Child Support Laws

[mexx]

Say you had a one night stand with all parties happy and everyone leaving with a grin on their face.

Fastforward 3 years. The girl you had the one nighter with manages to find you and drops the big news that she is the mother of your child that you didn't even know existed. She comes to you because she now needs your financial assistance.

In this type of situation, what are the legal obligations & requirements of the biological dad to the mother and child? And if the mother is dating another man, does this change anything?

Does it also matter the duration of time that has passed from the moment of conception to the realization on the dad's part that he is a dad (eg. 5 months vs. 3 years vs. 10 years)?

What would you do in this situation?

 

[Cassini]

A basic concept of tort (civil) law is that the purpose of the law is to compensate the victim. The purpose is not to punish guilty. It is to compensate the victim.

Thus the active questions are: How much money do you have? How much money do you make?

Once you get your head around the fact the law is to compensate the victim, then much of the strange counter-intuitiveness in civil law starts making more sense.

 

[shrek71]

What would you do in this situation?

Step 1. Get a paternity test. Find out definitively one way or the other if the child in question is indeed yours. Then you can proceed from that point.

Cheers

 

[Aardvark154]

Say you had a one night stand with all parties happy and everyone leaving with a grin on their face.

Fastforward 3 years. The girl you had the one nighter with manages to find you and drops the big news that she is the mother of your child that you didn't even know existed. She comes to you because she now needs your financial assistance.

In this type of situation, what are the legal obligations & requirements of the biological dad to the mother and child? And if the mother is dating another man, does this change anything?

Does it also matter the duration of time that has passed from the moment of conception to the realization on the dad's part that he is a dad (eg. 5 months vs. 3 years vs. 10 years)?

What would you do in this situation?

In most jurisdictions in North American (and also the U.K.) in the vernacular it sucks to be you.

Generally the mother of the child names you as the child's father to the court and asks the court to order a paternity test. If you are in fact the father, the court will almost certainly find you liable for child support from that point out to the end of child support. Contrariwise you can of course also ask for visitation rights etc. . .

As to your specific questions the passage of time really doesn't have much to do with this, nor does the fact that the child's mother is dating someone else at present (assuming Ontario is like the rest of North America) UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE has ACKNOWLEDGED PATERNITY of the child.

Make an appointment with a lawyer who specializes in Family Law and even more specifically in father's rights.

 

[1bigdog]

This is not a tort.

The man in question will owe support pursuant to these guidelines, retroactive. Context of impregnentation irrelevant. Sorry man.

Click on Simplified Tables, Ontario. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/sup-pen/grl/pdftab.html

 

[Aardvark154]

Step 1. Get a paternity test. Find out definitively one way or the other if the child in question is indeed yours.

That is step. 1.1, step one is to make an appointment with a lawyer who specializes in Family Law and in Fathers's rights.

 

[Aardvark154]

A basic concept of tort (civil) law is that the purpose of the law is to compensate the victim. The purpose is not to punish guilty. It is to compensate the victim.

Thus the active questions are: How much money do you have? How much money do you make?

Once you get your head around the fact the law is to compensate the victim, then much of the strange counter-intuitiveness in civil law starts making more sense.

This is not a tort.

You are correct, it is Family Law.

 

[T.O.tourist]

Get a paternity test. Find out definitively one way or the other if the child in question is indeed yours. Then you can proceed from that point.

If the child is yours:
1) Man up and pay up!! Give your offspring a good life.
2) Get visitation rights!! Be a part of your childs life and let them know that their father loves them (Whether the mother has an S.O. or not). If you are going to be financially responsible be parentally responsible as well.

If the child in question is not yours:
1) Politely tell the mother to F@*K OFF and stop bothering you.

Just my opinion

 

[Master Muse]

What's a Legal Father?

It depends. First, it depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in which you and the child live. In some jurisdictions, the biological father is not responsible and has no visitation rights in the hypo you outline if some other man has held himself out to be Dad to the child and to others. Generally, that condition needs to have existed long enough for the child to think of that guy as Dad. [The concept of Dad is not sanguinity; it is the child's perception of with whom he is secure. Absent that, you are responsible for the child financially till emancipation. You are also entitled to at least visitation though custody is a different issue depending on how old the child is I'd say.

Yes, I'm a lawyer; my practice is heavily family law and I'm in California.

 

[Aardvark154]

In some jurisdictions, the biological father is not responsible and has no visitation rights in the hypo you outline if some other man has held himself out to be Dad to the child and to others.

Master Muse - It doesn't sound to me like this is in anyway a Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110 (1989) type situation. From what Mexx wrote it sounds to me like two single folks.

I'll admit I'm speed reading, but to me unless someone else has acknowledged paternity or the child was acknowledged as a child of the marriage - which I don't see in Mexx's o.p. It looks to me like he needs to speak with counsel.

