• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Honestly - I think it's a bit worse to reject children you LOVE - how can anything break that love?

I have four children - two fathers - and nothing - NOTHING - would ever make me love them less or turn away from them. There's nothing they could ever say or do. They could hate me - hell - they could probably murder their father or turn into psychos and kill kids in school and somehow I know I'd still ****ing love them any damned way.

Because that love might get sidelined by crazy **** - but it can never break.

Did he ever love them? OR did they just have the ****tiest family ever and hang on for far too damn long - cheating over and over on her part sounds like they were all just living a sham and no one was vested in it emotionally . . . so why did they stay together?

Ugh! What a mind**** . . . and who gets it in the end? The children - which is just horrifically tragic.

I don't think I could stop loving my children, even if I found out one or both, weren't mine.
With all that said, I think I'd need a good bit of counseling.

In my opinion, infidelity should be considered spousal abuse.
 
They should change the law like they did in Texas a while back.

Until the law is changed no men should ever sign any form claiming paternity without a DNA test.

Men need to stand up for their rights.
 
To be fair, the man was a father to those children due to extreme coercion and fraud on behalf of the bio-mom. To dismiss the natural biological rights of the bio-dads based upon the mother's deception and lies is also a serious issue here. I completely reject the idea that the biological father of any child is without rights to those children on the basis of the bio-mother's whims.

That said, the acting father's rights were never fully exercised at an appropriate time because of the fraud perpetrated against him. As much as the bio-fathers' rights were infringed, so were those of the acting father. The only person in the initial scenario guilty of any offense is the whoreish bio-mom.

In terms of the present issue: If you were led to believe that a child was yours and found out years later than it wasn't, would you not have a lot of initial anger and hurt? And as a human, would you not be likely to say and do things immediately upon discovering that truth that might be hurtful or counterproductive? Likewise, if you're the bio-dad of one of these children and you don't find out until years later, would you not be likely to feel as if something were taken or withheld from you?

I don't really wanna burn the guy down. He's dealing with a lot of hurt right now. I think he'll eventually realize what's best for the children and rediscover the love he has for them. But the woman? **** her. She deserves to pay for what she did.
 
To be fair, the man was a father to those children due to extreme coercion and fraud on behalf of the bio-mom. To dismiss the natural biological rights of the bio-dads based upon the mother's deception and lies is also a serious issue here. I completely reject the idea that the biological father of any child is without rights to those children on the basis of the bio-mother's whims.

That said, the acting father's rights were never fully exercised at an appropriate time because of the fraud perpetrated against him. As much as the bio-fathers' rights were infringed, so were those of the acting father. The only person in the initial scenario guilty of any offense is the whoreish bio-mom.

In terms of the present issue: If you were led to believe that a child was yours and found out years later than it wasn't, would you not have a lot of initial anger and hurt? And as a human, would you not be likely to say and do things immediately upon discovering that truth that might be hurtful or counterproductive? Likewise, if you're the bio-dad of one of these children and you don't find out until years later, would you not be likely to feel as if something were taken or withheld from you?

I don't really wanna burn the guy down. He's dealing with a lot of hurt right now. I think he'll eventually realize what's best for the children and rediscover the love he has for them. But the woman? **** her. She deserves to pay for what she did.

It would definitely be a lot to take in.
I'd probably break down.

Not so much because of the children not being biologically mine, but because of the violated trust.
My wife is one of the few people I do trust and to have that torn down, would be incredibly difficult to bear.
 
I don't know about everyplace but around here the law is pretty simple.

Who's name is on the Birth Certificate as Father, who represents themselves as the father in public and legal contracts, and that includes everything from insurance to school permission slips, and who claims the tax deduction.

IF the biological father can be found, tested and a court judgement obtained then the husband can get off the hook.

Until then the law is clear and we are a nation of laws and our local courts have to rule based on the law... (your courts may vary... :lol: )
 
I don't know about everyplace but around here the law is pretty simple.

Who's name is on the Birth Certificate as Father, who represents themselves as the father in public and legal contracts, and that includes everything from insurance to school permission slips, and who claims the tax deduction.

IF the biological father can be found, tested and a court judgement obtained then the husband can get off the hook.

Until then the law is clear and we are a nation of laws and our local courts have to rule based on the law... (your courts may vary... :lol: )

Not where I live---once the court says you are to pay support, you pay support even if you later find the dad because of the "finality of court orders" preventing you from "re-litigating a judicially decided fact". Your only remedy is to sue the real dad(s) for reimbursement of the money you have to pay, but you are on the hook until the end.
 
Not where I live---once the court says you are to pay support, you pay support even if you later find the dad because of the "finality of court orders" preventing you from "re-litigating a judicially decided fact". Your only remedy is to sue the real dad(s) for reimbursement of the money you have to pay, but you are on the hook until the end.

Child support orders are re-litigated all the time. How can this be true?
 
Child support orders are re-litigated all the time. How can this be true?

