Page 40 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3038394041 LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 410

Thread: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

  1. #391
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

    I have absolutely no sympathy for this man. Married for sixteen years, raising four children for over a decade-- and he demands a paternity test when he gets a divorce? I think about the message that sends his children and all I can think is "**** this guy". And I reject the notion that, again, after a decade of raising three children that he is anything but their real father.
    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Since he's raised the children as his I find it tacky that he'd try to get out of child support.

    However the woman who allegedly admits to having slept around, and who believes the three girls all have different fathers....she's a piece of **** tramp. He'd likely have done differently if she'd been honest when the first child was born. Her lies created this situation, and I understand his reaction...even if I don't like it.
    It's difficult to come to a fair conclusion on this issue.

    Yes, he was "their father," and raised them. It's crappy of him to demand a paternity test when getting a divorce. Why not sooner?

    But, the woman knew she was with other men, so she may have known they were not his, and that he had been deceived, which must have been a double-whammy emotional punch.

    Does child support only apply to blood children? That's the question in my mind.

  2. #392
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Does child support only apply to blood children? That's the question in my mind.
    In most of the US and Canada, it applies to any child born within wedlock as well as to blood children.

  3. #393
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    In most of the US and Canada, it applies to any child born within wedlock as well as to blood children.
    Hm...

    You learn something new every day. Thanks.

  4. #394
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,968

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    I'm not really interested in what the relationship the step dad has with these kids. That's not really relevant, legalistically speaking. We can only speculate as to how close this man was with his kids. For all we know he was a bastard of a step dad and this doesn't really matter.

    Legally speaking, if you're syring offspring you should be responsible for them. This step dad was doing the mother a service by helping to raise children who weren't his - but that's all it was, a service. He shoudn't be legally bound to these children when he didn't create them. If the mother cared so much about declaring him the legal father then she should have brought that up 10 years ago instead of dishing it out now just because she wants money. The mother sounds like a manipulative **** who lies and cheats her way through life in order to ensure HER comfort. If she wanted real security she would have been honest from the start instead of sleeping around in secret.

    If she wants to knock on someone's door asking for money it should be the biological father. Where is he, by the way? The article doesn't talk about that at all.

    It's a real shame that this man is now going to face financial hardship because he was compassionate with his own resources. Most men will just not get involved with someone else's kids, but he did for 10 years. Now he's being punished.

  5. #395
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    If I was deciding this case, my decision would be based on how long he cared for the kids. If he acted as the sole caregiver besides the wife for several years then I would hold him responsible for child support since the welfare of the kids is most important. In the long term, the husband will probably be glad he supported the kids so that he has a an ongoing relationship with them as they grow up. Of course he should also obtain some custody or visitation rights if he is made to pay. (assuming he doesn't have a record of abuse or neglect)

    However, if the wife has plenty of money and can comfortably care for the kids with her own money, then she should not get child support from the husband for the kids that are not his because she did use deception to get him to care for the kids. After all these years I don't think that the biological fathers should be required to pay because she waited too long to notify them and she probably deceived them about using birth control.
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 02-12-13 at 10:07 PM.

  6. #396
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Unmarried biological fathers don't have a say as to whether a child is aborted or given up for adoption. They also don't have to pay child support to the adopted child's new parents and can't take the child back. (usually) To be consistent, they also shouldn't be held financially responsible for these kids now that several years have passed, nor should they have a right to custody or visitation.

    Similarly, I don't think the biological father of the lesbian couple's kid should be held financially responsible if they split up. To me, that is even more clear cut than this case since the non-biological lesbian parent wasn't a victim of deception.

  7. #397
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    Two gametes and nine months of resource-intensive gestation which the biological mother exclusively provides. Why do you keep forgetting about that?
    I didn't forget about it, I just don't think that much matters. I don't see why you do.

    A new human being is created at conception; conception is a joint action between two folks. Both of those folks should be held responsible for the offspring they created. You seem to think that a mother has more responsibility for this act of creation than a father does, when this is not the case. It takes two to tango, as it were.


    No, the father of those three kids is definitely the victim of this awful woman's con job. Else he wouldn't have been their father.
    That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of the con was to convince him he was their father when he objectively and factually was not.

    I say again... the mother owes the victim of her deception compensation, and this liability would far exceed any potential child support that is owed. At no point did he consent to the financial obligation of providing for her children. He did not adopt these other kids. He was never presented with that option.

    He agreed to be the father of those children
    No, he never did. He was never given that choice. If he had been, he probably would have told this lady to go to hell, and for good reason.

    The children have not betrayed him.
    Agreed. Their mother betrayed her husband... and betrayed her children, too, by denying them their actual fathers, who should have been financially obliged to pay for the offspring they created. By not doing so, she has made it difficult for such financial support to be provided by the ones who are actually liable. It is cruel and unfair to insist that her victim should continue to be her victim once her ruse has been found out.

