LOS ANGELES (CN) - An heir to the Levi Strauss fortune promised a woman $300,000 to abort their child to keep him out of the news, but he didn't pay her Dime One, she claims in court.
Christina A. Helm sued Daniel S. Haas in Superior Court.
"This is the story of a man, who, by chance, was born into a wealthy and powerful family," the complaint states. "The family maintained control over the man by having control over his finances. Due to the family's wealth, the man never had to work. Throughout time, the man became complacent and never stood up to the family. The man's complacency did not change when his lover became pregnant out of wedlock. When the family demanded that he 'fix' the problem, he did. Even if 'fixing' the problem meant lying to his friend, lover and the mother of his unborn child."
Helms claims that Haas offered her the $300,000 the day after she served him with a paternity action.
The complaint states: "One day after being served with lawsuit papers in a pending litigation to establish paternity, on September 6,2012, defendant Haas and Does made the following representation to plaintiff: Haas and Does promised that if plaintiff underwent a procedure to terminate her pregnancy during the period September 7, 2012, to September 14, 2012, and confirmed that the procedure was undertaken and than plaintiff was no longer pregnant, Haas would pay plaintiff the sum of $300,000 within 24 hours following confirmation that the procedure occurred within the required time and that plaintiff was no longer pregnant. Haas and Does further promised that Haas would play plaintiff's attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,500 for their work relative to the petition to establish parental relationship.
"The representations made by Haas and Does as set forth above were in fact false. The true facts were that Haas and Does never had any present intent to honor their promises. The true facts were that Haas and Does never had a present intent to pay plaintiff $300,000 or $7,500 to plaintiff's attorneys. Haas' and Does' true and only motivation was to ensure that plaintiff was no longer pregnant at all costs."
Helms says she had been romantically involved with Haas for about 13 months when they discovered she was pregnant, on June 8, 2012.
"At the time of conception, plaintiff was forty-five (45) years old," the complaint states. "Once plaintiff and Haas realized that plaintiff was pregnant, and Haas understood and appreciated the significance of plaintiff being pregnant (much explaining to the family, marriage, end of extended ski-trips of Lake Tahoe, end of extended surfing trips to South America, jeopardizing his family's stature in the community, public relations fallout, become a father and finally having to grow up), Haas suggested that plaintiff take the 'morning after pill.' Plaintiff did not elect immediately to terminate the pregnancy because she wanted time to consider her options. What was weighing heavy on plaintiff's mind was that this could be the last time that she could ever conceive. Being pregnant and single at plaintiff's age were all major factors which required plaintiff's deep thought and reflection." (Parentheses in complaint.)
Helms claims that Haas' family pressured him to demand the abortion because he is an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune and was raised to believe that upholding the family's public image was "of paramount importance."