Interesting child support case
- Thread starter dcbogey
- Start date
Aardvark154 said:
Ya I think that's the way it works. Child support is paid until they quit school or turn 25, whichever comes first. So, if the kid joins the Army at 18, or gets a job anywhere, payment stops. If the kid stays in school, payment continues. 25 might be too high, but for some reason that's the age that's stuck in my head, for kids who stay in school.
Basically,
The Wife perpetrated a fraud on the kids & the husband.
The husband should Not have to pay any more support & if the government really thinks the kids shouldn't suffer from the wife's crime they should pony up the support cash & then collect it all back from her in fines/ judgements/ taxes when the kids are grown.
If they can compel the husband to pay under such unjust circumstances why can't they enforce repayment on the actual criminal here?
Making one victim pay to alleviate the suffering of the other victims while the criminal suffers no penalty is wrong.
The Wife perpetrated a fraud on the kids & the husband.
The husband should Not have to pay any more support & if the government really thinks the kids shouldn't suffer from the wife's crime they should pony up the support cash & then collect it all back from her in fines/ judgements/ taxes when the kids are grown.
If they can compel the husband to pay under such unjust circumstances why can't they enforce repayment on the actual criminal here?
Making one victim pay to alleviate the suffering of the other victims while the criminal suffers no penalty is wrong.
Mlam...
IF he had known the children were not his all along, and had treated them as is own, and had only raised the question of paternity when his ex asked for an increase in child support payments, then I would have no sympathy and no respect for this individula!
However, the original article implied that he only discovered they were not his children at the time of the request for an increase in payments. Had his ex-wife not had the temerity to ask him to pay more to support children that were born as the result of an extra-marital affair she (reasonably) must have known about, in all likelihood he would have gone on paying the required support payments. However, it was her greed that caused him to question the paternity of the children.
You seem to have all this anger and hate for anyone who chooses to defend the "father". I have to question why this is not instead directed towards the cheating wife, or the biological father who appears to have run away from his obligations? Either of these individuals would seem to be more deserving of your contempt.
IF he had known the children were not his all along, and had treated them as is own, and had only raised the question of paternity when his ex asked for an increase in child support payments, then I would have no sympathy and no respect for this individula!
However, the original article implied that he only discovered they were not his children at the time of the request for an increase in payments. Had his ex-wife not had the temerity to ask him to pay more to support children that were born as the result of an extra-marital affair she (reasonably) must have known about, in all likelihood he would have gone on paying the required support payments. However, it was her greed that caused him to question the paternity of the children.
You seem to have all this anger and hate for anyone who chooses to defend the "father". I have to question why this is not instead directed towards the cheating wife, or the biological father who appears to have run away from his obligations? Either of these individuals would seem to be more deserving of your contempt.
Anger and hate...
...and VERY strong words, and that is untrue.
I have contempt for the guy who is trying to bail on paying child support for his children. (BTW...I didn't read anything about "increasing"...and that is something of a distorted way to put if it if that is indeed what this is about, because in Ontario child support is tied DIRECTLY to income...there is nothing to discuss or negotiate) and if that contempt came out in my posts, it was only because a contemptuous tone for the mother had already been set by others.
Why is my contempt not directed towards the cheating wife?
a) Because her actions were 16 years ago
b) Because she wasn't / isn't cheating on me
c) Because given where we are posting such a stance seems pretty absurd and hypocritical
d) Because, like the court, I consider the issue of child support completely and totally separate from infidelity.
Why is my contempt not directed towards the biological father? Because I know nothing about the circumstances that made him so...or if he even knows he is.
All this said, my thoughts on the used car analogy has nothing to do with any of this. I would think comparing a person's relationship with a car to their relationship with a child they raised as their own as inappropriate regardless of the circumstances, and I would have anger and contempt (hate is a very strong word. I don't hate people) towards any person who actually was able to dismiss children with the ease they could dismiss a car.
hoser1970 said:
...and VERY strong words, and that is untrue.
I have contempt for the guy who is trying to bail on paying child support for his children. (BTW...I didn't read anything about "increasing"...and that is something of a distorted way to put if it if that is indeed what this is about, because in Ontario child support is tied DIRECTLY to income...there is nothing to discuss or negotiate) and if that contempt came out in my posts, it was only because a contemptuous tone for the mother had already been set by others.
