Who is a child's father?

[Renegade]

according to the judge of the issue at hand:

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'

The ONLY reason this judgement MAY be fair is the father consented to his parental responsbiltes, despite knowing or suspecting that he may not be the father. The appropriate action for the father upon separation would have been to demand pateritiy testing as part of the agreement for support.

[Renegade]

Here's a couple of questions related to this case:

1. Should a parent, even while in a relationship, be able to refuse parential obligations from birth, if they can prove the baby is not genitically theirs?

2. If a child results from an extramartial affair, should the cheated on spouse be able to sue the person who slept with his/her spouse? Afterall a financial support obligation has ensued as a result of their actions.

[Ontario Loyalist]

It clearly doesn't dawn on you that the problem here originates with the woman, not him. She's the one who engaged in infidelity, she's the one who sired children while married to him. These girls are now a daily reminder of his cheating wife, and so it should only be expected that he would have difficulty maintaining a relationship with them. Not that it was easy in the first place, his cheating wife having divorced him and reducing his "relationship" with them to support payments an occasional contact.

Seriously, you sarcastic, smiley-face-ladden comments aren't exactly examples of "maturity".

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.

[Riverwind]

most of the dads I deal with want access to their children. Money aside, they want to SEE their kids.

Their BIOLOGICAL kids. We are talking about a case where a man suddenly discovered that his wife cheated on him and the kids are NOT his. This distinction is extremely important and we would not even be having this discussion if we were talking about biological children.

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.

Yet many father's are forced to pay support while being denied access to there children. The system needs to tie the two together: if a father wants to see his kids then the system must force the mother to allow access. If this means the mother finds her mobility rights are restricted then so be it. After all "the kids are all that matter" - right?

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.

It happened in a case I know personally. It is a real issue and you should be able to convince yourself that it is true by looking at the law. Support is calculated from line 150 of your tax return and there are no circumstances other than financial distress that will allow that number to be reduced. If two or more people are designated as "fathers" by the court they ALL pay. The law is truely an a** when it comes this.

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.

Did his ex ask for support? That is all it takes is that since most civilized mean will "act in a father role" when living in the same house as kids. A law that depends on a ex-wife being fair is a bad law.

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.

Sure they do unless you define father role as "sleeping with the mother".

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?"

That is the criteria. There was a case in Alberta that was debated on this board a while back. The woman wanted a child via artificial insemination but the man did not but he wanted to be sure that he would not be on the hook for child support. The court ruled that as a long as he was living with the mother he would be unable to avoid "assuming the father role" and would be liable - even if they had a written contract! What the judge implied by this ruling is that a man who was not "sleeping with the mother" would not be liable. It is clear the primary criteria that is used to distiguish between males filling a father role in a child's life is "sex with the mother" and it is absurd. Edited January 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Drea]

Here's a couple of questions related to this case:

1. Should a parent, even while in a relationship, be able to refuse parential obligations from birth, if they can prove the baby is not genitically theirs?

I suppose that would depend on how soon the man found out. At birth, or even at 2-3 years then yes, he should have the option to refuse parental obligations. If it's much later than that, if he has developed a father-child relationship with the child, then yes he has parental obligations to the child. Don't forget that his role as the only-known-father in the child's life is a vital one.

2. If a child results from an extramartial affair, should the cheated on spouse be able to sue the person who slept with his/her spouse? Afterall a financial support obligation has ensued as a result of their actions.

This could be a possibility. If the stepfather wants to sever his relationship with the children. If not, then he is accepting his role as father and the financial responsibilities that goes with it.

Emotionally speaking, the biological father should definitely be informed that he has a child. What happens from there... telling the children their dad is not their dad, introducing them to a strange man they've never known... that would be pretty tough for a child to deal with.

I'm glad I'll never have to go through that with my child.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Their BIOLOGICAL kids. We are talking about a case where a man suddenly discovered that his wife cheated on him and the kids are NOT his. This distinction is extremely important and we would not even be having this discussion if we were talking about biological children.

Think about it, though, she's siding with the woman for obvious reasons... she's playing the game, too...

[Renegade]

That is the criteria. There was a case in Alberta that was debated on this board a while back. The woman wanted a child via artificial insemination but the man did not but he wanted to be sure that he would not be on the hook for child support. The court ruled that as a long as he was living with the mother he would be unable to avoid "assuming the father role" and would be liable - even if they had a written contract! What the judge implied by this ruling is that a man who was not "sleeping with the mother" would not be liable. It is clear the primary criteria that is used to distiguish between males filling a father role in a child's life is "sex with the mother" and it is absurd.

