Why doesn't he just write up an affidavit saying he is no longer assuming the role of parent? Not much they can do after that.
Interesting child support case
- Thread starter dcbogey
- Start date
Aardvark154 said:
Oh dear. Here come the instant divorce lawyers again. In a sense, ALL child support is "discretional". (The actual word is "discretionary" btw). If I am a Mom with 3 kids who has been abandoned by their father, I could CHOOSE not to sue him for support. And if I do not sue him for support, there is no mechanism to engage the law and make him pay support. So the custodial parent always has the DISCRETION to require child support or not.
The fact that the children are 18 or older does not affect that discretion.
If the same custodial mother chooses to sue daddy for child support when the child is, say, 19 years old and the child otherwise qualifies for legal child support under the Divorce Act or Family Law Act, the judge WILL order the father to pay support. the major thing the judge will look at is whether the child is attending school full-time. If he/ she is and daddy has a fairly good job, daddy'll pay until the child is about 22-23. Nothing discretionary about it from daddy's PoV.
Was told by a US lawyer today that in the USA its been going on like that for years. That once you agree to pay child support, you are pretty much stuck with it even if a few years later you find out the child wasn't yours.
In another words...always demand a DNA test before agreeing to pay child support
In another words...always demand a DNA test before agreeing to pay child support
If memory serves...
...you aren't a parent either, nor have ever been married, correct?
S.C. Joe said:Was told by a US lawyer today that in the USA its been going on like that for years. That once you agree to pay child support, you are pretty much stuck with it even if a few years later you find out the child wasn't yours.
In another words...always demand a DNA test before agreeing to pay child support
...you aren't a parent either, nor have ever been married, correct?
Hundreds of years ago this is why women were kept in chastity belts or under lock and key or accompanied by chaperones everywhere they went - simply if your wife gets pregnant it IS your responsibility to pay for raising the child as the child has your name and for all intents and purposes is yours. Of course they didn't have DNA tests back than.
If your wife has a baby, didn't say she cheated, your name is on the birth certificate, and you raise the kid for years and years - in a way it IS your kid both psychologically and legally. What, is the kid going to hunt down the drunk one night stand and say "daddy, I love you!" to him? Unlikely. What is the point in getting a DNA test on a 16 year old anyway - are you going to disown your kid after 16 years because technically it isn't your kid?
While i don't normally agree with MLAM, I will partially agree with him in that why should the guy take out his anger at the ex-wife on the kid he's been father to for 16 years? I guess in this case it should ideally be voluntary for him to continue paying child support - but th kind fatherly thing to do would be to keep paying. Maybe this guy hates his family - don't know. I do think, while he shouldn't be forced to pay by the courts, he should not want to hurt his kid for something his ex-wife did. Hate the ex and hope she falls down the stairs if he likes, stick Voodoo pins in a doll of the ex if he likes, but don't blame the kid - the kid didn't cheat on him.
If your wife has a baby, didn't say she cheated, your name is on the birth certificate, and you raise the kid for years and years - in a way it IS your kid both psychologically and legally. What, is the kid going to hunt down the drunk one night stand and say "daddy, I love you!" to him? Unlikely. What is the point in getting a DNA test on a 16 year old anyway - are you going to disown your kid after 16 years because technically it isn't your kid?
While i don't normally agree with MLAM, I will partially agree with him in that why should the guy take out his anger at the ex-wife on the kid he's been father to for 16 years? I guess in this case it should ideally be voluntary for him to continue paying child support - but th kind fatherly thing to do would be to keep paying. Maybe this guy hates his family - don't know. I do think, while he shouldn't be forced to pay by the courts, he should not want to hurt his kid for something his ex-wife did. Hate the ex and hope she falls down the stairs if he likes, stick Voodoo pins in a doll of the ex if he likes, but don't blame the kid - the kid didn't cheat on him.
MLAM said:
No--make that yes, no kids, never married
but I know some men who are lawyers in the USA and I can ask them questions (for free)...this was in the Star today I show one guy the story, he wasn't surprised, said it sounds like Canada is now copying the USA.No...
...it wasn't about the validity of your information...it is that I see a pattern - it appears those who seem to be advocating or are at least comfortable with the idea of a man walking away from kid who has only known him as their father have never raised / loved a kid themselves, hence the car analogies and the like.
There was a program on TV last night - it looked at three couples who were divorcing, and how each of them were pulling out all stops to keep the impact to the kids to a minimum. There were all sorts of stats cited referencing how much more well adjusted, both in childhood AND adulthood, children were if they had (presumably positive) relationships with BOTH parents. In fact, it seems that divorce itself was a non factor...the key for development of the kids was the relationships.
After watching this I thought to myself...I wonder how some of you would have felt if your Dad had come to you in your late teens and said...
