Who is a child's father?

[Riverwind]

Besides, why should the kids suffer while mom is out looking for Mr One Night?

Why should the kids suffer because their father died or dissappeared? Does that mean the courts should look into the children's lives and assign responsibility to any male who was stupid enough to "act like a father". The courts cannot hope to solve all problems but it should be guided by some fundemental principals of justice. One of those prinicipals is an adult should not be held legally responsible for a child unless they made that choice via adoption or biology. Edited January 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Drea]

"Stupid" enough? You're obviously not half the man that my son's stepfather is. Gosh darn it -- He IS just like a real honest-to-goodness father! I don't think he's "acting" though.

A father is much more than a sperm donor. A father is a mentor, a disciplinarian, a teacher, a fun guy...above all, he is VITAL in a child's life. Biology has nothing to do with fatherhood.

So what happens if a man has a long term relationship with a woman with children? Should he only "come over" after the kidlets are asleep for the rest of their childhoods? What if he really likes (gasp! maybe even l-o-v-e!) the kids and want to be with them as well as their mother?

What about children whose fathers' have died? (oh right the gov't provides a "widows" pension )

All you want to do is punish the "whore". You don't take into account the feelings of the children nor the stepfather. You just want revenge.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Drea

[guyser]

Why should the kids suffer because their father died or dissappeared?

Because, the kids "father" didnt die or dissappear. He was there for most of their childhood and then they seperated.

The biological father never was in the picture and nothing more than donor.

Does that mean the courts should look into the children's lives and assign responsibility to any male who was stupid enough to "act like a father". The courts cannot hope to solve all problems but it should be guided by some fundemental principals of justice. One of those prinicipals is an adult should not be held legally responsible for a child unless they made that choice via adoption or biology.

Again, the Supreme Court says otherwise, and in their words, "in the best interests of the children" is the principle of justice they use.

Do I like that the dad doesnt get any sense of real justice? No,but thats moot anyway.

[Riverwind]

Because, the kids "father" didnt die or dissappear. He was there for most of their childhood and then they seperated.

That does not make a difference. He never agreed to father children that were not biological his. That makes him no different from an uncle or other male influence in their lives when it comes to deciding who is financialy obligated to support them. Or are you going to argue that an uncle should be saddled with that obligation if it is "the best interest of the kids"?

The biological father never was in the picture and nothing more than donor.

So what. The woman made her choices like many other single mothers who choose to keep a child after a one night stand.

Again, the Supreme Court says otherwise, and in their words, "in the best interests of the children" is the principle of justice they use.

So what? This is not a charter issue and the law can be changed.

[Riverwind]

"Stupid" enough? You're obviously not half the man that my son's stepfather is. Gosh darn it -- He IS just like a real honest-to-goodness father! I don't think he's "acting" though.

You don't get. That is implication of the stupid support laws today. A man would have to be stupid to get involved with a woman with kids because simply getting involved makes him financially liable for those kids if the relationship ends.

A father is much more than a sperm donor. A father is a mentor, a disciplinarian, a teacher, a fun guy...above all, he is VITAL in a child's life. Biology has nothing to do with fatherhood.

We are talking about who is saddled with the financial obligations to support a child. A woman's brother or father may often fill the role of a father if the biological one is out of the picture but does that mean he should be financially responsible if his relationship with the mother breaks down?

What if he really likes (gasp! maybe even l-o-v-e!) the kids and want to be with them as well as their mother?

Simple. He signs a form saying he adopts the children. After that he gets all of the *rights* and obligations of beng a father and can't escape them. Such a contract would also mean the biolgical father is off the hook. Allowing support from multiple fathers is the most absurd part of the current law. Edited January 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

That does not make a difference. He never agreed to father children that were not biological his. That makes him no different from an uncle or other male influence in their lives when it comes to deciding who is financialy obligated to support them. Or are you going to argue that an uncle should be saddled with that obligation if it is "the best interest of the kids"?

So what. The woman made her choices like many other single mothers who choose to keep a child after a one night stand.

So what? This is not a charter issue and the law can be changed.

You are wrong. He did agree to father children. I know this because he acted as their father. After 16 years the biology involved is entirely moot.

There is no turning off the father spout. To mix my metaphors, fatherhood is like the launching of a ship: Once the chocks are knocked out there is no stopping the show. The man in question acted as father so he is the father. Thats how he see's it, thats how his estranged wife see's it, thats how the kids see it.

Its simply a recognition of fact. We've had this discussion before. Once the parental role is assumed it cannot be discarded.

[Drea]

You don't get. That is implication of the stupid support laws today. A man would have to be stupid to get involved with a woman with kids because simply getting involved makes him financially liable for those kids if the relationship ends.

