It's just been published today in the UP that the woman's lawyer has not claimed GV is indeed the father of her child and is seeking support and a paternity test. They are quoted as saying that initially GV would support the child, but not admit paternity.
How strange. So a month ago she said categorically that he was not the father of her child, but now she is not only insisting that he is, but he must acknowledge paternity and pay child support. Has she been persuaded to change her story?