"Hey kid, I know I told you I loved you, that I'd always be here for you, that it was my pleasure to provide for you and see you evolve from a child into a man, but, to be honest, I didn't mean that shit. The truth is, I only hung around because I felt obligated, since I assumed I was responsible for your existence, and because your mom was still letting me fuck her periodically. Now that those things are changing, and a new reality has come to be, well, I can't bothered anymore. Good luck."
THAT is why the it is "mandatory"...because just like the guy in the article referenced in this thread, some petty self centered fuckers would do EXACTLY that...choosing to have more money in their pocket over the well being (psychologically, emotionally and otherwise) of a child who loves and cares about them as the only Dad they have ever known, even if "Dad" could give a shit. It is mandatory because the children are blameless and defenseless...and unfortunately are not yet callous and uncaring enough to be able to properly dismiss themselves from any attachment to the piece of shit that used to be their father.
Thank God for judges and courts...
S.C. Joe said:No--make that yes, no kids, never married
...it wasn't about the validity of your information...it is that I see a pattern - it appears those who seem to be advocating or are at least comfortable with the idea of a man walking away from kid who has only known him as their father have never raised / loved a kid themselves, hence the car analogies and the like.
There was a program on TV last night - it looked at three couples who were divorcing, and how each of them were pulling out all stops to keep the impact to the kids to a minimum. There were all sorts of stats cited referencing how much more well adjusted, both in childhood AND adulthood, children were if they had (presumably positive) relationships with BOTH parents. In fact, it seems that divorce itself was a non factor...the key for development of the kids was the relationships.
After watching this I thought to myself...I wonder how some of you would have felt if your Dad had come to you in your late teens and said...
"Hey kid, I know I told you I loved you, that I'd always be here for you, that it was my pleasure to provide for you and see you evolve from a child into a man, but, to be honest, I didn't mean that shit. The truth is, I only hung around because I felt obligated, since I assumed I was responsible for your existence, and because your mom was still letting me fuck her periodically. Now that those things are changing, and a new reality has come to be, well, I can't bothered anymore. Good luck."
THAT is why the it is "mandatory"...because just like the guy in the article referenced in this thread, some petty self centered fuckers would do EXACTLY that...choosing to have more money in their pocket over the well being (psychologically, emotionally and otherwise) of a child who loves and cares about them as the only Dad they have ever known, even if "Dad" could give a shit. It is mandatory because the children are blameless and defenseless...and unfortunately are not yet callous and uncaring enough to be able to properly dismiss themselves from any attachment to the piece of shit that used to be their father.
Thank God for judges and courts...
Well this "piece of shit" father was ok in making the payments until the mother wanted to stop him from seeing the child and increase the amount of support.
What happens sometimes when the kid becomes 16-17, they can decide-make that ask-if they can move in over at the fathers house. That happen to this one lady over here, her older daughter went to college-thanks to the dad (real), and he was treating the 15 year old boy very nice-letting him have want ever he wanted..the kid ask and was allowed to leave the mothers house and move in with his father (which the mother did not want)
Its about control of the kids sometimes.
Yeah, some guys don't care about the kids thou, that is very true..same with some moms..but not as many it seems. (don't forget the mom is the one who carried the baby for 9 months)
What happens sometimes when the kid becomes 16-17, they can decide-make that ask-if they can move in over at the fathers house. That happen to this one lady over here, her older daughter went to college-thanks to the dad (real), and he was treating the 15 year old boy very nice-letting him have want ever he wanted..the kid ask and was allowed to leave the mothers house and move in with his father (which the mother did not want)
Its about control of the kids sometimes.
Yeah, some guys don't care about the kids thou, that is very true..same with some moms..but not as many it seems. (don't forget the mom is the one who carried the baby for 9 months)
So....
...that justifies his actions? Or is this just EXACTLY what I said...punishing the kids because you are pissed at their mother?
And...as I explained before, there is no such things as "increasing the payments" in Ontario...child support amounts are written in stone based on income and number of children.
Actually...I want a URL for all this...because the OP makes mention of neither...so, I want to see this article that actually cites EITHER of these contentions....
S.C. Joe said:
...that justifies his actions? Or is this just EXACTLY what I said...punishing the kids because you are pissed at their mother?
And...as I explained before, there is no such things as "increasing the payments" in Ontario...child support amounts are written in stone based on income and number of children.
Actually...I want a URL for all this...because the OP makes mention of neither...so, I want to see this article that actually cites EITHER of these contentions....
I seen about in the Star...
here...
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/563571
An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.
In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."
Pasqualino began paying child support in 1998, after the couple separated.
In 2002, the two agreed to joint custody, when they also settled that he would continue to provide monetary support.
But after Anciolina asked for an increase in payments and a reduction in the time he spent with the children, Pasqualino demanded a DNA test.
When the results showed Pasqualino was not the father, he asked to be excused from paying child support and demanded he be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars that he had paid in the past.
He claimed that their 2002 agreement failed to disclose that Anciolina had an affair while they were married, calling it an act of fraud or misrepresentation.
But according to van Rensburg, it should not be a question of whether he is the biological parent, but rather whether he was considered a parent by definition.
"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said.
"In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."
In the end, van Rensburg ruled in favour of Anciolina.
"The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children," she said.
"The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."
Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is.
The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.
here...
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/563571
An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.
In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."
Pasqualino began paying child support in 1998, after the couple separated.
In 2002, the two agreed to joint custody, when they also settled that he would continue to provide monetary support.
But after Anciolina asked for an increase in payments and a reduction in the time he spent with the children, Pasqualino demanded a DNA test.
When the results showed Pasqualino was not the father, he asked to be excused from paying child support and demanded he be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars that he had paid in the past.
He claimed that their 2002 agreement failed to disclose that Anciolina had an affair while they were married, calling it an act of fraud or misrepresentation.
But according to van Rensburg, it should not be a question of whether he is the biological parent, but rather whether he was considered a parent by definition.
"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said.
"In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."
In the end, van Rensburg ruled in favour of Anciolina.
"The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children," she said.
"The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."
Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is.
The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.
"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said.
"In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."
Yeah...she can not recall who the real father might be
what is she hiding???
"In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."
Yeah...she can not recall who the real father might be
what is she hiding???The judgement in this case kind of puts the whole legal system in question. According to the judge in this case, a person can basically lie and be rewarded for it. So now we know folks: if you happen to get conned by your wife, even if you find out you were conned, you cannot do anything about it.
I think the moral thing to do is for the "father" to continue to support the kids that were treated as his own for 16 yrs but I don't think the courts should attempt to apply the law to a moral case.
I am wondering though, does the term "legal guardian" come into play in this situation? Would the father have to be found or determined to be their legal guardian before he could be held responsible?
This kind of reminds me of the mockingbird. They fly into another bird's nest, lay their eggs there, and then fly off to party on with all the other mockingbirds letting the other bird raise the mockingbird chicks......
I think the moral thing to do is for the "father" to continue to support the kids that were treated as his own for 16 yrs but I don't think the courts should attempt to apply the law to a moral case.
I am wondering though, does the term "legal guardian" come into play in this situation? Would the father have to be found or determined to be their legal guardian before he could be held responsible?
This kind of reminds me of the mockingbird. They fly into another bird's nest, lay their eggs there, and then fly off to party on with all the other mockingbirds letting the other bird raise the mockingbird chicks......
oagre said:
I don't think there is. I remember when I went through system, they tried to intimidate me with other court cases and I refused to accept them stating, that my situation is unique and private.
BuffNaked said:
that's one of the things that burns me about court rulings. If you can prove someone did it before, it's acceptable to do now. Now this is making a BIG assumption that the decision was correct the first time. It's not like every 'first time" ruling is reviewed by the supreme court or anything.
Indeed true, however in the U.S. (at least in every state of which I'm aware) child support obligations terminate when the child reaches the age of majority.S.C. Joe said:
At least here in the USA it takes much $$$ and luck to get a case up to the supreme court.
It is-this ruling-for the best interest of the children...they come first.
I believe you can fight the child support but only at first here in the USA, once you agree to it, then its very hard to get out of it. Believe the age is 18...some parents don't stop thou...the courts sure can not make you stop spending money on your kids, no matter the ages.
Not sure what the cost DNA test are, they might not be cheap but it seems good measure to get it done when a women has a baby and writes your name down as the father---yeah I'm not married, I am looking at this as a business transaction, not as a loving caring relationship.
PS...I like to add that just cause the kid looks like you, what if the real father happens to be your brother--maybe even your father..uncle, etc. ??
It is-this ruling-for the best interest of the children...they come first.
I believe you can fight the child support but only at first here in the USA, once you agree to it, then its very hard to get out of it. Believe the age is 18...some parents don't stop thou...the courts sure can not make you stop spending money on your kids, no matter the ages.
Not sure what the cost DNA test are, they might not be cheap but it seems good measure to get it done when a women has a baby and writes your name down as the father---yeah I'm not married, I am looking at this as a business transaction, not as a loving caring relationship.
PS...I like to add that just cause the kid looks like you, what if the real father happens to be your brother--maybe even your father..uncle, etc. ??
S.C. Joe said:
Okay. Well, there you go. If he had asked for the DNA tests back in 1998 when he first litigated the issue of child support, he might have had a shot.
You can't wait 10 years into the situation and then get the tests and take the position that you do not have to pay child support. There is an obligation of due diligence and this guy fell WAY short!
(In fact, you could say this guy relied on "due indolence")
Similar threads
