Man must pay child support, DNA proves he's not the dad

[Onkel Neal]

A Toronto man is on the hook to pay child support, despite the fact that a DNA test proves he is not the biological father of his ex-wife’s twins, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.

Justice Katherine van Rensburg ordered Pasqualino Cornelio to continue paying child support to the 16-year-old twins regardless of whether he was bamboozled by a philandering wife.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/01/08/7957701.html (http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/01/08/7957701.html)

Man, what a jacked up system. Child support laws and divorce custody laws are so slanted. Anything to keep the state off the hook, I guess. :nope:

.

[XabbaRus]

Hm not that simple though. Is being a father simply biology or more.

It seems he was with his wife when the kids were born and split up when the children were older. Only after his ex wanted more did he do a DNA test and found out the truth. If he had the suspicion earlier he should have got it done.

To the twins he is their dad. I don't deny the wife isn't a cow but you can't suddenly disown children like that. I'd set up a trust account have half the money to the wife and the other half into an account neither she nor the girls can touch till they are older.

[Fincuan]

:damn:

There was a similar case here just a couple of months back. In this case the man was trying to get back his child support monies after learning the child was not his. The municipal court decided in his favor, but this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. In Finland there's still one court higher than these, but I don't know if the poor fella was granted the permission to present his case there.

Sometimes it just sucks to be a man.

[GoldenRivet]

chick judge :nope:

[XabbaRus]

It's not that simple.

Imagine your dad who you thought from the day you were born was your dad. Your folks then split up and you have a comfortable life 'cos your dad paid his dues. You might even have a decent relationship.

Then one day that is all taken away because of a DNA test, your dad doesn't want to pay anymore - forget the years when your folks were together and ok, forget the times after when you still saw your dad and it was fun.

I can see the judges point. It was only when the bill was upped did he go and have a test...

[GoldenRivet]

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground.

[Frame57]

In my first marriage this is precisely what happened to me. I thought I was the daddy of a baby girl and it turns out that my ex (which is why she is an ex) decided to have a fling and got knocked up. This after 8 years of marriage. I spent thousands of dollars because the child was born premature. My family spent time and money growing attached to our girl and when this hit it caused no end of grief in my family. Once I found out the suspect sperm donor I went to court with a good attorney and we got a court ordered DNA. The judge was a right winger and nailed this guy to the wall for monies going back 8 years with interest. His parents actually went against him as they were filthy rich and they wanted custody of the child after our divorce. My ex tried to sue me for the award after all was said and done and her case got thrown out. I never thought in a million years something like that would happen, but it did. I was lucky in that I had a good attorney and Judge. The girl passed away due to complications of cerebral palsey a few years ago.

[XabbaRus]

Sorry to hear that Frame57 and I'm not having a go. You have been through it. all I'm saying that sitting on this side of the article it's easy to make judgements about whether it is right or wrong. I'm just thinking about the children.

As for the ex-wife of that guy, I don't agree she should be asking for more than what he was already paying. by all means find the scumbag who she had an affair with and go after him for the money.

If it happened to me I don't know how I'd react.

I think I'd go this way. Go to court get custody and keep the ex away...Though who can say till one is (hopefully not) in the situation.

[baggygreen]

She ought to be forced to repay every cent, as should every other mother (its almost always the mother) who has committed adultery and then stolen from the poor 'fathers'.

there is also no way I'd be letting her keep custody. What kind of environment can she possibly be bringing them up in if everything around them is a lie?

Sure, i know its a more extreme view, but I'm fed up to the back teeth with the child support system here, and by the sounds of it everywhere. Women get a free ride, they're always the innocent victims, even when faced with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence.

It really sh!ts me up the wall.

[Kapt Z]

Who wouldn't be pissed at the ex! That being said 16 years is quite a relationship parent/child. I could see it if the kids were 16mos... but to try and cut off their funding after 16 years? He's still their dad even if he is not the actual sperm donor. Since his ex doesn't know who the 'father' was I suppose the courts felt their hands tied.

