Citizen Reporter
2 minute read
11 Nov 2013
11:48 am

UPDATE: Chinese man did not sue wife over ugly child

Citizen Reporter

The story of a Chinese man successfully suing his wife after she tricked him into believing she was beautiful and gave him an 'ugly' child appears to be fake.

Image courtesy stock.xchnge

It was originally reported by Russia Today that Jian Feng filed for divorce from his wife after he found their newborn child to be “incredibly ugly,”.

Feng reportedly first accused his wife of cheating, since the child girl did not look like him. His wife later confessed she spent over $100,000 in plastic surgery to modify her appearance. Feng took the matter to court and won $120,000 in a settlement.

The story however, appears to be false. That’s Online has written an article debunking the story that has been rewritten and rehashed numerous times.

The earliest reference to the story was apparently published by a Pakistani newspaper in 2004. In that piece, Feng was awarded 538,000 yuan ($88,000) by the judge.

The story went relatively quiet until it was repeated by the Macedonian International News Agency (MINA) in 2012, with the settlement jumping almost 200,000 yuan (inflation takes its toll even on fake news stories). Around that time, the story was also repeated by many of the usual suspects, including the Daily Mail and Russia Today.

After the story again went viral this month, the Huffington Post updated its original 2012 coverage with a post warning that the Feng family’s plight was most likely made up.

That’s Online was able to track down a 2012 Xinhua article about the original court case, which took place in Heilongjiang in 2002.  In the actual case, Feng’s wife did give birth to a child which looked nothing like him, and he did demand a paternity test, but she refused.

Feng, assuming his wife had been unfaithful, threatened divorce and this is when she claimed to have had extensive plastic surgery. The court found in Feng’s favour due to the infidelity.

Editor’s Note: Thank you to our readers who first pointed out this article was not correct. We appreciate your feedback.