We are talking about who is saddled with the financial obligations to support a child. A woman's brother or father may often fill the role of a father if the biological one is out of the picture but does that mean he should be financially responsible if his relationship with the mother breaks down?

That's ridiculous.

If he is not screwing the mom and living in the house and going to & from work and chaufferingthe kids and playing games with them daily and teaching them chores and making them do stuff they don't want to do every-single-day-of-the-year -- he is not filling the role of father.

Uncles and friends are not substitutes for a father. Or do you have such a low opinion of fatherhood that a 1/2 hour game of football on the weekend is enough to call yourself a "father"?

Simple. He signs a form saying he adopts the children. After that he gets all of the *rights* and obligations of beng a father and can't escape them. Such a contract would also mean the biolgical father is off the hook. Allowing support from multiple fathers is the most absurd part of the current law.

My son does/did not want to be adopted by his stepfather. He wants to keep his original name -- it's who he is. Regardless of whether or not his father and I are together; he still needs to know his lineage and therefor better know himself.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Drea

[Riverwind]

If he is not screwing the mom and living in the house and going to & from work and chaufferingthe kids and playing games with them daily and teaching them chores and making them do stuff they don't want to do every-single-day-of-the-year -- he is not filling the role of father.

So? The law does not distinguish. If you are screwing the mom and living in the same house you are the father according to law. If you are complete jerk about everything then you might be able to convince a judge that you weren't in a father role but any civilized man would likely participate enough to get saddled with the financial obligations even if he did not intend to.

Uncles and friends are not substitutes for a father. Or do you have such a low opinion of fatherhood that a 1/2 hour game of football on the weekend is enough to call yourself a "father"?

This is about who the law designates a father - not your definition.

My son does/did not want to be adopted by his stepfather. He wants to keep his original name -- it's who he is. Regardless of whether or not his father and I are together; he still needs to know his lineage and therefor better know himself.

Great. But the law allows you to divorce your hubby and force him to pay you support in addition to any support you might get from your kid's father. I don't understand why you think such a law is reasonable. Edited January 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[Melanie_]

Riverwind, you keep talking about being "saddled" with the financial responsibility of these kids, which I really find sad. This man accepted financial responsibility for these kids long ago, but the financial part of it is secondary, in my opinion. What price can you really put on the relationship between a man and his kids? Because they are his kids, regardless of who was the biological father. He was part of their lives since they were born, and they will always see him as their dad. But rather than value that role, he is turning his back on them to spite their mother and save himself some money. I hope that money gives him comfort.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Melanie_

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, you keep talking about being "saddled" with the financial responsibility of these kids, which I really find sad.

What other word would you use to describe the imposition of unwanted financial obligations.

This man accepted financial responsibility for these kids long ago, but the financial part of it is secondary, in my opinion.

Based on false pretences. Under the current law the mother could find the biological father and get money from him too. What we need is a clearly defined way to ensure that no more than *one* man has unwanted financial obligations imposed on him.

What price can you really put on the relationship between a man and his kids? Because they are his kids, regardless of who was the biological father.

Well given the fact that teh courts impose financial obligations without ensuring access it is reasonable to say that fathers are nothing but a source of cash as far as the courts are concerned.

He was part of their lives since they were born, and they will always see him as their dad.

You can't assume that. Some kids go through crisis finding out they are adopted or the produce of sperm donation. Some spend years trying to track down their biological parent. The same goes the other way. A father who finds out he is not the biological father can go through a similar crisis that has nothing to do with the money. Edited January 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[Melanie_]

You're right, I'm making assumptions based on my views of parental roles, and I know better than to do that. We don't really know what their relationship was like, and if it bears any resemblance to my assumptions, or anyone elses'. And now they will likely be going through a reassessment of the relationship, in whatever form, and deciding if the relationship was based solely on biology and finances, or if there is something more tying them together. I'm reluctant to see the role of a father boil down to just dollars and cents, though, which is what I am reading in your posts.

[Ontario Loyalist]

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.

Doesn't get "turned on and off" does it? All the time by the courts and the manipulative women that the courts side with. Paying child support is not being a father; it's nothing more than being a source of income. And this is a problem largely created by the court system and feminism.

Wether his wife is a bitch or not has nothing to do with it.

Yes it does have a lot to do with it, actually. He should get the children, and should be compensated financially for what he had to go through because of that woman.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Riverwind, you keep talking about being "saddled" with the financial responsibility of these kids, which I really find sad. This man accepted financial responsibility for these kids long ago, but the financial part of it is secondary, in my opinion. What price can you really put on the relationship between a man and his kids? Because they are his kids, regardless of who was the biological father. He was part of their lives since they were born, and they will always see him as their dad. But rather than value that role, he is turning his back on them to spite their mother and save himself some money. I hope that money gives him comfort.