I'd want a darn good lawyer to verify that the payments were being used for the kids' needs not the ex's. That would be my biggest issue. And LOTs of visitation rights.

[Aramike]

Who wouldn't be pissed at the ex! That being said 16 years is quite a relationship parent/child. I could see it if the kids were 16mos... but to try and cut off their funding after 16 years? He's still their dad even if he is not the actual sperm donor. Since his ex doesn't know who the 'father' was I suppose the courts felt their hands tied.

I'd want a darn good lawyer to verify that the payments were being used for the kids' needs not the ex's. That would be my biggest issue. And LOTs of visitation rights.First of all, there's a very good chance that the father isn't going to be able to continue a relationship with the children. That being said, why should he be forced to PAY for those children when, all that really is doing is shifting the financial burden to him from the mother?

He should be able to choose what to do, here.

[Skybird]

Tough call. Probably best option was and is to decide in favour of what is best for the children, and ruling out that one of the parents could use them to rip of his/her partner. Because the children still exist and need to exist on - no matter who is responsible for them being created. - But I am often wondering how easily some people come together, and how quickly they start to share life and bed. I'm over 40 and in these years only had one girl ever making me to start planning for a shared future, and her doing the same. In other words: be more hesitent to bind yourself, and check twice the person you think about. Many people seeing their relations breaking apart - simply acted foolish and premature when starting them. An old song by Peter Horton says "Du brauchst mehr als nur die Liebe, dein Herz braucht den Verstand, denn sonst ist die größte Liebe wie ein Zimmer ohne Wand." Heart AND brains - both is needed.

[Onkel Neal]

[quote=Kapt Z]First of all, there's a very good chance that the father isn't going to be able to continue a relationship with the children. That being said, why should he be forced to PAY for those children when, all that really is doing is shifting the financial burden to him from the mother?

He should be able to choose what to do, here.

Exactly. He should have the choice. He should be allowed to decide his relationship with these children, and how he wants to assist. The people responsible are the mother and the MIA father. They should be required to cover the cost of raising their children. Whenever it comes to $$$ the mother and judge always look to the man.

[Kapt Z]

Who wouldn't be pissed at the ex! That being said 16 years is quite a relationship parent/child. I could see it if the kids were 16mos... but to try and cut off their funding after 16 years? He's still their dad even if he is not the actual sperm donor. Since his ex doesn't know who the 'father' was I suppose the courts felt their hands tied.

I'd want a darn good lawyer to verify that the payments were being used for the kids' needs not the ex's. That would be my biggest issue. And LOTs of visitation rights.First of all, there's a very good chance that the father isn't going to be able to continue a relationship with the children. That being said, why should he be forced to PAY for those children when, all that really is doing is shifting the financial burden to him from the mother?

He should be able to choose what to do, here.

I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of being a father myself. I couldn't imagine terminating a relationship with my daughter after loving her and raising her for 16 years just because I found out now she was not my 'real' daughter. I'm sure the relationship would be 'different', but I'd still love her and want her in my life.

Now maybe this guy had a crappy relationship with the kids anyway so that's a whole other deal.;)

I would hope the courts would give the mother more flak over not knowing the name of the 'father'. He or his relatives should bear their fair share certainly. In the end though it sounds like the court was pretty much saying, "16 years is a little late for the paternity test, pal."

I'm sure he could continue to appeal. Legal fees know no ceiling.:up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

First of all, there's a very good chance that the father isn't going to be able to continue a relationship with the children. That being said, why should he be forced to PAY for those children when, all that really is doing is shifting the financial burden to him from the mother?

He should be able to choose what to do, here.

Exactly. He should have the choice. He should be allowed to decide his relationship with these children, and how he wants to assist. The people responsible are the mother and the MIA father. They should be required to cover the cost of raising their children. Whenever it comes to $$$ the mother and judge always look to the man.