This is the topic which Riverwind is referring to: Do you choose to be a parent or is that choice made for you?

[Renegade]

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.

Drea, If I understand your positon correctly you maintain that a person who acts like a father is the father and is thus required to pay support.

It is interesting that you feel this way because you seem to have a different position previously:

Hubby (commonlaw) and I have an agreement that if anything happens to me he will be resposible for my son (not his).

As this man is, for all intents and purposes, his father.

I have it in my will.

That being said -- if hubby and I split I would not go after child support. Child support is the responsibiltiy of the biological (or adoptive) parents.

link

If you agree that "Child support is the responsibiltiy of the biological (or adoptive) parents", why do you think the law should not reflect that.

[Drea]

Think about it, though, she's siding with the woman for obvious reasons... she's playing the game, too...

Let me tell you my experience (not all women's experience... just mine) *so you can realize that I speak simple logic and am not "against men"*

I moved to the coast from a northern town in 1992 with a guy I had been seeing for two years. We moved in October. The following January I went back home for a visit and had a reminicient weekend with an ex I had dated for four years previously.

Well, in Februray I discoverd I was pregnant. I did not know at that point which one the father was. I told my current guy and he was unfazed. I also told my ex that I was pregnant and that it could be his, but I was staying where I was. He didn't believe the child could possibly be his, so he was ok with it.

I ended up leaving with my son when he was nine months old. I made pretty good money so I did not ask for support from either of them. I was laid off my good paying job and could no longer afford daycare so I required government funding. In order to recieve the funding, the government forced me to enrol with Family Maintenance and get child support from the father.

Meh.

My ex (from years ago) paid for DNA and we discovered that it was his child. The court ordered him to pay $315 per month, but I had it lowered to $100 per month (all I needed for daycare).

This was when my son was five years old. So I had raised him from 9 months to 5 years without any additional support. I was fortunate that I had the means to do so, many women do not.

I dis-enrolled with Family Maintenance as soon as I met my current hubby. My ex no longer pays child support.

So guys, please. I am on your side!

But moreso, I am on the child's side. A child develops a relationship with man who he loves as his father. Before 3 or so, the child will not remember, but after that it's abandonment, whether or not the child is biologically yours or not, whether you knew about it or not, the fact remains that a child loves you and needs you.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Drea

[Renegade]

I suppose that would depend on how soon the man found out. At birth, or even at 2-3 years then yes, he should have the option to refuse parental obligations. If it's much later than that, if he has developed a father-child relationship with the child, then yes he has parental obligations to the child. Don't forget that his role as the only-known-father in the child's life is a vital one.

Doesn't that position give incentive to the mother to hide the biological father if it isn't her husband. In effect you are incenting her to comit the deception.

This could be a possibility. If the stepfather wants to sever his relationship with the children. If not, then he is accepting his role as father and the financial responsibilities that goes with it.

How exactly could he sever his relationship with the children without severing his relationship with his wife?

If a single mother, started living with her boyfriend, and the boyfriend started playing the role of father, does that release the biological father from his support obligations?

[Renegade]

I ended up leaving with my son when he was nine months old. I made pretty good money so I did not ask for support from either of them.

The point Drea, is that you COULD have gone after either of them, maybe even both of them. The law that leaves it up to the choice mother to do what is fair is not a good law. Not all women would act as you did.

I was laid off my good paying job and could no longer afford daycare so I required government funding. In order to recieve the funding, the government forced me to enrol with Family Maintenance and get child support from the father.

Meh.

My ex (from years ago) paid for DNA and we discovered that it was his child. The court ordered him to pay $315 per month, but I had it lowered to $100 per month (all I needed for daycare).

You have previously stated that you believe that the biological parent should be the one responsible for child support, so why not go after him for all $315? If you had $215 too much, perhaps it should have been returned to the taxpayers rather than the father.

[Drea]

Doesn't that position give incentive to the mother to hide the biological father if it isn't her husband. In effect you are incenting her to comit the deception.

Well I suppose some women would do this.

I could see a woman saying (five years in) "By the way you bastard! It's NOT your kid!"

