Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Man must pay support though twins not his An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins. In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage." Pasqualino began paying child support in 1998, after the couple separated. In 2002, the two agreed to joint custody, when they also settled that he would continue to provide monetary support. But after Anciolina asked for an increase in payments and a reduction in the time he spent with the children, Pasqualino demanded a DNA test. When the results showed Pasqualino was not the father, he asked to be excused from paying child support and demanded he be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars that he had paid in the past. He claimed that their 2002 agreement failed to disclose that Anciolina had an affair while they were married, calling it an act of fraud or misrepresentation. But according to van Rensburg, it should not be a question of whether he is the biological parent, but rather whether he was considered a parent by definition. For me this seems to be a case of justice gone wrong. The commitment to fidelity in marriage was clearly violated by the mother. The father may have been mislead as to his paterity and has been penalized by being forced to incur responsibilties which were not his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Divorces are so messy. I guess he has to ask himself whether he loves the children he once thoiught was his...then appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 For me this seems to be a case of justice gone wrong. There can be no justice in this case. None at all. The dad raised them as if they were his, so they look to him as dad. Deny them support because "dad" aint dad, then they lose. I am afraid dad will have to keep on paying . About the best I can come up with is the father gets custody of the kids and mom pays support to him. To me thats the fairest I can come up with. Apparently the mom does not remember having any affair since she was on medicine in the year before the twins birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Wow... if she were on a medication so strong that it wiped out her memory imagine the effect on the growing fetuses! Geez. He has been their father for 16 years so yes, he is their "dad" regardless of DNA. If they would've never split up he and the girls would've never known any different. IF he loves his girls he will either fight for custody (kinda moot at age 16 though) or just continue paying for two more years and preserve his relationship with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 The dad raised them as if they were his, so they look to him as dad. Deny them support because "dad" aint dad, then they lose. What exactly was the dad supposed to do? He acted as any reasonable father would. He took his wife's word as to the kid's paternity and acted accordingly both during and after the marriage. IMV thsi misrepresentation by the wife should not be left unpunished. Perhaps paternity should be established at birth via mandatory DNA testing. I wonder how many other fathers are unknowkingly brining up kids which are not rightly their procreation. Apparently the mom does not remember having any affair since she was on medicine in the year before the twins birth. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of the mother's apparent memory loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) What needs to be fixed in the law is loophole that allows a mother get support from multiple "fathers" for a single child. i.e. if this mother suddenly "remembered" who the father is she should legally force him to pay up as well and the courts would happily oblige These provisions have actually lead to a situation where a step-father is paying support to the biological father who shacks up with his ex. In this case because of the infidelity and fraud the mother should be told that she is legally in the same situation as if she had a one night stand and got knocked up. i.e. she has to go after the biological father. If the situation was different and the step father was fully aware of that he was not their biological father yet still "adopted" the children then he should be on the hook. As for being fair to the kids: the courts cannot shield children from the injustice of a parent who dies or cannot keep a job. The courts should not even try to shield the kids from a situation where, tthrough no fault of their own, they no longer have a father that can support them. Edited January 8, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 What exactly was the dad supposed to do? He acted as any reasonable father would. He took his wife's word as to the kid's paternity and acted accordingly both during and after the marriage. IMV thsi misrepresentation by the wife should not be left unpunished. How shall we punish the woman who had an affair? By making her children live in poverty? By taking away the children? Jail? Death? What? Perhaps paternity should be established at birth via mandatory DNA testing. I wonder how many other fathers are unknowkingly brining up kids which are not rightly their procreation. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of the mother's apparent memory loss. For millions of years men have been raising children that they thought were theirs. That's why I've always thought that the "paternal tree" is alot more shaky than the "maternal tree". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 For millions of years men have been raising children that they thought were theirs. That's why I've always thought that the "paternal tree" is alot more shaky than the "maternal tree". And for most of those millions of years the man was entitled to disown any children he discovered were not his. The idea that a father should be responsible for children that are not his is new invention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 And for most of those millions of years the man was entitled to disown any children he discovered were not his. The idea that a father should be responsible for children that are not his is new invention. I think the gaming that is going on between this women and this man is shamefull and does the children harm. Regardless of biology he took on the role of father and maintained that role. The kick in the pants is the exwife demanding more money, and allowing him less time and access to the twins. She sounds like a player.... but you never know what is really going on in private households and broken marriages. I know many men who are happy to take on children that are not biologically theirs. Its probably alot easier when you know that fact "upfront". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 How shall we punish the woman who had an affair? By making her children live in poverty? By taking away the children? Jail? Death? What? It is a good question. It seens like more a contractual violation then a criminal act. Usually the penalty for contractual violations is monetary damages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 And how did people 2000 years ago "discover" the paternity? My son looked nothing like his dad when he was born. In the story of Noah.... Lamech's wife gave birth to a child with blue eyes and "pink skin" but she swore up and down that Noah was his! Genetic throwback perhaps, who knows. And I am the ONLY blonde on both sides of my family... this is not proof that my mom fooled around on my dad Maternity is much more provable than paternity, especiall beofre the medical advances of today. How again did a man "find out" and "disown" the children thousands of years (or even decades) ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 So let me get this straight, this whore sleeps around on her husband, and is now demanding money from the husband to pay for child support of kids that aren't even his. Feminism = I want equality and I want to be more equal than you. The guy should get the kids and this whore should be paying child support, that might mean she might have to do what she does best in order to get the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Regardless of biology he took on the role of father and maintained that role. It is more like he was defrauded into taking that role and when he discovered teh fraud he objected. If I defrauded the government into providing me welfare payments for 16 years, and the govenrment found out, would the government be right in asking me to pay back the welfare, or should the government resign itself to the fact that it payed for so long that it has accepted its role as welfare payor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 So let me get this straight, this whore sleeps around on her husband, and is now demanding money from the husband to pay for child support of kids that aren't even his.Feminism = I want equality and I want to be more equal than you. A Feminist would just raise the kids herself with her own income. This is a traditional woman. Baby, she ain't no feminist! Always think it so funny when people blame "feminists". Hell we're the ones working and supporting ourselves! You should be pissed at the traditional wife who simply lies on her back and you pay her for it. The guy should get the kids and this whore should be paying child support, that might mean she might have to do what she does best in order to get the money. Ha ha. Bitter much? They are not his kids... he should cut and run if he has no relationship with them. They are not babies, they can leave their mother and live with him if they so choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 A Feminist would just raise the kids herself with her own income. This is a traditional woman. Baby, she ain't no feminist! Always think it so funny when people blame "feminists". Hell we're the ones working and supporting ourselves! You should be pissed at the traditional wife who simply lies on her back and you pay her for it. Ha ha. Bitter much? They are not his kids... he should cut and run if he has no relationship with them. They are not babies, they can leave their mother and live with him if they so choose. That would defend on your term of feminist. Your term I can accept. The feminists that who cry discrimination regarding mens golf country clubs yet at the same time fly the curve's women's only fitness room flag; I have no respect for at all. The whore in question is trying to soak the guy when the guy did nothing wrong at all. If she is willing to go after the husband's loot, the husband should be able to take full custody of the kids, and let the judge decide on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 "Feminist" has been turned into a dirty word. And it's a shame. Most people don't have a clue what feminism is. It's not turning women into men. It's not exclusionary. It's equality and respect. It does not mean staying at home lying on your back eating bonbons while your husband does everything. It means participating equally in a relationship. Being an equal partner does not mean "strap on a penis", it means holding the bag when your partner cannot. Women who expect their partners to foot the bill and do everything for them are not feminists, they are traditional women. Now, back in my mother's time, her day was filled with washing clothes by hand, baking bread, etc. She worked just as hard as my father. Today's "traditional" wife drives the kid to school, puts the dishes in the dishwasher and goes out for coffee or shopping. Technology has made the "traditional wife" a role of a spoiled princess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkness Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) It is more like he was defrauded into taking that role and when he discovered teh fraud he objected.If I defrauded the government into providing me welfare payments for 16 years, and the govenrment found out, would the government be right in asking me to pay back the welfare, or should the government resign itself to the fact that it payed for so long that it has accepted its role as welfare payor? As a second reponse to the one you quoted I must say that the role he took and "maintained" was based on a false premise of relation. I think a very dangerous precedent has been