Interesting child support case

[S.C. Joe]

..Those are HIS kids...HE raised them. He should value that more than petty revenge or money.

True, we haven't hear what happen on his visitation rights...like I said, sometimes the teenagers move in with their dad, the mother is trying to cut off contact with the 16 years old...like to stop that once they are out of high school.

 

[Jade4u]

Nor do I expect you would be for long.

If someone you for a DNA test on the birth of "your" child you have a good chance of kissing you relationship goodbye if you the father or not.

So true, my ex I had two sons with him. He never did tests on the babies and I know darned well they are his. If he did have it done that would just show how much he trusted me. Usually men do that only if they have suspicions and/or if a wife gets caught cheating and it is needed. I doubt most people do tests to check unless they are in some sort of flimsy relationship. If they feel there is commitment then why would they?

 

[S.C. Joe]

No, it be a waste of cash and shows you don't trust her...but when she ask for support, then the gloves are off

 

[S.C. Joe]

The Star story said he ask for the tens of thousands of dollars he spent on support back...he might still love the kids but now really hates his ex-wife.

Put yourself in his shoes, he believes his wife was willing cheating on him and was laughing behind his back...her only excuse is if some jerk knock her out with drugs and raped her...and she did not know it.

Either that or she was willing cheating on him.


Did I say I am glad I'm not married, lol.

 

[Aardvark154]

he must have either agreed to in a separation agreement or was ordered to by a judge.

And yes, if there's any doubt about paternity, my advice to any client is to get a DNA test before you pay. Once you agree to pay (or do not dispute paternity before a judge), you have accepted the financial responsibility of being a dad.

There might be some leeway if it was just a couple of years. But again, this guy took 16 years to decide he was a cuckold and scream 'foul'. Way too long!

Oagre, as I said some posts ago the difficulty with the law as it is in most North American jurisdictions is that it flies in the face of marital reconciliation which, ironicaly, most legislatures see as a priority.

There is no better way to send a troubled marriage off into divorce than to accuse one of the parties (either directly or indirectly) of adultery, yet as you said (and I also previously said) in most jurisdictions if you allow time to go by (and treat the children as your own) “too bad, so sad.”

 

[Aardvark154]

Guys, the thing you have to understand is that the judge's main concern is that the children have enough to eat and a roof over their head. The judge has to balance the fact the guy was - apparently - conned and lied to with the fact that he has been the only financially responsible guy in these kids' lives for the last decade and a half and they practically depend on him.

Under the circumstances, the Law chooses to protect the kids and not the adult male. It's a rational societal choice. There you go.

Indeed true, and I believe I implied that, although I did not explicitly state it back in post #29.

 

[themexi]

Originally Posted by BuffNaked
Why doesn't he just write up an affidavit saying he is no longer assuming the role of parent?


Because there are a large number of appeal court rulings in all provinces holding that a man cannot withdraw

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.

Are you saying that there is a legal way to file an affidavit that allows you to disown your kids & absolve yourself of responsibility?

 

[a 1 player]

Are you saying that there is a legal way to file an affidavit that allows you to disown your kids & absolve yourself of responsibility?

I'm not a professional, but I do not think that there is, unless one counts adoption.

 

[themexi]

Everybody seems to be saying that despite the fact that this "lady" commited Fraud, the judge is basically disregarding that "for the sake of the children".

We have also touched upon the legal concept of precedent.

How about the precedents set by, o I don't know, EVERY criminal case where the convicted has Kids????

If you break the law & get a prison sentence, the judges don't give a FUCK about "the sake of the children".

Daddy embezzeled $$ from work.... Fines & Jail..... kids can go on welfare for $$ now that daddy's locked up. Daddy fucked up...family suffers, Including the children.



In This case.... MOMMY is the fraudster & both daddy & kids are victims. Of course for some reason it makes no sense to punish the criminal.... hell no daddy did nothing wrong so he's still able to fork out cash...


Seriously... with the twisted laws & enforcement thereof in this post Steinem/Dr. Spock Liberal PC nightmare we call a country I really have Zero respect for the rule of law or the institution of marriage.

 

[themexi]

I'm not a professional, but I do not think that there is, unless one counts adoption.

So if someone has a drunken frolic with a girl at a bar & she tracks him down 9 months later saying he's the daddy & looking for support there's actually a chance he cn do this?

 

[a 1 player]

So if someone has a drunken frolic with a girl at a bar & she tracks him down 9 months later saying he's the daddy & looking for support there's actually a chance he cn do this?

I don't think so. I may have posted out of context of the thread. My apologies.

 

[themexi]

I don't think so. I may have posted out of context of the thread. My apologies.

Is the affidavit for fathers in a divorce setting then? Just curious because I would be ok with this whole family court fucktardery if they included even one faint hope for men in difficult situations. Had a few buddies get their lives ruined by family law.

 

[Jade4u]

How many men would like to hear 16 years later they are fathers even if she knew who this man was? My bet is the man would tell her to f off anyways and that he doesn't know these children and therefore does not want his life changed from children that are basically grown up anyways. He would say he was not there all those years and feels no obligation towards these children anyhow. How would the courts perceive this anyways if these were the real fathers spoken words? Basically an exact opposite scenario.

 

[RTRD]

Might I gentlely remind you...

Everybody seems to be saying that despite the fact that this "lady" commited Fraud, the judge is basically disregarding that "for the sake of the children".

We have also touched upon the legal concept of precedent.

How about the precedents set by, o I don't know, EVERY criminal case where the convicted has Kids????

If you break the law & get a prison sentence, the judges don't give a FUCK about "the sake of the children".

Daddy embezzeled $$ from work.... Fines & Jail..... kids can go on welfare for $$ now that daddy's locked up. Daddy fucked up...family suffers, Including the children.



In This case.... MOMMY is the fraudster & both daddy & kids are victims. Of course for some reason it makes no sense to punish the criminal.... hell no daddy did nothing wrong so he's still able to fork out cash...


Seriously... with the twisted laws & enforcement thereof in this post Steinem/Dr. Spock Liberal PC nightmare we call a country I really have Zero respect for the rule of law or the institution of marriage.

..that neither infidelity nor lying to ones spouse is actually a crime.

I might also add that in criminal cases, it is presumed that administration of justice overs a benefit to society at large. I am not sure what benefit there would come from ruining the lives of a couple children.

So far, all of the "he shouldn't have to, and he is right to try not to" camp have been unmarried guys with no children. Does that apply to you as well?

 

[themexi]

How many men would like to hear 16 years later they are fathers even if she knew who this man was? My bet is the man would tell her to f off anyways and that he doesn't know these children and therefore does not want his life changed from children that are basically grown up anyways. He would say he was not there all those years and feels no obligation towards these children anyhow. How would the courts perceive this anyways if these were the real fathers spoken words? Basically an exact opposite scenario.

They'd make him pay.

Hell if the courts could get away with picking random men off the street & make them pay to support a woman & her kids they'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Yeah, we are forgetting about the real dad here...this guy goes messing around with a married women, uses no protection, gets her knock up and he gets off with paying no child support, nobody finding out he was screwing around with a married lady, nothing

 

[S.C. Joe]

With DNA they could prove if a guy is the father but they need to match his DNA. With no name to go on, good luck. There is dated bases with DNA now from prisoners to help solve rape cases but I don't think they look for fathers that way..besides this guy might never been arrested.

 

[themexi]

..that neither infidelity nor lying to ones spouse is actually a crime.

I might also add that in criminal cases, it is presumed that administration of justice overs a benefit to society at large. I am not sure what benefit there would come from ruining the lives of a couple children.

So far, all of the "he shouldn't have to, and he is right to try not to" camp have been unmarried guys with no children. Does that apply to you as well?

If that lying caused him to pay out $$ to support kids that weren't his then she deprived him of property through deceit & I'm sorry it's FRAUD & FRAUD is a crime.

Personally I think Infidelity not consented to by ones marital partner SHOULD be illegal if divorce laws were made to be more fair to both genders.

I don't see the need to pander to your generalizations on the demographics of opinion holders on this issue so I'll simply ask you mind your own business & stick to the Facts being debated, not the marital status of those you are debating.

 

[RTRD]

As explained above...

If that lying caused him to pay out $$ to support kids that weren't his then she deprived him of property through deceit & I'm sorry it's FRAUD & FRAUD is a crime.

Personally I think Infidelity not consented to by ones marital partner SHOULD be illegal if divorce laws were made to be more fair to both genders.

I don't see the need to pander to your generalizations on the demographics of opinion holders on this issue so I'll simply ask you mind your own business & stick to the Facts being debated, not the marital status of those you are debating.

...she didn't "lie"...she was sleeping with two different men...she'd have no way to know who the biological father was.

And I take it that your answers means I am correct, and so far my premise about how opinion have been formulated on this matter are correct.

 

[themexi]

...she didn't "lie"...she was sleeping with two different men...she'd have no way to know who the biological father was.

And I take it that your answers means I am correct, and so far my premise about how opinion have been formulated on this matter are correct.

How do you KNOW she didn't lie? How do You, MLAM, Personally Know that she was not lying when she said she can't remember who the father was & how do you KNOW what she told her husband if anything regarding Her kids parentage?



As for your assumptions that you are correct by my responses I'll say that you can take from my answers what you want, & probably will regardless of what anyone says & I'll ask you again to mind your own fucking business regarding my personal life.

Others my have no issue revealing personal details but I am not one of them. You seem like the type that will assume you're right no matter what I say.



The only trend I see is a marked overconfidence in what you feel you "know"