I don't know Renegade, what the solution is in this circumstance. I suppose it depends on the relationship between the man and the child and whether or not he wants to continue to have a relationship. If he doesn't then I suppose he should be free to move on.

On the flip side, the mother would not be able to deny access if he wanted to continue the relationship with the child.

Child support should be contingent to access, in my opinion. He pays support, he gets to see the kids. Except for in abuse/dangerous circumstances.

If a single mother, started living with her boyfriend, and the boyfriend started playing the role of father, does that release the biological father from his support obligations?

No, it does not release the biological father. Unless the household income of the boyfriend and mother exceed that of the father.

Like I said before, the household income and expenses of the mother should (MUST!) be taken into consideration, as well as the income and expenses of the father. My ex makes alot less than we do. Why punish him? He has a family, a mortgage. Only if support is actually required, should it be paid...whether or not the mother is single or with a partner.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Drea

[Drea]

The point Drea, is that you COULD have gone after either of them, maybe even both of them. The law that leaves it up to the choice mother to do what is fair is not a good law. Not all women would act as you did.

Not all women would do this either. My financial circumstance were good. Some women need the support just for survival. Some are vindictive bitches.

You have previously stated that you believe that the biological parent should be the one responsible for child support, so why not go after him for all $315? If you had $215 too much, perhaps it should have been returned to the taxpayers rather than the father.

What are you talking about. The government was subsidizing my daycare by $100 per month. So that is all I needed to be free of government interference so that is what I had the support set at.

I did not NEED any more. HE NEEDED the $215 more than I did. He had 2 kids, a stay at home wife, a business of his own, no dental care, a mortgage, a beater truck. Geez

You just want to discover SOMETHING that lumps me in with how you "think" that women think and behave. You seem to want to PROVE that as a woman, I MUST have some vindictive streak.

You must've had a real tough go-round at some point, my boy.

Women are not the enemy.

[Renegade]

What are you talking about. The government was subsidizing my daycare by $100 per month. So that is all I needed to be free of government interference so that is what I had the support set at.

Sorry I must have misunderstood. I thought you had previously stated that the government was providing you welfare as well.

Women are not the enemy.

No they aren't. It is the law which as it currenly stands which is the problem.

[Renegade]

Well I suppose some women would do this.

I could see a woman saying (five years in) "By the way you bastard! It's NOT your kid!"

I don't know Renegade, what the solution is in this circumstance. I suppose it depends on the relationship between the man and the child and whether or not he wants to continue to have a relationship. If he doesn't then I suppose he should be free to move on.

On the flip side, the mother would not be able to deny access if he wanted to continue the relationship with the child.

Child support should be contingent to access, in my opinion. He pays support, he gets to see the kids. Except for in abuse/dangerous circumstances.

Yes, I agree.

No, it does not release the biological father. Unless the household income of the boyfriend and mother exceed that of the father.

Like I said before, the household income and expenses of the mother should (MUST!) be taken into consideration, as well as the income and expenses of the father. My ex makes alot less than we do. Why punish him? He has a family, a mortgage. Only if support is actually required, should it be paid...whether or not the mother is single or with a partner.

That is unfortunately not how the law works (at least in Ontario). The custodial parent's inccome or that of the live in boyfriend is not calculated into the support amount.

[Peter F]

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.

True enough. Neither do I. However restitution is usually a one time payment and/or a repeating stipend that the fellow can afford. And, I am quite sure, no court in the land would mandate restitution that impoverishes the man to the detriment of the children he is raising...or his child support payments. Any restitution would come from what is left.

[Peter F]

The ONLY reason this judgement MAY be fair is the father consented to his parental responsbiltes, despite knowing or suspecting that he may not be the father. The appropriate action for the father upon separation would have been to demand pateritiy testing as part of the agreement for support.

Yes, that is the ONLY reason the father is paying child support. Would there be any other reason you can think of?

Parental responsibility is the one and only determinant of child support. So buddy pays child support and all is well with the world.

As the court said, If he had have walked out on mom when she was pregnant he probably wouldn't be responsible for child support since he, at the time, was not the father. 'Tony' may have been the father and good friend Tony would be the one paying child support.

But he didn't so he is now father and has been for the life of the children. There is no turning the parental obligation off.

If you don't want to be a parent don't assume parental responsibility. Taking on parental responsibility is extremely easy to do so to avoid parental responsibility its best to get the hell out of the house and stay out.

[August1991]

Man must pay support though twins not his

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.

