Renegade Posted January 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Again, the Supreme Court says otherwise, and in their words, "in the best interests of the children" is the principle of justice they use. It is interesting that "in the best interests of the children" is only an overridding factor when the parent is the one involved in the dsipute as is used as justification to override justice. Why isn't it a factor in other cases? If for instances, the woman had defrauded her employer for 16 years, and had due to misrepresentation defrauded her employer of a substantial sum of money. Once the employer found out, the employer demanded full repayment and penalties. Would a court also consider the "the best interests of the children" as the overriding factor to prevent payment of restitution to her employer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I advocate for father's in custody cases... yes our court system favours the mother. But in THIS case he was the children's father for 16 years, so for all intents and purposes he is their DAD, the only dad they have ever known. We don't know the background. We don't know if he abused his girls... we don't know if they loved each other deeply. If he did have a good relationship with his children why would he jeopardize it over two lousy years of child support? He may die a lonely old man ... oh well, at least he'll have his couple thousand bucks to love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85RZ500 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 What a mess. I would be thoroughly pi$$ed to find out that he kids were't mine. But, assuming a normal parent-child relationship, I wouldn't walk away. I would however fight the increases and decreases. And a question, a guy is part of the conception process and a baby is born. The guy walks after less than a year. Refuses to ever pay support, and has no contact with the child who is brought up by a single mom and grandparents. Does the conception guy, I can't call him a father, have any rights to the child or is the mom/GP combo the rightfull parent? In this day and age I have a sense that a fair bit of this is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85RZ500 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) How does one delete multi-posts? Edited January 9, 2009 by 85RZ500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85RZ500 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Grrrrr Edited January 9, 2009 by 85RZ500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 But in THIS case he was the children's father for 16 years, so for all intents and purposes he is their DAD, the only dad they have ever known. But in THIS case, what makes him father. If he consented to the role of father but did so on the basis of material misrepresntation from the mother, is his consent to be father still valid? I do not agree that the man should be unwillingly cast into the role of father if he does not consent to that role. Consent on the basis of fraud invalidates that consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I advocate for father's in custody cases... yes our court system favours the mother. But in THIS case he was the children's father for 16 years, so for all intents and purposes he is their DAD, the only dad they have ever known. Well, you're not a man so you really have no right or ability to understand what it really would be like to feel like you've been deceived for SIXTEEN years about who your children are, and now on top of that now he has to keep paying has though the deception had never been revealed. He may die a lonely old man ... oh well, at least he'll have his couple thousand bucks to love. Yeah, whatever, the money in itself is not what the issue is about. He's rightfully entitled to the money because he has to support himself and the money that he has spent as a parent/income source to these children, and will have to pay now could (have) be(en) used for other purposes, such as starting or in vesting in a business... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 One interesting point I heard on the radio this morning concerns the double standard the laws seem to have when it comes to the biological parents versus what's best for the kids. Consider this scenario... A couple take the wrong baby home from the hospital. Five years later the mistake is uncovered and the biological parents have the right to take back their biological child even though they have not been the parents. This is biology in favour of what is (possibly) best for the child. This situation is the opposite. The courts are taking what is best for the child (again, argumentative) over biology. This man is not the biological father, and if this woman wants any further support she should have to track down the guy that is. If I were the guy in this case, what would piss me off is being forced to pay for kids that aren't mine. Of course I would still pay, because I raised them and love them, but having the courts enforce it would drive me crazy. If I were him and had the choice, I would be giving these kids the money directly (possibly a trust fund) and not let that cheating witch see another penny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 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? How is he being selfish and cold-blooded. He has a fundamental right to expect children he raises to be his biologically. What the court is essentially saying is that it is okay for women have affairs and introduce offspring into the family which are not biologically those of her partner. The court therefore in a way is sanctioning female infidelity. I guess it should come as no surprise that the "Madam Justice" is a woman, and probably a feminist. In all honestly, I think women are too emotionally invested in "family issues" and should not be ruling in this cases. If you're a man and were in his shoes, you'd be talking MUCH differently... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Dad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 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. Why should the kids suffer financially? That's support money for them, not their mother. The courts have other ways of dealing with that particular problem, but it is not perfect, I agree. Making the kids suffer for the parents' behaviour is not one of the court's methods. 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. People have to move for all kinds of reasons - to get or keep a job, look after aging parents, etc. It isn't realistic to think the court is going to limit people's freedom that way. They're just divorced ... they're not criminals. Sheesh! You want them to wear electronic bracelets too? lol 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. There are lots of people in this situation. Nobody's business but their own. 