Louise Sage Stanford on how to bring a paternity suit against a billionaire

Louise Sage Stanford has brought billionaire cachet to the paternity/custody suit. Only Lisa Bonder Kerkorian before her has presented a more interesting paternity scenario in recent years. Check out our posts which reference the Kerkorians, including one about Bonder’s paternity action against the California billionaire here: http://www.divorcesaloon.com/index.php?s=kerkorian
Louise Sage Stanford (she changed her name to his even though he never married her, which is slightly bizarre, isn’t it?)  sued billionaire Sir. R. Allen Stanford for paternity of her two minor children. She wanted the court to establish paternity of the two children over whom she had physical custody. That would have been very easy for the court to do but it didn’t come to that because she withdrew the case. http://www.divorcesaloon.com/sir-r-allen-stanfords-ex-girlfriend-louise-sage-stanford-withdrew-her-paternity-suit-against-the-billionaire
Paternity testing has become very sophisticated in recent years. The science uses DNA to determine with up to 99% certainty who the biological father of a child is. It is how Kirk Kerkorian proved the Lisa Bonder’s daughter Kira Bonder Kerkorian was really Steven Bing’s biological child. He did it by getting one of his employees to fish Bing’s dental floss out of the garbage and compare the floss’s DNA to the child’s DNA.
Since the early 1980s paternity cases have become much easier to solve with  the use of genetic marker tests. A New York Times article dating back to 1981:

A new blood testing procedure is revolutionizing the way courts determine the identity of a child’s father in paternity cases, medical and legal experts say.
The testing is known as H.L.A., for human leukocyte antigen. It identifies inherited genetic ”markers” in the blood’s white cells, allowing a laboratory to match a child with its biological father in almost all cases

Mr. Stanford, who is described as a “major ladies man” by some folks who know him in the Caribbean island of Antigua, did not allow a paternity test, however. He eventually settled with Louise Sage; and to his credit, he has never denied paternity of the kids and he allowed her to keep custody while he gets visitation. Prior to the break up, the comely pair and the kids lived in a castle in Florida called Wackenhut Castle.
Backstory: According to the Financial Times, Louise’s paternity/custody action, which was filed in 2007 enumerated the following assets (not a plenary list by any means) of Mr. Stanford:

A 2007 court case against Sir Allen was brought by a woman who claimed to be the mother of two children by him. The documents detailed personal expenditure ranging from a $100,000 a week yacht to $25,000 a month rent for a Florida home.

In the paternity suit, Louise Sage Stanford said the family once lived together in a $10m mansion. Her claims – admitted by Sir Allen – included his chartering of the yacht, the purchase of gifts and vacations costing $30,000-$75,000, and his ownership of a fleet of private jets.

Well, first of all, what is a paternity suit? Says www.wisegeek.com:

A paternity suit is a legal action which is taken to determine the identity of the father of a child. There are a number of reasons to initiate a paternity suit, but most suits are filed to establish financial or moral responsibility on the part of one or both parents involved. A paternity suit may also be used to gain visitation rights, or to settle a contentious issue. Parents can also avoid a paternity suit by working out an amicable private agreement.
Several people can file a paternity suit. Mothers often file them to legally establish the identity of the man who fathered the child in question. This legal decision can be used to sue for child support and other benefits. A man may file a paternity suit to clear up his position in a case, and a child can file a paternity suit to find out who his or her father is. Certain government agencies may also initiate paternity suits, especially in the cases of contentious adoptions.

As I stated earlier, the handsome ladies man, Stanford,  never seems to have denied paternity, but perhaps Ms. Sage Stanford was forced to bring the action since he wasn’t paying her at the level the children had become accustomed. I am sure the settlement was a generous one because there does not appear to be any further court actions for upward modifications, or even downward modifications by Mr. Stanford — or any challenges to custody.
With the recent SEC filings, though, Louise may be in for a financial shock. Easy Street is about to get bumpy. Depending on how bad this gets, Louise may even need to go find herself employment. And in this economy, the only thing I have to say to her is, “good luck.”