The relationship between the father and those (not "his") children was put in jeopardy by the women in first seeking a divorce and then in the revelation that the children are not biologically his. Why does the woman get off scott free in this discusion because the problem clearly originates with HER? And what is his role exactly since the divorce? Is paying child support and occasional contact with the children really anything remote to being a "father" anyway? Women need to be held equally accountable by the law, and all this case shows is that there is still a double standard in the legal system in that respect.

[blueblood]

Doesn't get "turned on and off" does it? All the time by the courts and the manipulative women that the courts side with. Paying child support is not being a father; it's nothing more than being a source of income. And this is a problem largely created by the court system and feminism.

Yes it does have a lot to do with it, actually. He should get the children, and should be compensated financially for what he had to go through because of that woman.

And this is why my farm has gone corporate. No losing land, house, machinery, etc. for this cowboy!

[Peter F]

Doesn't get "turned on and off" does it? All the time by the courts and the manipulative women that the courts side with. Paying child support is not being a father; it's nothing more than being a source of income. And this is a problem largely created by the court system and feminism.

Yes it does have a lot to do with it, actually. He should get the children, and should be compensated financially for what he had to go through because of that woman.

Very wrong. Being a source of income is a very large part of being a parent. Without income the kids don't eat and get cold in the winter and do homework by candle light. Income is important to parents so's they can povide for thier children. This is not a problem created by courts and feminism - this is almost entirely a problem created by men who don't like paying money to thier estranged spouses who have to take care of the children. This is about a guys so-called right to keep his money for himself and to hell with the children he was a father to.

Perhaps he should get the children that he is trying to not pay child support for because the DNA don't match up. Then again perhaps not.

If he doe's then his ex gets to continue to provide financial support to the children as she and he have always done. You're damn right that there is more to being a parent than money. But, considering that one of the spouses doesn't live there anymore the opportunities of parenting are severely limited...the exception being the income support part. Easily solved with cheques.

[tango]

That does not make a difference. He never agreed to father children that were not biological his. That makes him no different from an uncle or other male influence in their lives when it comes to deciding who is financialy obligated to support them. Or are you going to argue that an uncle should be saddled with that obligation if it is "the best interest of the kids"?

So what. The woman made her choices like many other single mothers who choose to keep a child after a one night stand.

So what? This is not a charter issue and the law can be changed.

The law has changed, because the children were suffering from absent fathers and poverty.

As was pointed out, it's not about the parents at all. It's about the interests of the children. It is reasonable that parents rights lose out to children's needs. That's parenting!

Child support isn't an all-or-nothing allocation. Where multiple men have fathered the children, the court prorates, etc.

I wonder if this guy will regret hurting his children this way?

[Riverwind]

The law has changed, because the children were suffering from absent fathers and poverty.

And to remedy that they pile injustice upon injustice on fathers. Hardly fair.

The law needs reform in two ways:

1) Access and support payments must be linked. A mother who denies court ordered access rights loses support payments. A mother who moves to a location that prevents the father from seeing the children loses support payments (i.e. she has to live with the same restrictions on mobility that she would have had to live with if she stayed married).

2) Only one man can be obligated to make payments for a single child. This is the biological father unless the non-biological father has adopted the kids.

[tango]

And to remedy that they pile injustice upon injustice on fathers. Hardly fair.

Tough shit. You're a Dad, dude!

The law needs reform in two ways:

1) Access and support payments must be linked. A mother who denies court ordered access rights loses support payments. A mother who moves to a location that prevents the father from seeing the children loses support payments (i.e. she has to live with the same restrictions on mobility that she would have had to live with if she stayed married).

2) Only one man can be obligated to make payments for a single child. This is the biological father unless the non-biological father has adopted the kids.

You complain and write 'new' laws ... but you don't even know what the laws are?

1) Access and support are linked: You pay proportionate support for when you don't have the kids, up to 40% and then it's considered equal so no money changes hands.

As for moving ... none of our business how other people choose to live their lives.

(If she was still married, she'd be restricted to the marital home. Not too realistic. lol)

Locations don't prevent fathers from seeing the kids. The travel costs are shared.

2) Again ... proportionate, I believe. And it is according to the kids needs.

You are concerned about things already addressed by the courts. I don't agree with you that the rights of fathers should override the needs of the kids.

Kids need two parents (at least), imo. They don't have to live in the same house, but they have a responsibility to be civil and not to use the children as weapons against the spouse.