Freedom of choice? I like that answer. :up:

[Iceman]

First of all, there's a very good chance that the father isn't going to be able to continue a relationship with the children. That being said, why should he be forced to PAY for those children when, all that really is doing is shifting the financial burden to him from the mother?

He should be able to choose what to do, here.

Exactly. He should have the choice. He should be allowed to decide his relationship with these children, and how he wants to assist. The people responsible are the mother and the MIA father. They should be required to cover the cost of raising their children. Whenever it comes to $$$ the mother and judge always look to the man.

Freedom of choice? I like that answer. :up:

Speaking in the "I know what your going thru category"..he should be given the choice now being he is not bilogical and if "decpetion" on the womans part could be proven....if it was honest...not sure how that would be the case though in infidelity....he should have a "choice now"...seeing he wasnt given one by the woman before.

[Wolfehunter]

Quebec Canada is the worst in the world for men's rights against and for their children.

Why suicide is the highest in the world here for men.

When a judge can grant a schizoid mother in a mental home custody of the child over a normal father you wonder why.

Or when a woman who uses men to make baby for child support and then makes more from different men you also wonder?

It just goes on.:damn: I've seen too many cases. Makes me sick. :shifty:

Worst off most woman know it here how the system works. Divorce is a business here. :nope:

Last thing, I quote from a judges words.

Only way you can have full custody is when the child's mother is dead.

[A Very Super Market]

Y'know, sometimes law in the Western world is completely insane.

From those insane lawsuits

Slanted divorce and child support

The amount of money it takes for a high-profile case

The fact that people are willing to pay to keep a completely incurable bat**** insane lunatic alive

Our horribly inefficient system anyways

Jury duty

And the sheer amount of idiots that courts must go through daily.



Wolfehunter, the reason for the high male suicide rate in Quebec may be from the shame of being half-French!:rotfl:

I kid, I kid.

[Wolfehunter]

Y'know, sometimes law in the Western world is completely insane.

From those insane lawsuits

Slanted divorce and child support

The amount of money it takes for a high-profile case

The fact that people are willing to pay to keep a completely incurable bat**** insane lunatic alive

Our horribly inefficient system anyways

Jury duty

And the sheer amount of idiots that courts must go through daily.



Wolfehunter, the reason for the high male suicide rate in Quebec may be from the shame of being half-French!:rotfl:

I kid, I kid.Its the shame of loosing all hope. I've seen some father destroyed. One was my brother. We're not french. That's one reason why he lost.

[A Very Super Market]

I do know why the suicide rate is so high, I read the newspapers. Just thought that some French-guy joke would lighten the mood. Sorry about that.

[Wolfehunter]

I do know why the suicide rate is so high, I read the newspapers. Just thought that some French-guy joke would lighten the mood. Sorry about that.ok dude I didn't take your words negatively. I knew you were trying to lighten the moment. Media here don't post this information. You can only get this stuff from medical or statistic sources and friends and family also companies who keep profiles of their employee's.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Y'know, sometimes law in the Western world is completely insane.

From those insane lawsuits

Slanted divorce and child support

The amount of money it takes for a high-profile case

The fact that people are willing to pay to keep a completely incurable bat**** insane lunatic alive

Our horribly inefficient system anyways

Jury duty

And the sheer amount of idiots that courts must go through daily.



I agree almost completely. But then, that's what we get for allowing it to become a monopoly.

We messed up by giving too much legislative power to the state. Now the legal code is so complex that only a professional has a hope of understanding even a small part of it, and no one on the entire planet knows the entire U.S. legal code. It occupies a whole wing of the Library of Congress, and even that doesn't even include all local legislation.

But that's what always happens when you give up your freedom to choose. The Justice system is a business like any other. The only difference is that the currency is sometimes political. We created a niche market by giving too much legislative power to the Federal government, which was quickly filled by legal entrepeneurs. And they did what they do best; make laws.

They made (and built on) so many laws and judicial procedures, that now individuals can't compete. In the same way that a corner market can't compete with Wal-Mart, individuals can't compete in the Justice market. The difference is that you can choose not to shop at Wal-Mart. Your dollar is your vote. But in the political sector, you most likely won't have a vote unless you're a legal professional. Is it any wonder that so many political offices are filled by lawyers?