 

[alexmst]

Master Muse - It doesn't sound to me like this is in anyway a Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110 (1989) type situation. From what Mexx wrote it sounds to me like two single folks.

I'll admit I'm speed reading, but to me unless someone else has acknowledged paternity or the child was acknowledged as a child of the marriage - which I don't see in Mexx's o.p. It looks to me like he needs to speak with counsel.

Yes, the way I read the OP is that she is a single parent who happens to be casually dating another guy. If so, who she hangs out with Saturday night/has sex with (the other guy) hasn't much bearing on child support. From what I read on the Ontario govt site, a woman does not have to claim support from the time of birth - if she thinks she makes enough money herself she can elect to not seek support from the father, and also not tell the biological father of the child's existence if she doesn't want to. It seems this is what happened in this case. However, she still has the right to change her mind and seek support at a later date if she decides she can't handle the financial burden anymore. In such a case, once paternity was established by testing, the OP would be on the hook for the standard monthly amount as per the published child support tables from now until the child was 18. I don't think she can ask for the support for the first 3 years he didn't have to pay, as she opted not to tell him or seek support tll now. So, rather than support from 0-18, the OP would be looking at support for 3-18.

Of course he should see a family law lawyer to be sure. I am not a lawyer. If she is living with her b/f and the child grew up the first 3 years thinking the b/f was his dad, that can change things.

 

[onthebottom]

Say you had a one night stand with all parties happy and everyone leaving with a grin on their face.

Fastforward 3 years. The girl you had the one nighter with manages to find you and drops the big news that she is the mother of your child that you didn't even know existed. She comes to you because she now needs your financial assistance.

In this type of situation, what are the legal obligations & requirements of the biological dad to the mother and child? And if the mother is dating another man, does this change anything?

Does it also matter the duration of time that has passed from the moment of conception to the realization on the dad's part that he is a dad (eg. 5 months vs. 3 years vs. 10 years)?

What would you do in this situation?

Nothing the mother does (other than earn income) matters, you're not paying her support, you're paying the child. Now, while no one is more cynical than I am on that point that's the law.

In OH you'd pay 10% of your Gross (before taxes income) - you may be liable for back child support as well. You'll get a DNA test to prove paternity.

You'll also have the option of going for visitation rights.

OTB

 

[serviceman]

Having gone through this myself many years ago (I'm still paying support) one thing you have to come to grips with is the fact that the law heavily favours the mother. You will be treated like a criminal from the onset. If support is court ordered, your paycheques will automatically be garnished, they will not give you the opportunity to pay on your own, they will assume that you won't pay and tell your employer to send part of your pay to the Family Responsibility Office. This sucks, because your employer will get the idea that you are an irresponsible ass that refuses to meet your responsibilities.

Another fun thing that happened to me is the big black mark on my credit rating. What happened is that since support was going through the courts, I was not able to pay any money until a court order was given. Of course this took months, and during this time, retroactive support kept building up. Once the court order was put into effect I instantaneously was put into arrears (because I wasn't allowed to pay, but the amount owing built up), I did pay the arrears within a week or so, but the FRO immediately put a mark on my credit rating showing that I was in arrears on my support obligations. It took me 10 years to get them to fix this, during which I could not get a mortgage, or car loan without a co-signer (would you lend money to someone who doesn't pay child support?)

I could go on and on. But I won't, just make sure you keep your ass covered. In Ontario, men are merely an organism that supplies sperm and signs cheques. Yes they do want you to be involved as a father, but that is way down on the list of priorities.

If I sound jaded, it's because I am.

 

[Toke]

Having gone through this myself many years ago (I'm still paying support) one thing you have to come to grips with is the fact that the law heavily favours the mother. You will be treated like a criminal from the onset. If support is court ordered, your paycheques will automatically be garnished, they will not give you the opportunity to pay on your own, they will assume that you won't pay and tell your employer to send part of your pay to the Family Responsibility Office. This sucks, because your employer will get the idea that you are an irresponsible ass that refuses to meet your responsibilities.

Another fun thing that happened to me is the big black mark on my credit rating. What happened is that since support was going through the courts, I was not able to pay any money until a court order was given. Of course this took months, and during this time, retroactive support kept building up. Once the court order was put into effect I instantaneously was put into arrears (because I wasn't allowed to pay, but the amount owing built up), I did pay the arrears within a week or so, but the FRO immediately put a mark on my credit rating showing that I was in arrears on my support obligations. It took me 10 years to get them to fix this, during which I could not get a mortgage, or car loan without a co-signer (would you lend money to someone who doesn't pay child support?)

I could go on and on. But I won't, just make sure you keep your ass covered. In Ontario, men are merely an organism that supplies sperm and signs cheques. Yes they do want you to be involved as a father, but that is way down on the list of priorities.

If I sound jaded, it's because I am.