That's what this fair-weather Dad of the thread topic is doing.

Shame on him for hurting the kids to get at his wife. Despicable.

Edited January 9, 2009 by tango

[KeyStone]

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.

Well, assuming the mother is telling the truth, either:

1) Having an affair is so commonplace for her, that is not a memorable enough event to recall.

2) The medicine she is taking is so strong that it is creating huge gaps in her memory.

I think that in either case, there is plenty of evidence to take these children from her and put them in the care of someone more responsible.

[tango]

Well, assuming the mother is telling the truth, either:

1) Having an affair is so commonplace for her, that is not a memorable enough event to recall.

2) The medicine she is taking is so strong that it is creating huge gaps in her memory.

I think that in either case, there is plenty of evidence to take these children from her and put them in the care of someone more responsible.

This 'Dad' doesn't appear to want his kids anymore.

[KeyStone]

This 'Dad' doesn't appear to want his kids anymore.

Yeah, the 'dad' is more than a little callous on that.

Still, I do understand his frustration. If she told him the truth in the first place, he never would have become their father.

But through her deceit, she caused this mess - a relationship between a man and two kids built completely on lies and deceit.

[Ontario Loyalist]

This 'Dad' doesn't appear to want his kids anymore.

They're NOT his kids... he has every right to not want anything to do with his, and for the courts to rectify the wrong that was committed against him. The"mother" will have to continue raising the kids on her own, thus are the consequences. Besides, since she's equal and liberated, she's had every opportunity to receive a post-secondary education and should be able to find a job that pays well enough to support her children. Isn't that what feminism was all about, anyway???

[Ontario Loyalist]

Very wrong. Being a source of income is a very large part of being a parent. Without income the kids don't eat and get cold in the winter and do homework by candle light. Income is important to parents so's they can povide for thier children. This is not a problem created by courts and feminism - this is almost entirely a problem created by men who don't like paying money to thier estranged spouses who have to take care of the children. This is about a guys so-called right to keep his money for himself and to hell with the children he was a father to.

Laws were put in place to protect wives from husbands who were truly abusive and vindictive, but what has happened is that the courts have become a means for women to manipulate and exploit men under the pretext of being victimized. This guy was already not awarded custody of the children, and now that he knows that they are not biologically his, the courts are still ruling that he is the father and that he has to continue to pay. There is NO logic to that. Since it has been determined that he is not the biological father, then it for HIM to decide whether he will continue to be the "father" to the children. It is his right to say "no".

[Riverwind]

1) Access and support are linked: You pay proportionate support for when you don't have the kids, up to 40% and then it's considered equal so no money changes hands.

Wrong. Payments are assessed based on income so a mother with no income (i.e. living with another partner) gets paid as if she had the kids 100% of the time.

But that is not what I was talking about. I am talking about the perverse system that allows a mother to deny a father access he has been granted by the court and still collect support money. Any mother who defies the court when it comes to access rights should automatically loose any right to court ordered payments.

As for moving ... none of our business how other people choose to live their lives.

The courts always use the B.S. logic that the kids should be entitled to the lifestyle that they would have had if the marriage stayed together. Given that context the only reasonable thing to do is impose restrictions of the mobility of the spouses - as if the marriage stayed together.

2) Again ... proportionate, I believe. And it is according to the kids needs.

It is unbelieveable that anyone would support the idea of multiple men being forced to make payments for the same kids. Such thinking infests the current system and why it needs to changed.

Kids need two parents (at least), imo. They don't have to live in the same house, but they have a responsibility to be civil and not to use the children as weapons against the spouse.

The courts have no business finding some random male and forcing him to pay for the kids which are not his (which is basically what you are saying). Only the biological father should be automatically required to provide support unless some other man has choosen to adopt the children. At that point, the adoptive father would automatically be required to provide support. Edited January 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Well, it's not hard to figure out which guys here are divorced and paying alimony and child support. But your own personal grudges regarding your ex-wives have nothing to do with this story, which deals with a selfish, cold-blooded man who would disown and demand all of the support payments back because he discovered that the girls that he should have been treating as his daughters, are not his real offspring. Is it their fault that their mother had an affair and they've been calling the wrong man daddy all of these years?

There is no indication in this brief news story that he is now or ever has sought custody of his children, so the argument that he should only pay if he has custody is a red herring. And what kind of a stupid argument is this anyway? If you have built a close bond with children that you falsely believed were your own, can you just turn on a dime, disown them, and demand your money back after a negative on the DNA test? Only if you're a greedy, cold-blooded bastard who's only concerned about money!