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. We are not talking about "some random male". We are talking about men who have, for a period of time, been fathers to children. Biology really has little to nothing to do with the act of being a father. The man in question here raised the kids as his own. Now he has hurt them terribly. He's a loser, whether he has to pay or not. There are more important things in life than money ... right? Surely you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Well, you're not a man so you really have no right or ability to understand what it really would be like to feel like you've been deceived for SIXTEEN years about who your children are, and now on top of that now he has to keep paying has though the deception had never been revealed. Yeah, whatever, the money in itself is not what the issue is about. He's rightfully entitled to the money because he has to support himself and the money that he has spent as a parent/income source to these children, and will have to pay now could (have) be(en) used for other purposes, such as starting or in vesting in a business... Right ... it's not about the money. It's about ... THE MONEY! Seriously ... ya he's taken a hard hit .... a real body blow. Now he's passing his pain on to the kids, and taking their father away from them at the same time. How mature! He is the loser in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Looks to me like these kids wound up with a pair of losers for parents. Too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 What a mess. I would be thoroughly pi$$ed to find out that he kids were't mine. But, assuming a normal parent-child relationship, I wouldn't walk away.I would however fight the increases and decreases. And a question, a guy is part of the conception process and a baby is born. The guy walks after less than a year. Refuses to ever pay support, and has no contact with the child who is brought up by a single mom and grandparents. Does the conception guy, I can't call him a father, have any rights to the child or is the mom/GP combo the rightfull parent? In this day and age I have a sense that a fair bit of this is going on. "Rights to the child" in what sense? Seems to me he hasn't shown any interest, and won't likely be coming around, since he's way behind in his support! Having said that, the child has a right to his/her father and cannot be prevented from seeking him out, after a certain age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Why should the kids suffer financially? That's support money for them, not their mother.Perhaps we need laws that force people like you to pay support to kids in need. After all "Why should the kids suffer financially?". Who cares if you have no relationship to the kids? The "kids" do not trump all other values. Besides - it is not the kids that get the money. It is the mother.They're just divorced ... they're not criminals. Sheesh! You want them to wear electronic bracelets too? lolThe parent can move they just forfiet the right to any support. After all, being a parent is a lot more than paying money and one cannot be a parent if the kids live in a different city or country. If they stayed married the woman would not be able to move without the father's permission so nothing really changes.There are lots of people in this situation. Nobody's business but their own.The fact that you think that a woman should be entitled to collect support payments from more than one man for the same kids is beyond absurd. We are not talking about "some random male". We are talking about men who have, for a period of time, been fathers to children.So you are saying that an uncle or grandparent that acts like a "father" should be forced to pay support? I am guessing you would not include those people even though the are acting in a father role. So what you are really saying is - if a man screws a woman he becomes financially liable for her kids. That is not justice - that is legalized slavery. Edited January 10, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) if a man screws a woman he becomes financially liable for her kids. That is not justice - that is legalized slavery. Only the mother should be financially responsible for her kids? Fathers, wether biological or not, have no financial responsibility? Edited January 10, 2009 by Peter F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Only the mother should be financially responsible for her kids? Fathers, wether biological or not, have no financial responsibility?Non-biological fathers should have no more responsibilty than non-biological mothers (which is to say none unless the explicitly adopted a child). The problem is the system thinks it can arbitrarily impose financial obligations on non-biological fathers for no reason other than the fact that they have sex with the mother. If was really about "assuming a father role" then the system would be imposing those obligations on any man who "assumed a father role" such as an uncle, grandfather or friend. Edited January 10, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Non-biological fathers should have no more responsibilty than non-biological mothers (which is to say none unless the explicitly adopted a child). The problem is the system thinks it can arbitrarily impose financial obligations on non-biological fathers for no reason other than the fact that they have sex with the mother. If was really about "assuming a father role" then the system would be imposing those obligations on any man who "assumed a father role" such as an uncle, grandfather or friend. The gentleman in question here assumed the parental role for 16 years. He now learns that he did not sire the children he has acted as parent to for 16 years so he can SlipoutthebackJack and be free and clear of any responsibility whatsoever. The courts, and me, disagree with that position. To allow your position to stand is to seriously effect the financial position of the children he has been a father too. Obviously the gentleman in question couldn't give a shit anymore because he had been misled into thinking the children were his. Equally obviously, the mother seeks to maintain the financial support the gentleman in question has been providing - defrauded into providing - since the first child was born. The actions of parents no doubt, have a profound emotional impact upon the children; The gentleman in question, heretofore claiming to be thier father now proclaims he is not thier father and casts them aside. What can be done about that? Well - nothing. In my view the father is scum of the earth letting his anger at the mother also be cast upon 'her' kids. But who can make him behave differently? No one. So the emotional impact of the separation cannot be changed. But now that father is gone and no longer providing for 'her' children, the kids are left with thier mother as sole support. The family income has been reduced probably by about half. As far as the mother is concerned who cares, she can go get a job. Not so for the kids though. Through no fault of thier own - none - they will suffer the serious financial difficulties, wich will compound the emotional difficulties. They could very well have to move to someplace the mother can afford, change schools, say goodbye to friends - at thier age probably very close friends. They will have to give up the lifestyle, such as it was, that they were accustomed to. No small thing. a major role of the court is to lessen the impact of separation upon children. The gentleman in question has been providing emotional and financial support for 16 years. The court says, and rightly so, that the gentleman in question may be able to turn off the emotional support but he cannot turn off the financial support. He has happily been providing for 16 years and has no rational reason to not continue providing. He assumed the role of parent and parent he shall be...at least until the kids leave thier home or finish thier education. Thats what parents do and thats what he is and always has been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 The courts, and me, disagree with that position. To allow your position to stand is to seriously effect the financial position of the children he has been a father too. Why would the courts only consider the best interest of the children when it involves a dispute between parents? Let's say in a non-separated family the father was the main breadwinner, and committed some act which required he pay restitution to the victim. Undoubtly his payment of restitution will also affect the lifestyle of his children. Should the best interest of the children allow him to excape paying restitution because they are affected? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Perhaps we need laws that force people like you to pay support to kids in need. After all "Why should the kids suffer financially?". Who cares if you have no relationship to the kids? The "kids" do not trump all other values. Besides - it is not the kids that get the money. It is the mother. You are too ridiculous. Even though I advocate for father's rights... please don't ever come to me. I would not know how to advocate for you... most of the dads I deal with want access to their children. Money aside, they want to SEE their kids. And yes, the kids trump all others. If there is one potato, a mom and two kids, guess who shares the potato? Guess who gets none? Why not, then, instead of paying "cash" to the mother, simply pay her entire rent or mortgage? That way you are sure that the money doesn't go to "stuff" for the mother! I'd ask the judge for that in your case. The parent can move they just forfiet the right to any support. After all, being a parent is a lot more than paying money and one cannot be a parent if the kids live in a different city or country. If they stayed married the woman would not be able to move without the father's permission so nothing really changes. Well holy smokes! "being a parent is more than money!? You bet it is! Most fathers pay support, they have issues with not getting to see their children. That's why I fight for them. The fact that you think that a woman should be entitled to collect support payments from more than one man for the same kids is beyond absurd. Please cite a case of this occuring. A link (not just to some pissed off guy's blog, but an actual news story about a woman collecting child support from more than one man. So you are saying that an uncle or grandparent that acts like a "father" should be forced to pay support? I am guessing you would not include those people even though the are acting in a father role. So what you are really saying is - if a man screws a woman he becomes financially liable for her kids. That is not justice - that is legalized slavery. That's ridiculous. I am pretty sure he has to be in a relationship with both the mother and her children for a period of time. My hubby lived with a woman for two years -- she had two kids. They split. He DOES NOT pay support. He dated another woman for eight years... again, he never had to pay support for her kids even though the youngest was an infant. I lived with my brother for a bit when my son was a toddler -- lo and behold! He doesn't pay child support for my son! Must be a miracle right? So what gives? Why isn't he paying support for these five children? Get out of your teeny tiny world and look around you once in a while instead of making shit up. Geez. Uncles and grandparents do NOT fill the father role. So NO they will never be financially responsible for their sister's or daughter's children. NO MAN has ever been forced to pay child support simply because he screwed the mother. There is much much more to take into consideration by the courts, not just "did they screw?" I've come to the conclusion that you are simply a bitter, angry man and that you have no idea what you are talking about. Edited January 10, 2009 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Why would the courts only consider the best interest of the children when it involves a dispute between parents? Let's say in a non-separated family the father was the main breadwinner, and committed some act which required he pay restitution to the victim. Undoubtly his payment of restitution will also affect the lifestyle of his children. Should the best interest of the children allow him to excape paying restitution because they are affected? Answer is 'Yes'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Answer is 'Yes'. I'm pretty sure a court would disagree and not absolve a culprit of his obligation for restitution in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 I'm pretty sure a court would disagree and not absolve a culprit of his obligation for restitution in this case. In the case of the culprit performing a criminal act, you may be correct, Since they do send fathers to prison. But the question here is about a civil action - father leaves mother. No prison sentences and no restitution to outside partys involved. Are the kids to be left in the lurch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 according to the judge of the issue at hand: Further, and on the authority of the F.S. line of cases, while the failure of Ms. Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair and that the twins might not be his biological children may well have been a moral wrong against Mr. Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support. The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent’s own conduct, whether it be delay in pursuing support, an attempt to contract out of support, or the failure to disclose an extramarital affair that may have led to the conception of the child. By his own admission, Mr. Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with “Tony” and he developed suspicions that she had known Tony during the marriage and that he might be the father of all three of their children. Notwithstanding these suspicions, Mr. Cornelio sought joint custody of all three children and entered into a consent order that provided for his ongoing and important involvement in their lives and for the provision of child support. It was not until access was interrupted and Ms. Cornelio commenced these proceedings seeking increased child support that the respondent began pursuing this issue. ... a support obligation to a child created by one’s conduct during the marriage cannot be cast aside after separation. CanLII - as linked in the original T.Star article Another eminantly reasonable decision based upon the facts of the case at hand and not based on 'what-if's' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 In the case of the culprit performing a criminal act, you may be correct, Since they do send fathers to prison.But the question here is about a civil action - father leaves mother. No prison sentences and no restitution to outside partys involved. Are the kids to be left in the lurch? In the scenario I described (which involved restitution to a third party) you still maintained that the culprit could be excused from paying restitution because of the best interest of the kids. I know of not one example where in civil law where kids have been uses a the reason for not paying an award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.