The payment amount is relitigated all the time when financial things change, but who is liable is not--not in my state, not in the state in which I went to law school, and apparently not in Canada either. Once the final order is entered finding you to be the father then you are the father for the purpose of child support until the end "as a matter of public policy" is usually thrown in there somewhere too. You have to fight it all the way up the chain of appeals to keep the order from being finalized if you have doubt. It is my understanding that they are now making the unmarried father sign the birth certificate if his name appears on it for the very reason of forcing people to acknowledge/deny paternity for support. No signature,no daddy listed.
 
Aside from the fact that we've had this argument before, you do realize that this news story is the courts acting according to my views and not yours, right?

I was addressing the op and your view that its outrageous he demand a DNA test. I happen to find nothing wrong with what he did and I would do the exact same thing. As for child support and the states involvement, I don't even agree with the concept, so I have nothing to say about that.

He is not the biological father of three of his four children. The court is demanding, rightfully, that he pay child support for those three anyway because they are still his children.

Yes, I realize this, but like I told you last time acting in the role of a father is not the same thing as being the father of the kids. The court was wrong and its just that simple.
 
In terms of the present issue: If you were led to believe that a child was yours and found out years later than it wasn't, would you not have a lot of initial anger and hurt? And as a human, would you not be likely to say and do things immediately upon discovering that truth that might be hurtful or counterproductive? Likewise, if you're the bio-dad of one of these children and you don't find out until years later, would you not be likely to feel as if something were taken or withheld from you?

I've been cheated on before; it hurts. Maybe this is something I don't understand because I don't have children of my own yet... but my worst nightmare is having children and then having them taken from me. I can't imagine choosing to turn my back on my children for something that someone else did. The very idea of it nauseates me.

Then again... I would never be tricked into raising a child that wasn't my own-- biologically-- because I would never raise a child on the sole basis that it's got my DNA. If I ever become a father, it will be because I want to have children, and hopefully because I love their mother. The latter might change, especially if she's been cheating on me for years, but the former never will and a paternity test cannot break the bond that exists between a father and his children.

As for your other question... no, I can't say that I would feel like I'd been cheated or stolen from. I want children, and I want a family, but I don't believe anyone is entitled to give these things to me. If I'm not married to the mother, then there's a good reason why I didn't marry her and at least some kind of reason why she didn't tell me about the child. I might wonder about what might have been, but the child's rightful place is with its family, not with strangers.

Yes, I realize this, but like I told you last time acting in the role of a father is not the same thing as being the father of the kids. The court was wrong and its just that simple.

Your definition of "father" is morally deficient if you don't consider raising children to be important. The court stood up for the institution of family at the expense of biological idiocy and I, for one, applaud them.
 
Last edited:
Why do people assume that because he didn't want to pay child support for kids that are not his own that he doesn't love the kids? How is the one automatically the other? It seems to me all he is doing is saying those kids are not my kids and I do not want to financially support them. Perhaps its not the nicest thing to convey, but it doesn't mean he doesn't love them.
 
Raising kids has all that loving heartfelt crap that goes with it. And then there is carrying on your lineage. If the kids didnt come from his nuttsack they arent his. A court trying to make him pay goes to show you that attorneys are spiders and the common populace are flies. Marriage is a giant conspiracy we force upon kids. Either you will be together with someone forever or you wont.

Its up to the mom to find the real daddies now. This guy needs to have his resources available in case he tries to actually spread lineage for reals and have it actually count this time. He didnt volunteer to adopt a kid. He thought it was his descendant.

If he wanted to keep raising the children as his own that would be his choice but shouldn't be forced upon him.
 
Last edited:
Raising kids has all that loving heartfelt crap that goes with it. And then there is carrying on your lineage. If the kids didnt come from his nuttsack they arent his. A court trying to make him pay goes to show you that attorneys are spiders and the common populace are flies. Marriage is a giant conspiracy we force upon kids. Either you will be together with someone forever or you wont.

Actually it is more along the lines of: It is better that someone else pay to support the kids than the government pay to support the kids, so sucks to be you, but gotcha.......

It is a 100% BS situation that turns any idea of principle or fairness on its head, but that is our government at work. If the baby doesn't look at all like all the other babies in your family in some way or the other, get the DNA test before you ever acknowledge the child as yours......
 
Why do people assume that because he didn't want to pay child support for kids that are not his own that he doesn't love the kids? How is the one automatically the other? It seems to me all he is doing is saying those kids are not my kids and I do not want to financially support them. Perhaps its not the nicest thing to convey, but it doesn't mean he doesn't love them.

You gonna tell me that if your father looked you in the eye and said "You are not my son" that you wouldn't be ****ing heartbroken? You seriously going to tell me that a man who loves his children could do that to them?
 
Why do people assume that because he didn't want to pay child support for kids that are not his own that he doesn't love the kids? How is the one automatically the other? It seems to me all he is doing is saying those kids are not my kids and I do not want to financially support them. Perhaps its not the nicest thing to convey, but it doesn't mean he doesn't love them.

You gonna tell me that if your father looked you in the eye and said "You are not my son" that you wouldn't be ****ing heartbroken? You seriously going to tell me that a man who loves his children could do that to them?
 