The current system is unfair. It favors the mother and demonizes the father. If she went three years (or more) without saying anything , how is that the guy's fault? After a certain period (say six months) if she hasn't told him, shouldn't she be liable for taking unrepairable time away from him and his offspring? Sure, some guys run away as fast as they can; but what about those who don't? They all get lumped in the same group.

Here's a question that I saw addressed on television a few months ago...
What if she hadn't told him that he may not be the father, and he was 'there' for his child, only to find out he is not the father? The current laws not only state that he cannot sue to get back the money he has spent (which pales in comparison to the emotional lie hes had had to live), but the laws state that he must continue to support said child.
My take on this is that if he is not able to sue, he should not be 'on the hook' for further support, but should continue to have the opportunity to be in the child's life. I know that monetary support is part of the 'right', but seeing that it's premise was a lie, shouldn't the lying mother be held accountable for her 'half-truths'?

All in all, if they want to lay guilt on guys for not 'manning-up', the same regard should be placed on women. If she was to found to have been lying to him, then the laws should, at least, remove his responsibility and allow him to decide whether he wants to continue being in the child's life (both emotionally and in regards to monetary support).

 

[Aardvark154]

I won't get into it Toke, because I agree with you and Serviceman.

However, the system views it as being all about support for the child. Unfortunately that means that that the rights of fathers come very much in second place. I don't believe that is either just or fair but that is the system - and remember although the courts are left to enforce the law, those laws have been made by legislative enactment.

Further it is one Hell of a system for encouraging family life - basicly if you accept the child as your own - you are on the hook. But yet what husband (unless they are in a marriage from Hell and have their suspicions already) has a paternaty test done on their newborn - "I love you so much - oh and by the way I want to have a paternity test done on our newborn"

 

[alexmst]

http://www.benmor.com/support.html

"Once the judge determines that a retroactive child support award should be ordered, as a general rule, the award should be retroactive to the date that the recipient parent notified the payor parent that child support should be paid.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the limit of the retroactivity should not be more than 3 years."

Imo, if the mother knew who the father was and declined to seek support for the past 3 years from him, it is unlikely she could make a claim for retroactive child support now. If she didn't know who he was and spent 3 years tracking him down, sher could maybe make a case.

A humorous one from New Mexico:

"A New Mexico appellate court ruled that a man who unknowingly fathers a child because his partner told him that she was using birth control could not argue Contraceptive Fraud to avoid paying child support. In the court decision of Wallis v. Smith (New Mexico Court of Appeal, 22 P. 3d. 682 (2001)), the father of the newborn child alleged that the mother told him she was using birth control when, in fact, she was not. He argued that she committed Contraceptive Fraud . The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that it was against public policy to accept this argument. The appellate court upheld this ruling. The court relied on the child support laws of New Mexico and held that it had no jurisdiction to recognize Contraceptive Fraud as a ground for relieving a father from his obligation to pay child support.

 

[mexx]

This is all very good information. Thanks to everyone for shedding light on this important matter.

 

[daty]

A scary fact is that not only can a woman claim child support from the natural father BUT every man that the child holds a relationship similar to that of a "fatherly" role..... so if mom beds down a "daddy" and lives with one a year that EACH earn a MERE 25 K /yr after five years she will get $211 /mnth from EACH one and the natural father's as well GRAND TOTAL of $1055 per month

This is why single moms often have trouble luring men in the know into a relationship

I understand that this is unique to Ontario

This I found out while starting proceedings with a lawyer I'll never hook up with another MILF again

FROM :
http://www.benmor.com/support.html

Do I have to pay child support if I learned that I am not the biological father?

This very issue was addressed by Mr. Justice Allan Boudreau in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision of Peters v. Graham (N.S.J. No. 452 (November 15, 2001)). The court ordered that a man whose wife deceived him into believing he was the biological father of twins for ten years pay child support, albeit at a reduced amount, since the children have two other fathers. Gregory Neil Peters argued that he should not have to pay support because he was misled by his ex-wife, Lisa Anne Graham, regarding the children's paternity. The father stated that he would like to continue having a close relationship with the children, however, not as a father, but as a friend. The lawyer for the ex-wife argued that the decision should emphasize the best interests of the children and not focus on the actions of the parents. Under the Child Support Guidelines, a judge has the discretion to order a spouse or former spouse who is not a biological or adoptive parent, but who stands in the place of a parent, to pay child support.

 

[themexi]

Visit... leave behind some brightly coloured toys with many small parts & several dozen books of matches & hope for the best....

Personally I think only a terrible person would resort to such evil but the courts don't really leave any other option save for being a sucker.....

 

[onthebottom]

Visit... leave behind some brightly coloured toys with many small parts & several dozen books of matches & hope for the best....

Personally I think only a terrible person would resort to such evil but the courts don't really leave any other option save for being a sucker.....

.....or a responsible adult....

OTB