Why is my contempt not directed towards the cheating wife?
a) Because her actions were 16 years ago
b) Because she wasn't / isn't cheating on me
c) Because given where we are posting such a stance seems pretty absurd and hypocritical
d) Because, like the court, I consider the issue of child support completely and totally separate from infidelity.
Why is my contempt not directed towards the biological father? Because I know nothing about the circumstances that made him so...or if he even knows he is.
All this said, my thoughts on the used car analogy has nothing to do with any of this. I would think comparing a person's relationship with a car to their relationship with a child they raised as their own as inappropriate regardless of the circumstances, and I would have anger and contempt (hate is a very strong word. I don't hate people) towards any person who actually was able to dismiss children with the ease they could dismiss a car.
Last edited:
MLAM said:
Ok, since you didn't like my previous analogy, how about this one...
You and your wife can't have children, so you decide to adopt.
You legally adopt a 3 month old baby and raise it as your own until the child turns 16.
On the childs 16th birthday, the biological father shows up and says "I never knew about this child of mine, I never consented to the adoption, I want custody of my child." And the courts agree and award custody to the biological father.
However, the biological father is on welfare and can't support the child in the same lifestyle that you and your wife had previously provided to the child, nor can he afford to send the child to university. You and your wife have lost the child "that you raised as your own".
Should the bioligical father be allowed to sue you for child support so that he can continue to raise the child in the manner they have become accustomed to?
Should you and your wife be legally responsible to provide for the child's post-secondary education?
This analogy doesn't make sense because...
This would never happen. No court would take a child away from its legally adoptive parents at age 16. There have been cases of this, but only for children MUCH younger.
Additionally, no court would award custody of a child to a parent who could not care for it if there were parents (and the adoption would make them parents) who could.
Again, your analogy is a quite flawed example because the biological father had no relationship with either us or the child beforehand. Your whole scenario revolves around something that would never happen...that person could come forth and make a claim for custody of a child they could not care for.
That said, assuming everything you say somehow were to come to occur, I see no reason why "my wife and I" shouldn't pay child support for our children, so long as we are still a part of their lives. If I love my children, I want what is best for them...and that certainly wouldn't include seeing them live in poverty.
I am going to assume you do not agree.
Now, I have a question for you - do you have children?
hoser1970 said:
This would never happen. No court would take a child away from its legally adoptive parents at age 16. There have been cases of this, but only for children MUCH younger.
Additionally, no court would award custody of a child to a parent who could not care for it if there were parents (and the adoption would make them parents) who could.
hoser1970 said:However, the biological father is on welfare and can't support the child in the same lifestyle that you and your wife had previously provided to the child, nor can he afford to send the child to university. You and your wife have lost the child "that you raised as your own".
Should the bioligical father be allowed to sue you for child support so that he can continue to raise the child in the manner they have become accustomed
Should you and your wife be legally responsible to provide for the child's post-secondary education?
Again, your analogy is a quite flawed example because the biological father had no relationship with either us or the child beforehand. Your whole scenario revolves around something that would never happen...that person could come forth and make a claim for custody of a child they could not care for.
That said, assuming everything you say somehow were to come to occur, I see no reason why "my wife and I" shouldn't pay child support for our children, so long as we are still a part of their lives. If I love my children, I want what is best for them...and that certainly wouldn't include seeing them live in poverty.
I am going to assume you do not agree.
Now, I have a question for you - do you have children?
MLAM said:
From the article:
MLAM said:
So...
a) Your excuse for the mother is that her actions were 16 years ago, and for the (biological) father that he may not even know he is a father. Yet you continue to assert that the (non-biological) father should have to continue to pay supprt, despite the fact that he only recently discovered he was not the father of the children. Why should the (biological) father be excused due to ignorance of the facts, but not the (non-biological) father?
b) An interesting point, and very insightful! I bet that if this exact situation was happening to you, you might have a different perspective on the whole situation.
c) There is NOTHING hypocritical about my position. I am single, have not been married (religious or common-law), and as such have never been guilty of infedility! (P.S. And I have no children)
d) Yes, the issue of child support should be separate from infidelity. But as I previously posted, he should not be forced to pay child support from the point in time he learned they were not his children. They should now be the responsibility of the real (biological) father.