At least if the states had the majority of the legislative power, we'd get a limited choice as to which legal system we liked best, if that mattered to us. But we gave up that choice in the hopes that someone else would take care of us.

Now we have a monopoly state, and we don't have to look very hard to see what path it is taking us on.

[Zachstar]

While this is not a super easy call. I have to agree that after a lie that big is exposed. It virtually destroys the relationship.

Sure the surrogate father who has to pay may be "Friends" with them but that is it. No bonding. No "Passing on the family traditions" none of that.

This and the fact that divorce has become a business is why I will never get into a relationship. (Not even fooling around)

I would rather live a lonely life than face a 55-70 percent chance that my life will be virtually destroyed by the way "Love" works today.

[baggygreen]

While this is not a super easy call. I have to agree that after a lie that big is exposed. It virtually destroys the relationship.

Sure the surrogate father who has to pay may be "Friends" with them but that is it. No bonding. No "Passing on the family traditions" none of that.

This and the fact that divorce has become a business is why I will never get into a relationship. (Not even fooling around)

I would rather live a lonely life than face a 55-70 percent chance that my life will be virtually destroyed by the way "Love" works today.mate, I understand the risks, but its a hell of a thing to write off for yourself! Sure I understand its not for everyone, but you aren't willing to take a chance on the odds you find a great woman who makes you happy??

I'm not trying to criticize, I just wonder if you're ruling out a potentially wonderful thing based on the numbers which say theres a chance it won't work... am i making any sense?:88)

[Onkel Neal]

While this is not a super easy call. I have to agree that after a lie that big is exposed. It virtually destroys the relationship.

Sure the surrogate father who has to pay may be "Friends" with them but that is it. No bonding. No "Passing on the family traditions" none of that.

This and the fact that divorce has become a business is why I will never get into a relationship. (Not even fooling around)

I would rather live a lonely life than face a 55-70 percent chance that my life will be virtually destroyed by the way "Love" works today.mate, I understand the risks, but its a hell of a thing to write off for yourself! Sure I understand its not for everyone, but you aren't willing to take a chance on the odds you find a great woman who makes you happy??

I'm not trying to criticize, I just wonder if you're ruling out a potentially wonderful thing based on the numbers which say theres a chance it won't work... am i making any sense?:88)


Yeah, sooner or later you're going to meet someone you think is the right one. Just be sure and have a good pre-nup drawn up for god's sake, you need to keep what is yours if she bails on you.

[TarJak]

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground.
The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.

[Aramike]

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground.
The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.I disagree. Just because something may be "best for the kids" doesn't mean that someone should be essentially socially and economically imprisoned. That argument is far too open to interpretation.

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.

[Wolfehunter]

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground. The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.I disagree. Just because something may be "best for the kids" doesn't mean that someone should be essentially socially and economically imprisoned. That argument is far too open to interpretation.

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.Reality is people!
Not what is the best interest of the kid. Not what is the best interest of the parents.

But what is the best interest?

Best interest depends on the judge. Judge decides the fate. Judge determines the best interests according to his or her personal preferences, belief's and experiences.

What is right and wrong doesn't god dam matter.

That's reality.

[Aramike]

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground. The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.I disagree. Just because something may be "best for the kids" doesn't mean that someone should be essentially socially and economically imprisoned. That argument is far too open to interpretation.

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.Reality is people!
Not what is the best interest of the kid. Not what is the best interest of the parents.

But what is the best interest?

Best interest depends on the judge. Judge decides the fate. Judge determines the best interests according to his or her personal preferences, belief's and experiences.

What is right and wrong doesn't god dam matter.

That's reality.This is where laws are supposed to come into play. It's too bad that so many judges tend to sidestep the law in order to make it fit more properly with their personal convictions ... but that's a discussion for another thread.

