court added, according to the BBC.
A Munich court ruled that the secret lover remain secret. In shutting down the fishing expedition and upholding the right to privacy, the court said the man’s right to privacy outweighed the mother’s right to know the father, especially since there was no certainty Michael was his real name.
The woman’s vague descriptions of the man also harmed her case, the court said.
A Munich court ruled that the secret lover remain secret. In shutting down the fishing expedition and upholding the right to privacy, the court said the man’s right to privacy outweighed the mother’s right to know the father, especially since there was no certainty Michael was his real name.
Explaining the ruling, justices said: ‘The rights of the affected man and the protection of his marriage and family override the rights of the applicant.
‘Men have a right to privacy and intimacy… that protects them from having to reveal their sexual relations.’
An appeals court in Munich, where the hotel chain is based, also declined to review the decision and threw its weight behind the original verdict.
Leave a Reply