    What is sick and wrong and evil is letting a father walk away from his obligations to his children because his marriage dissolved.
    He does not have children. He has one child and he has an obligation to that child. He never had any obligation to the others, and he still does not. She lied to him and pretended as though he had such an obligation to the others... and no such obligation exists.
    Last edited by JayDubya; 02-13-13 at 02:06 AM.

  8. #398
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    I didn't forget about it, I just don't think that much matters. I don't see why you do.
    And this is why you are so often accused of disregarding women in your stance. You literally don't see the difference between nine months in a womb and fifteen minutes in the backseat of a Volkswagen.

    Likewise, you do seem to see the difference between fifteen minutes in the backseat of a Volkswagen and fifteen goddamned years of a raising child... and you seem to think that the former is more important when determining who a child's real father is. This is so morally and logically backward that I cannot conceive of how people honestly believe in it-- but almost everyone else in this thread is treating it as if it were all but self-evident.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Both of those folks should be held responsible for the offspring they created.
    Leaving abortion aside, they are not held responsible when they give the child to another family for adoption. By your logic, both of them should be forced to pay child support the entire time the child is growing up with its adoptive family-- and either of them should have the right to demand custody of the child later, if they change their mind about wanting children.

    That is the consequence of valuing genes over kinship.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of the con was to convince him he was their father when he objectively and factually was not.
    He objectively and factually raised those children for their entire lives. He is objectively and factually the only father they've ever known and he is-- as a matter of opinion-- a sorry son of a bitch for abandoning his children on the basis of their mother's treachery.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    I say again... the mother owes the victim of her deception compensation, and this liability would far exceed any potential child support that is owed.
    He doesn't owe child support to the mother, he owes it to the children. His children.

    She doesn't owe him anything, any more than he would owe her if he'd been the one cheating-- there is no compensation for the years wasted in a failed marriage.

  9. #399
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    And this is why you are so often accused of disregarding women in your stance. You literally don't see the difference between nine months in a womb and fifteen minutes in the backseat of a Volkswagen.
    There is a difference. I think you see it to be more than what it is. Pregnancy is not the act of creation; that moment already came and went.

    And it took two folks in the back of a Volkswagen or some other more comfortable place (Mallrats reference, snoooooch) to make that happen. From that moment on there was a new human that those two folks should be held responsible for.

    Likewise, you do seem to see the difference between fifteen minutes in the backseat of a Volkswagen and fifteen goddamned years of a raising child... and you seem to think that the former is more important when determining who a child's real father is. This is so morally and logically backward that I cannot conceive of how people honestly believe in it-- but almost everyone else in this thread is treating it as if it were all but self-evident.
    Let's try this another way, then.

    If the biological father had been involved with the mother, then abandoned her, and then some other man comes along, marries her, accepts that child as his own? That is something else than what happened here.

    Perhaps the word "real" is poor a choice for either in those circumstances. There is a father that embraces and accepts a child that knows he is not its biological father, but he takes on the social role and expectations of that man. He is not the biological father, but socially... and yes, I guess in a very real way, he is a father to that child. But the biological father is also a father in a very real way.

    If we're being strict about definitions and not including performing the social expectations expected of someone else, then no, such a person can never be a father... but even then, you can modify the term... "adopted father," "stepfather," etc. And we do. This is descriptive. But the biological father does not even truly need the term "biological," now does he? That's implied. Every Homo sapiens has one; we're a sexually reproducing species.

    * * *

    But in this case? The above never happened. The man never accepted that social role. He never had that opportunity. It was stolen from him. His wife betrayed him. He never, ever consented to raise the children of his wife and another man, and another man, and another man. He is socially nothing and biologically nothing. He was simply a victim. The state is compelling him to continue being his ex-wife's victim. That is wrong.

    Leaving abortion aside
    Gladly, though surely, if we are consistent individuals, and it seems we both are, the same values that inform our positions on that issue will inform our position on this issue.

    they are not held responsible when they give the child to another family for adoption.
    No, certainly not. But then, they have abdicated that responsibility... in a responsible way, in a way that allowed someone else to voluntarily accept the financial and social obligations of their role, obligations that the parents no doubt felt they could not provide. There is nothing disreputable in that, nothing to disparage, and no, the terms of this arrangement sever financial responsibility.

    By your logic, both of them should be forced to pay child support the entire time the child is growing up with its adoptive family-- and either of them should have the right to demand custody of the child later, if they change their mind about wanting children.
    No, certainly not. See above.

    He objectively and factually raised those children for their entire lives. He is objectively and factually the only father they've ever known and he is-- as a matter of opinion-- a sorry son of a bitch for abandoning his children on the basis of their mother's treachery.
    They are not his children, not socially or biologically. He never agreed to adopt the children of three unknown men and his unfaithful wife.

    He doesn't owe child support to the mother, he owes it to the children. His children.
    He is financially responsible for his child... and only his child. He created that child.

