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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.