set here because a court has allowed itself to judge not on legal terms but on moral terms which can vary and be easily manipulated to one's favor. A court should not be able to judge morality as there is no legal definition of it. Sure there is a certain public standard but how can a court prove which perspective on either side of it is correct? Could I have somebody prosecuted according my own personal beliefs of what morality is? The justice system, to remain neutral and even relevant, is based on facts; And ruling on such ambiguous terms has undermined the integrity of what the justice system is and could even have possibly put it in a state of decadence towards long obsolete faith-based justice. Also P.S. responding to Drea. I believe the "vulgar" use of the word feminist has quite rightly adjusted to what the feminist movement currently represents which uses the process of mascualinization of the woman to achieve equality. The belief that "if you cant beat em, join em". Also I would describe current feminism quite exclusionary with such creations as female-only facilities such as spas, resorts and history-based justification of the use of bias. Of course feminism in its pure form represents equality and respect but it has morphed into a sort of culture of competition rather than the equality that it originally pursued. Edited January 8, 2009 by Yorkness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 IF he loves his girls he will either fight for custody (kinda moot at age 16 though) or just continue paying for two more years and preserve his relationship with them. Nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 "Feminist" has been turned into a dirty word. And it's a shame. Most people don't have a clue what feminism is. It's not turning women into men. It's not exclusionary. It's equality and respect. Yes it is exclusionary, and it's about power and control. Power and control is something that feminists harp about incessantly, and it's completely absurd to think that women when they obtain positions of power to not misuse and abuse it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 As a second reponse to the one you quoted I must say that the role he took and "maintained" was based on a false premise of relation. Not necessarily. While I dont beleive her story, it cannot be proven that she knew the fling resulted in the conception. If husband was still boinking wife around the same time, then all parties may reasonably assume he was the father. I think a very dangerous precedent has been set here because a court has allowed itself to judge not on legal terms but on moral terms which can vary and be easily manipulated to one's favor. Except you are about 9 or 10 years too late. The judge in this case relied on a Supreme Court case that determined the best interests of the child is to have the man continue providing child support. Now, if this woman wasnt a Catholic, and she knew there might be a chance her affair resulted in pregnancy, she could have aborted the twins....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Nonsense. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I get a kick out of how the concept of 'fatherhood' gets to be turned on and off at will. Sorry folks, doesn't work that way. The man was the father for 16 years and he will remain the father for the rest of the childrens lives. He gets to continue paying the child support he has always been paying. Wether his wife is a bitch or not has nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkness Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Not necessarily. While I dont beleive her story, it cannot be proven that she knew the fling resulted in the conception. If husband was still boinking wife around the same time, then all parties may reasonably assume he was the father.Except you are about 9 or 10 years too late. The judge in this case relied on a Supreme Court case that determined the best interests of the child is to have the man continue providing child support. Now, if this woman wasnt a Catholic, and she knew there might be a chance her affair resulted in pregnancy, she could have aborted the twins....... I due realize that I am a little "late". I think that although "the" precedent could already be set it is dangerous to build upon it. I think that since there appears to exist DNA evidence of who is or at least who is'nt the father, the woman's knowledge or lack thereof of who the father really was at the time is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) The man was the father for 16 years and he will remain the father for the rest of the childrens lives.A child should only have *one* father who is financially obligated to support that child. That is the biological father by default and that legal responsibility can only be transferred to another man if that man agrees. If the man was duped into believing the children were his when they weren't the legal responsibility belongs to the biological father and the mother has to go after him if she wants support. If she can't remember who the biological father is that is her problem - not her ex-husbands. Edited January 8, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 A child should only have *one* father who is financially obligated to support that child. That is the biological father by default and that legal responsibility can only be transferred to another man if that man agrees. If the man was duped into believing the children were his when they weren't the legal responsibility belongs to the biological father and the mother has to go after him if she wants support. If she can't remember who the biological father is that is her problem - not her ex-husbands. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. Besides, why should the kids suffer while mom is out looking for Mr One Night? Can she even remember his full name . (I know she recalls the incident) Can any off us say we could give the full name of partners we spent a night with? All of them? I know I couldnt. Some woud be in the category of "Oh yeah? I slept with her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.