    He never agreed to adopt the other three.

    She doesn't owe him anything, any more than he would owe her if he'd been the one cheating-- there is no compensation for the years wasted in a failed marriage.
    No, not for that... But she does owe him.

    How much is 50% of the room and board expenses for three children over the course of over a dozen years? He never had the opportunity to agree to pay for those expenses that he was not liable for. He was the victim of a con, a fraud, and frankly he should be entitled to recompense.

  10. #400
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Dad must pay child support for 3 kids that aren't his: Court rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    There is a difference. I think you see it to be more than what it is. Pregnancy is not the act of creation; that moment already came and went.
    Fair enough. I hold that the moment of creation is much later-- when the final and most important piece of the child is added.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Let's try this another way, then.

    If the biological father had been involved with the mother, then abandoned her, and then some other man comes along, marries her, accepts that child as his own? That is something else than what happened here.
    There's a difference, but I can not say that it is an important difference as far as it pertains to the relationship between father and child. It is certainly relevant to the relationship between husband and wife... but the bond between parents and children is much harder to break, and can never be done honorably. Since it is not the child that has betrayed the father and betrayed the relationship, the father cannot break the ties, cannot abandon the child, with any kind of honor intact. He has a moral obligation to that child beyond any such relationship he may have with the child's mother and it does not matter that he entered into that relationship and obligation under false pretenses because the wrongdoing was not on the part of the child. The child is an innocent now twice victimized, once by the lost of his home and second by the loss of his father.

    And you are condoning this, which I find unconscionable.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    But the biological father is also a father in a very real way.
    I disagree entirely. What is a biological father? Unless he is right there in the child's life, unless he is morally responsible for and to the child... he's nothing more than a miserable pile of medical history.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    If we're being strict about definitions and not including performing the social expectations expected of someone else, then no, such a person can never be a father... but even then, you can modify the term... "adopted father," "stepfather," etc. And we do. This is descriptive. But the biological father does not even truly need the term "biological," now does he? That's implied. Every Homo sapiens has one; we're a sexually reproducing species.
    That's not being "strict" with our definitions, that's being simplistic. Overly simplistic. Any definition of "father" that ignores social expectations is unfit for describing the roles of human beings in society; if we are discussing terms that are only suitable for animal husbandry, the appropriate term is not "father" but "sire".

    Every human being has a biological father, but there's no shortage of bastards in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    But in this case? The above never happened. The man never accepted that social role. He never had that opportunity. It was stolen from him. His wife betrayed him. He never, ever consented to raise the children of his wife and another man, and another man, and another man. He is socially nothing and biologically nothing. He was simply a victim. The state is compelling him to continue being his ex-wife's victim. That is wrong.
    If he did not accept the burdens and the privileges of fatherhood, what do you call what he has been doing the last sixteen years? Has he not been proud of his children? Has he not loved them, and enjoyed their love in return?

    He didn't consent to wear horns, and he divorced his wife when he found out... but he absolutely consented to raise those children and their mother's perfidy has no bearing on that decision. It may have if he'd known at the time... but the fact that he didn't doesn't change the fact that he is obligated to the children he agreed to raise. That he did so under false pretenses is unfortunate, tragic, and potentially criminal... but that in no fashion relieves him of any moral obligation whatsoever that he owes to the children who bear his name and know him as their father.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Gladly, though surely, if we are consistent individuals, and it seems we both are, the same values that inform our positions on that issue will inform our position on this issue.
    Of course. But we can discuss those principles without bringing in an issue that is irrelevant to this case and likely to inflame the other posters. Our principles apply to this case in a different fashion than they do in abortion arguments-- here, I am the one arguing for moral obligation to the children and you are the one arguing against, despite that we are basing our opinions in both cases on the same set of principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    No, certainly not. But then, they have abdicated that responsibility... in a responsible way, in a way that allowed someone else to voluntarily accept the financial and social obligations of their role, obligations that the parents no doubt felt they could not provide. There is nothing disreputable in that, nothing to disparage, and no, the terms of this arrangement sever financial responsibility.
    But the father having taken responsibility of those children from birth does not also do this for the adulterers? How does it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    They are not his children, not socially or biologically. He never agreed to adopt the children of three unknown men and his unfaithful wife.
    He agreed to raise the children of his wife. That they were not his biological children is her treachery, and in no way absolves him of his responsibility to them.

    He held those children in his arms and gave them his name and his family. Her bad acts cannot justify retribution against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    How much is 50% of the room and board expenses for three children over the course of over a dozen years? He never had the opportunity to agree to pay for those expenses that he was not liable for. He was the victim of a con, a fraud, and frankly he should be entitled to recompense.
    He has three beautiful children. He should count his blessings.

    You must really think very little of them, that you think he should be repaid for the burden of having raised them.

Page 40 of 41 FirstFirst ... 3038394041 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •