All I can say is WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drI1YdbTSx8&feature=rec-HM-rev-rn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drI1YdbTSx8&feature=rec-HM-rev-rn
Man in jail for not paying child support for a kid thats not his
- Thread starter gramage
- Start date
A lawyer could better describe this. You don't have to be a maternal parent to be responsible for support, you just have to be defined as a parent to the child.
There are situations where if you can be proven to fill the role as parent, you can be made responsible for paying support in Ontario as least.
There are situations where if you can be proven to fill the role as parent, you can be made responsible for paying support in Ontario as least.
Problem here seems to be he never went to Family Court and demanded to be relieved of the support.
From the viewpoint of the government - all they care about is having someone pay the child support. This is coupled with the (normally positive) legal presumption that the husband is the father of children of the marriage (not the case here they were not married).
Regrettably, what you need to do to keep your marriage whole, and what the legal system expects you to have done to assert your rights, should it latter turn out you are not the father of the child are just about diametrical opposites.
Regrettably, what you need to do to keep your marriage whole, and what the legal system expects you to have done to assert your rights, should it latter turn out you are not the father of the child are just about diametrical opposites.
He believed her.alan9080 said:
Also it would appear from the news articles that "he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer."
Well, while I think the judge had the discretion to order him held pending a hearing in family court; the law on non-supprot required his punishment. Going to jail is not unlikely.Aardvark154 said:
It does not matter whether you are the biological parent or not. If you adopt a child with your wife, and then you separate, then you are still responsible for the child.
If you marry a girl that has a kid already. You are married for 10 years, then you divorce. You are still responsible for the kid.
However, I agree with the guys on the Youtube video, its really stupid to put a guy like this in jail.
If you marry a girl that has a kid already. You are married for 10 years, then you divorce. You are still responsible for the kid.
However, I agree with the guys on the Youtube video, its really stupid to put a guy like this in jail.
I adopted my daughter 22 years ago and by all rights she is my baby. That said were if I were named as the father and proved I was not in NYS I would be able to stop child support. This is the US where I live not Canada and we do not hold men responsible for children that are not theirs.slowandeasy said:
A man needs to take the proof he is not the father to court and file for relief.
My experience with Domestic Relations Courts is they worry about the kids first, and not much about the adults.... I'd have to say I agree with that - and I'm one of those paying a pretty penny.
OTB
OTB
As well they should.
Still there are far too many fathers who manage to weasel out of supporting their children as they should....
Still there are far too many fathers who manage to weasel out of supporting their children as they should....
If you lived with the child as your own for 2,3,4,5 etc years how the hell can you call yourself a decent human being and try to weasel out of it after many years.papasmerf said:
The guy in question believed he was the father for 14 years (or something like that).
What's NYS???
If you were to check my posting history you would find I never regretted child support. I did begrudge her mom using it to hire lawyers.slowandeasy said:
A father is more than a check in the mail
NYS is New York State
My statement was more general, not specific to yourself. No offense (is that offence or offense.. too lazy to look it up) intended.papasmerf said:
Agreed that a father is more than a check in the mail, but that is a decision that the father makes regardless of the mothers attitude towards him.
slowandeasy said:
It would depend really... If I truly had connection wit the child then sure, I wouldn't even need to be asked.....
However if the kid in question was a little brat that constantly caused me problems the it would be EASY to say.... "Hey kid, I remember all those times you told me to fuck off, get lost & I'm not your dad????"" Cya, & enjoy the poverty.
How is it that hard???????? The kid & mother should be THANKFULL they managed to get resources for the kid as long as the man was around.....
If a woman wants the resources of one man for her & another mans child then she had better keep him happy & treat him well or he should be able to LEAVE.... period... just like that...
she sure as hell should not be able to use the givernment to hound him to provide more tan the charity he did when there was a mutual arrangement going on...
IN ALL cases except were the child was mutually adopted at the same time by both parents or BIOLOGICALLY a product of both parents The man or woman, depending on the case, should consider their obligation to support the child void as soon as they choose to leave the other person...
I think a lot of women would rethink their choices drastically if they knew that they actually had to work at keeping their man to keep his resources.
Lot fewer bastards running about if girls KNEW that simply opening their legs & conceiving entitled them to nothing other than a hungry baby instead of 18 years of basically free $$$.... most of the benefits of marriage financially with none of the responsibility
Child support should be granted in far narrower circumstances & the mothers choices that led up to the child should be taken into account. Bottom line.... if a woman wants/needs a man to support her & her kid she should have to find a man AND keep him in order to get it.... I'm in total support of natural law here
When above in #5 I postedslowandeasy said:
This is one of the things I was mentioning. Not that DNA tests were available two decades ago, but if they were saying 'Sweetheart, I love you so much! By the way, I'm having a paternaty test done on our baby' is not condusive to having the marriage last. Yet that is pretty much what the court is going to require (and that you then stated that the child was not yours) to get out from under child support.Aardvark154 said:
I do not have an 'easy answer' but the current system has as it's very last priorty fathers.
I think if people truly believed in equal rights and want to make sure fathers are not defrauded, there should be mandatory DNA testing upon birth of child to confirm the father before the father's name goes on the birth certificate. It's quick, it's easy and should simply be done so that everyone is protected (including the child).