MLAM said:
Nice assumptions. Right up there with:
No court would order someone to pay child support to a child that they were not the biological parent of, and did not know it.
Jade4u
It's been good to know ya
In the event that the biological father is most likely long gone and he has raised these children for the past 16years I would assume he should feel as though they are his children even given the event that he has now discovered they are not blood relations. It is in my opinion like a man who marries a woman and they both decide to adopt a child. If they divorce who then pays support of these children that are adopted? Does this man after spending 16 years really wish to cut off all ties to these children that he has raised for these past years? Maybe he is just temporarily hurt and angered of learning of this and will eventually come around and say what the hell I DO feel as though I have some attachement to them after all.
I do agree however what she did was 100 percent deceitful of her husband. Maybe if he found out earlier as mentioned it could have taken a different turn of events. If he spent 16 years supporting them already and there is only two years left maybe he can come around eventually and just rekindle his relationship with the children as they may be the only children he will have and for them he is the only father they know too.
As for his wife I would like to know if she just cheated on him and hoped the children were for real his? Then again she probably knew they weren't. If I were him any meetings with the children they are old enough I would have them go themselves to a meeting place that excluded her. To never have to have any future run ins with her ever again.
He should however take it out on her and not the children. The children are old enough now to understand why he does not want any dealings with her, but he could still maintain a relationship with the children.
Blood is not necessarily thicker than water. In this case the children could think how could our Mother do this to the only man we viewed as our father?
I do agree however what she did was 100 percent deceitful of her husband. Maybe if he found out earlier as mentioned it could have taken a different turn of events. If he spent 16 years supporting them already and there is only two years left maybe he can come around eventually and just rekindle his relationship with the children as they may be the only children he will have and for them he is the only father they know too.
As for his wife I would like to know if she just cheated on him and hoped the children were for real his? Then again she probably knew they weren't. If I were him any meetings with the children they are old enough I would have them go themselves to a meeting place that excluded her. To never have to have any future run ins with her ever again.
He should however take it out on her and not the children. The children are old enough now to understand why he does not want any dealings with her, but he could still maintain a relationship with the children.
Blood is not necessarily thicker than water. In this case the children could think how could our Mother do this to the only man we viewed as our father?
Just because she had an affair doesn't mean she didn't believe that he kids were his. How men or women have sex with different partners in the same time frame?hoser1970 said:
Greed? It is child support (i.e support for the children). I don't know that greed comes into it.hoser1970 said:
MLAM has anger issues period lately, but he is right on track in this thread.hoser1970 said:
Biological father ran away? I didn't read that. It could have been anyone, someone from a bar, who knows? It seems petty to makes assumptions with any facts to back them up?hoser1970 said:
The case is about support for kids that need it and not about past wrongs. If he is any decent type of human being he would continue to accept the responsible he had accept up to this point.
It is too bad the guy didn't catch wind at the time but shit happens...
I am a dad and I try to love my kid unconditionally. If I found that person I call my child, was the product of another person's sperm, I would be unhappy with my ex. I would chose not to abandon my support for the person I have nurtured for xx years.hoser1970 said:
Music_Box said:There were no DNA tests 16 years ago were there? Also you don't need this test to know if the kid is yours, they have to have something that resembles you.
Don't ask for "justice" when it's a woman the judge in cases like this
The PCR test widely used today was developed in 1984
That point...
...explains both the ignorance of your perspective, and why continuing this discussion would be pointless.
You don't understand because you haven't been there. And you aren't going to understand no matter what I say.
Go in peace...
hoser1970 said:
...explains both the ignorance of your perspective, and why continuing this discussion would be pointless.
You don't understand because you haven't been there. And you aren't going to understand no matter what I say.
Go in peace...
The law in Canada is a bit tougher than in the U.S. still support of children after age 18 is discretional. From the Department of Justice website:CapitalGuy said:
"The Divorce Act recognizes that, in some cases, children at or over the age of majority may continue to require support.
The Divorce Act does not require parents to continue support to children at or over the age of majority who are pursuing a reasonable post-secondary education. If both parents agree that they will not continue support, then there is no legal obligation on the part of either parent to do so under the Divorce Act.
However, if the parents cannot agree whether to provide support, then one parent could seek the support from the other parent. In such cases, the courts have the discretion to determine whether there is an obligation to support the child."
Similar threads