Sorry if these points have been made above. I haven't read through this entire thread. When I saw this report, I thought of three points.

First, a person's responsibility to a child is not based on DNA. It is based on the relationship established over time.

Second, I am surprised by how many find it offensive that this man must pay money to a woman for the care of a child when we all do this now through our taxes. Indeed, a major issue in the 2006 federal election was how to take money from all of us and give it to families with children. There is little difference between "child support" and "taxes". In both cases, the government orders individuals to give money to other individuals.

Third, adults will think twice, because of this judicial decision, before having children or moving in with someone with kids. Single mothers will remain single longer. People will remain childless.

[Riverwind]

First, a person's responsibility to a child is not based on DNA. It is based on the relationship established over time.

Does that mean an uncle or grandfather who assume a "father" role should be compelled to pay for support if their relationship with the mother breaks down? If you answer is no then why should a non-biological father be so compelled?

The other issue which you might have missed is double payments. The law allows the mother to collect full child support from multiple fathers for the same child. This is wrong and if we wish to compell non-biological fathers then there needs to be a mechanism that ensures the biological father is off the hook. No child is entitled to state enforced support from more than one father.

Second, I am surprised by how many find it offensive that this man must pay money to a woman for the care of a child when we all do this now through our taxes.

The issue of personal child support is a justice issue. Taxes have a impact on everyone but child support can be quite punative. There is also a personal responsibility aspect: i.e. society agrees that fathers must take personal responsibility for their children but this agreement breaks down when we see men being forced to take personal responsibility for someone else's children.

Third, adults will think twice, because of this judicial decision, before having children or moving in with someone with kids. Single mothers will remain single longer. People will remain childless.

I agree - as the significance of these rulings becomes more widely known people will simply refuse to have a relationship with a partner with kids. This is typical of the unintended consequeces of legislation that is supposed to help signal mothers.

[Peter F]

Child support is not 'punative'. Whats punative about child support? Its child support not punishment.

Regarding single mothers no longer being able to find men to have a relationship with them due to the womans kids...I say its probably a good way to weed the riff-raff out. Besides kids have scared off quite a few men and has been doing so for centuries.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Peter F

[Riverwind]

Child support is not 'punative'. Whats punative about child support? Its child support not punishment.

Paying for someone else's kids is definately punishment.

I say its probably a good way to weed the riff-raff out.

More likely the well informed men who plan ahead and make prudent financial decisions after assessing the risks. Men who simply don't understand the law or without any financial planning skills will likely not be affected. I guess it depends on what you call 'riff-raff'.

[Peter F]

Paying for someone else's kids is definately punishment.

Not if you were the parent

[Riverwind]

Not if you were the parent

Really? Well I think it should be up to the person involved to decide whether they want to pay or not. If they value the relationship and want access then they pay support. If they don't value the relationship then no access and no support.

[WIP]

How is he being selfish and cold-blooded.

Regardless of how he feels about his exwife, if he has no interest in the welfare of the girls that he believed were his daughters for 16 years, he's a monster. If he actually loved these girls before finding out they weren't his, how could he just turn it off like that as a result of a DNA test? It seems more likely that his feelings didn't run too deep in the first place if money is important enough to cut them off and demand a refund like its a broken watch or something.

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 have adopted children, and I can't make a distinction between how I feel about them and our son, who is the only one who is our biological child. Regardless of the mother's infidelity, that should not be a burden placed on the children.

If you're a man and were in his shoes, you'd be talking MUCH differently...

I hope not, because I think you've allowed your personal situation (whatever it is) to cloud your opinions on this case and taken on a bad attitude about women in general.

[Riverwind]

I have adopted children, and I can't make a distinction between how I feel about them and our son, who is the only one who is our biological child. Regardless of the mother's infidelity, that should not be a burden placed on the children.

Adopting the child was your choice and was not one imposed by the court. The court has no business imposing obligations on people who did not choose to adopt non-biological children. The needs of the children are not absolute. For example, if the man was sued for his role in a traffic accident the "needs of the children" would never be considered when it came time to collect damages.

I hope not, because I think you've allowed your personal situation (whatever it is) to cloud your opinions on this case and taken on a bad attitude about women in general.

And I think you should not make assumptions about the personal situation of people posting an opinion. The law, as it stands, is injust. That fact is obvious to many people even if they have never been at the receiving end of such injustice. Edited January 11, 2009 by Riverwind