Here's an analogy I've come up with: Let's say you were found unconscious holding a bloody knife next to a person who was murdered. You have no memory of what happened. You conclude that it likely was you who killed that person, and plead guilty.

While in prison, events trigger memories that suggest that you may not have murdered that person after all. You plead with the prosecutor to take another look at the case, and he agrees. DNA evidence then exonorates you from the murder.

Now, should you have to stay in prison simply because, for the majority of the time, you've accepted your fate?

That's what the reasoning behind the whole idea that, "well, since you acted as their father for so many years, you are therefore the father" seems like. It is utterly preposterous.

[TarJak]

Prepsoterous it may be, however this is the way family law court decisions are made. Paramount is the interest of the child above all other considerations.

I'm not defending it, just stating the fact that this is how the judges are instructed to operate in these situations. This is to prevent the burden for support of the child falling with the state when there is another option.

[kiwi_2005]

Child support = kiwi men heading to Australia to avoid child support payments. I can never understand this, if your going to have children then desert them for whatever reason or maybe she deserted you either way your responsible as a father to support your kids. Not run away. I have 3 sons 1 of them lives with his mother the other 2 lived with me but i had no problem with paying child support. I was happy to pay it. Kids grow up last thing you want is a pissed off son. :)

[Skybird]

You'd be forcing someone to continue paying for the mistakes of someone else, even AFTER that mistake is known!

Sure, kids have rights. But not at the expense of other adults.

Law before justice? The kids are the most innocent in adult's messups. The alternative to not making protection of their vulnerability a priority principle - is to dump them. And that hardly is acceptable for a society claiming to be civilised. Sure, you have to make sure at court proceedings that one of the parents does not rip opff the other for nothing and although the new family where kids live can afford them, in so far father's rights needs protection. But that'S it, and the father never is completely innocent. It was his decision to get invovled with the woman in question. If she betrayed him, had a lover, got preganent, and the other guy leaves, and nobody being able to finance the kids, then it were the adults messing things up: the woman first, but the "father" second", for he got engaged with a person doing like this. If the relation was less off standard and people are more civilised even in conflict and while separating (such things happen), both people should be able to handle such questions with slightly better sense of responsibility for the kids.

Just saying: "they are not mine so I do not care if they get sunk by the river or not" - that is not an option, no matter who made what mistakes. chuldren are chidlren. somebody has to take care for them. Whether or not oin times of conflict luxury and spending money althouzgh it is not needed is part of that, is something different. But their basic safety has to be secured.

You are responsible for your choice of people with whom you get engaged. And if they cheat you, it has been your choice to get enagged with them nevertheless. Maybe look twice and think three times before sharing lives with a stranger. the high rate of divorces today last but not least comes from the fact that a.) standards and moral rules of living together have been eroded, and b.) too many people make too inadequate, easyminded choices of partners. Some relations are doomed to fail from the very beginning, since both partner'S charcters and ways of life do not match. Film stars are a very good, but not the only example.

Prepsoterous it may be, however this is the way family law court decisions are made. Paramount is the interest of the child above all other considerations.

I'm not defending it, just stating the fact that this is how the judges are instructed to operate in these situations. This is to prevent the burden for support of the child falling with the state when there is another option.

Exactly. A much better way to say - and cut short - what I tried to express!

[Pioneer]

Paramount is the interest of the child above all other considerations.
Sorry TarJak, the best interest of the child NEVER outweigh the financial rape of the father. (http://blog.grantmadden.com/)

Paternity Fraud (http://www.canadiancrc.com/Paternity_Fraud.aspx) - Hiding behind the skirt of the judicial system.

[Skybird]

One has to accept that such cases cannot be judged by a universal standard blueprint, but need to be decided on a case-to-case basis, carefully inclouding all the many different implications here. Whatever it is, the children usually are the most innocent of all factions in family court battles. I personally would not want to be a judge at a family court.

Law and order itself can become a brutal tyranny if not inspired and ennobled by a strong sense of humane justice and protection of the weakest. we are no band of wandering wolves, and who is unlucky gets left behind - we are humans. Much of our societies nevertheless works by the principle of "the stronger one moves on, the weaker gets eaten" - especially in america. But that is no compliment for an intelligent, self-reflective lifeform claiming to be able to reflect about itself.

Consider this: mother unable for whatever a reason to finance children, her having cheated and left her husband, the man not being the biological father. what to do? The man paying for them you say is not justice. the mother in my example can't. Is it just to expect the taxpayer to finance it? Hardly, it is even less just, imo, than having the husband paying. Society had no deciison to engage with his former wife - but he made such a decision - so he ic closer to the case.

Is there a just solution in this situation? no, none i could imagine. However, the kids need to be taken care of, and their future opportunity is not to be sacrificed on the altar of cold-blooded law and order justice, whatever happened between the adults - it is not the children fault, nor have they been asked wether they want to get born or not. Justice or not - you need to reach a solution to protect the children.

And if you accept society to pay for it all nevertheless, you already have created a dangerous precedent that will be abused massively, and will encourage couples to cheat and separate even more carelessly than many already do. It is the same kind of system abuse then that you guys complain about in social parasites sucking social wellfare while not working. Regarding that, many of you are agreeing that it is not acceptable, and you easily exaggerate the ammount to which this happens. but in the example regarding fathers you want to easily accept the same conditions being created that before you have criticised? Is this what you are arguing for?

In case of doubt, community interests rule higher than individual interests, and the interests of the innocent rule over that of those who can afford not to be too concerned.

But as i said earlier: just that the mother abuses children to rip of the father although she does not need it - this and comparable examples have to be prevented by courts and laws as well. But where there are laws, there are those finding ways to abuse these laws. Question is whether this keeps to be an exception to the rule - or becomes the rule.

"Strong and noble is the one whose eyes can bear everything, but whose heart still feels everything."

[Wolfehunter]

Skybird, its never the child's fault when situation like this happens. Problem is to few parents care about that. Its about me, myself & I. How many broken families actually work it out, out of courts for the sake of the child? No too many.

Taxpayers shouldn't pay.

But this situation is an issue that women feminist have fought and won. So guys now have to be extra careful. Don't get drunk with a woman you don't know. Don't bang unknown chicks. REALLY know who your going to sleep with. Or your f**k-ed.
Stay in control.

Yes that means don't drop your pickle into the dirt. Keep a firm hand on it. :p

[TarJak]

Paramount is the interest of the child above all other considerations.
Sorry TarJak, the best interest of the child NEVER outweigh the financial rape of the father. (http://blog.grantmadden.com/)

Paternity Fraud (http://www.canadiancrc.com/Paternity_Fraud.aspx) - Hiding behind the skirt of the judicial system.Sorry Pioneer, but in court it does. This is the way family law has been structured in most western countries. Is that right or just? Not in my book, but it is what it is. What you have quoted from my post is simply a statement of fact on the current way family law courts look at the situation, not my personal opinion on the matter.

[Pioneer]

Completed scores from earlier matches...

Pioneer 3 Australian Family Law Court 0

In the group B matches...

Pioneer 8 Child Support Agency 0

Progress score from the current match

I.R.S 1 Australian Tax Office 0.

Oh yeah, I know what's it like, and if I don't fight for the next father...then who will?

"I have a dream, that one day, all nations will rise up and live out the true meaning of it's creed, that all parents are created equal, regardless of breast size."
- With apologies to MLK.

[Iceman]

Child support = kiwi men heading to Australia to avoid child support payments. I can never understand this, if your going to have children then desert them for whatever reason or maybe she deserted you either way your responsible as a father to support your kids. Not run away. I have 3 sons 1 of them lives with his mother the other 2 lived with me but i had no problem with paying child support. I was happy to pay it. Kids grow up last thing you want is a pissed off son. :)

Amen Kiwi...I'm not even divorced yet and paying $981 for two children...that I do happily..it is not even enough ...I gave both my kids the choice who to live with...my son wants to live with me full time...my daughter only until my wife can pull her head out of her azz..which I haven't the heart to try to explain to my daughter will not be anytime soon. :)...but no matter what I will live in a box before they are in need...

My saga continues...I'll let ya all know how it turns out.

I do like the saying "In the poker game of life women are the Rake" lol...

[Aramike]

Law before justice? The kids are the most innocent in adult's messups. The alternative to not making protection of their vulnerability a priority principle - is to dump them. And that hardly is acceptable for a society claiming to be civilised. Sure, you have to make sure at court proceedings that one of the parents does not rip opff the other for nothing and although the new family where kids live can afford them, in so far father's rights needs protection. But that'S it, and the father never is completely innocent. It was his decision to get invovled with the woman in question. If she betrayed him, had a lover, got preganent, and the other guy leaves, and nobody being able to finance the kids, then it were the adults messing things up: the woman first, but the "father" second", for he got engaged with a person doing like this. If the relation was less off standard and people are more civilised even in conflict and while separating (such things happen), both people should be able to handle such questions with slightly better sense of responsibility for the kids.

Just saying: "they are not mine so I do not care if they get sunk by the river or not" - that is not an option, no matter who made what mistakes. chuldren are chidlren. somebody has to take care for them. Whether or not oin times of conflict luxury and spending money althouzgh it is not needed is part of that, is something different. But their basic safety has to be secured.

You are responsible for your choice of people with whom you get engaged. And if they cheat you, it has been your choice to get enagged with them nevertheless. Maybe look twice and think three times before sharing lives with a stranger. the high rate of divorces today last but not least comes from the fact that a.) standards and moral rules of living together have been eroded, and b.) too many people make too inadequate, easyminded choices of partners. Some relations are doomed to fail from the very beginning, since both partner'S charcters and ways of life do not match. Film stars are a very good, but not the only example.
Not "law before justice" at all. What you're doing is exchanging one sense of justice (the father's) for another (the children).

However, oddly ignored in this discussion is the fact that the children have an actual biological father who should shoulder the burden. Or, why are we assuming that the mother is unable to do so? Sure, it might not be terribly convenient for the mother to pay for everything, but justice is often inconvenient.

There's nothing to state that the children would indeed be victims should the "father" not be held liable for another man's children.

[Aramike]

Oh, and I just have to...Much of our societies nevertheless works by the principle of "the stronger one moves on, the weaker gets eaten" - especially in america.I'm pretty sure you're not too familiar with how our social services in America works. Sure, the stronger and smarter move on to bigger, better, and more rewarding things. This is how an evolved society allocates limited resources. However, the weaker hardly get "eaten".

[GoldenRivet]

screw him if thats how he feels, i have worn those shoes before my friend.

but imagine I'M the dad.

Imagine for many years of my life i have been raising 2 kids that didnt belong to me.

despite how i felt about the kids... I WOULD BE PISSED, and i would probably rather not pay the child support any more.

that wife can find the man who owes her that money. i would still have an emotional attachment no doubt but i would have zero monetary responsibility.

16 years is a long time to be living a lie... not all men would take the attitude of "ohhhh awwwww well thats okay... because we love each other."

there happen to be a lot of men who would just dig 3 holes in the ground and put that "wife" and his "kids" in the ground. The whole point of the decision is what is based on best for the kids. NOT what is better for the mother or father.

In the absence of anyone else, when there is a "father" who has been footing the bills for the support of the family, blood relativity doesn't come into it. The kids need supporting and the "father" in this case, is it, regardless of the biological parentage of the children. Once the kids reach majority they are on their own but until then the state ain't paying.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. As a tax payer though I'd support the decision, as the "father" I'd be hacked off by it and as child I'd be wondering who my biological father was and why my dad doesn't want anything to do with me any more.

Well, i guess you just named reason number 1233 why i have elected not to have children throughout my - so far - 7 years of marriage.

I'll tell you what though... they need to put that mother away and give the dad sole custody if thats the case.