If the baby doesn't look at all like all the other babies in your family in some way or the other, get the DNA test before you ever acknowledge the child as yours......

It's mine if I say it's mine. If Pancho wants to come after my children after having his way with my wife, I'll kill him and there won't be anyone left to complain.
 
If he still had custody of the kids, then I'd say the court was correct, but then he wouldn't need to be paying child support in the first place. The court should have gone after the biological father(s) of these children. And before we go all weepy, children are affected in all sorts of ways by a divorce. They often "lose" mother or father effectively.

I lean more toward Viktyr's view of family, but I know not everyone else does, nor do I think it should be enshrined in law. Once he's divorced, the kids not living with him, and he finds out the kids aren't his, there's no way taking child support from him is the right thing to do. The court should be goijng after the bio father(s). If he's the sort that believes as Viktyr does, then he is free to continue his love and financial support on top of what the bio fathers pay.

This is simply the court being lazy by default.
 
A rather backward ruling that opens up forcing child support on anyone remotely involved in the raising of any child. Thankfully its Canada.

From the emotional side of it, I get where you are coming from Viktyr, but legally he isn't monetarily responsible for their upbringing.
 
To be fair, the man was a father to those children due to extreme coercion and fraud on behalf of the bio-mom. To dismiss the natural biological rights of the bio-dads based upon the mother's deception and lies is also a serious issue here. I completely reject the idea that the biological father of any child is without rights to those children on the basis of the bio-mother's whims.

That said, the acting father's rights were never fully exercised at an appropriate time because of the fraud perpetrated against him. As much as the bio-fathers' rights were infringed, so were those of the acting father. The only person in the initial scenario guilty of any offense is the whoreish bio-mom.

In terms of the present issue: If you were led to believe that a child was yours and found out years later than it wasn't, would you not have a lot of initial anger and hurt? And as a human, would you not be likely to say and do things immediately upon discovering that truth that might be hurtful or counterproductive? Likewise, if you're the bio-dad of one of these children and you don't find out until years later, would you not be likely to feel as if something were taken or withheld from you?

I don't really wanna burn the guy down. He's dealing with a lot of hurt right now. I think he'll eventually realize what's best for the children and rediscover the love he has for them. But the woman? **** her. She deserves to pay for what she did.

It is called paternity fraud and he should be eligible to get back all of the money he spent raising the children he believed to be his own. This court was 180 degrees from reality.
 
You gonna tell me that if your father looked you in the eye and said "You are not my son" that you wouldn't be ****ing heartbroken?

No, I wouldn't. I would however be interested to know who is.

You seriously going to tell me that a man who loves his children could do that to them?

Yes, actually. If he is not the father of the kids that is information they should know.
 
I lean more toward Viktyr's view of family, but I know not everyone else does, nor do I think it should be enshrined in law. Once he's divorced, the kids not living with him, and he finds out the kids aren't his, there's no way taking child support from him is the right thing to do. The court should be goijng after the bio father(s). If he's the sort that believes as Viktyr does, then he is free to continue his love and financial support on top of what the bio fathers pay.

See, and the argument over the biodads aside, I just can't accept-- morally or legally-- that a father should be allowed to walk away from his obligations to his children. It's not like they're newborn infants, ready for adoption; these are his children, name and soul.
 
A rather backward ruling that opens up forcing child support on anyone remotely involved in the raising of any child. Thankfully its Canada.

From the emotional side of it, I get where you are coming from Viktyr, but legally he isn't monetarily responsible for their upbringing.

LOL - it's not like he was her sidelined boyfriend.

He was IS their father - from the moment they were born . . . he was there when they were born - wiped their butts and spoonfed them babycrap from a jar. Took them to school and had parent teacher conferences. Took care of them when they were sick. He RAISED them with her. **** biology. The mother was wrong to cheat but she chose not to involve those other men - that was her right . . . if they want to challenge that it'll be a whole nother court case.

These children - teenagers (ages 12, 14, and 16) are not invalids to be shoveled as a gross burden to some random men who they didn't know - and should never know, honestly, unless they WANT to.

He is and will likely be the only father in their lives - ask them if DNA really mattes . . . I bet you they'd say no. For 12, 14 and 16 years he's all they've ever known.

Don't you dare minimize that
 
A rather backward ruling that opens up forcing child support on anyone remotely involved in the raising of any child. Thankfully its Canada.

From the emotional side of it, I get where you are coming from Viktyr, but legally he isn't monetarily responsible for their upbringing.

Are you kidding me? He is listed as their father on their birth certificates, he is the only father that these kids have ever known and he has supported them since birth. Daddy, legal guardian and supporting parent are not determined by DNA alone. Just what, in the judge's ruling, did you not understand as being legally binding?
 
A rather backward ruling that opens up forcing child support on anyone remotely involved in the raising of any child. Thankfully its Canada.

From the emotional side of it, I get where you are coming from Viktyr, but legally he isn't monetarily responsible for their upbringing.

Legally, he is and he would be in the majority of the United States as well.

It is called paternity fraud and he should be eligible to get back all of the money he spent raising the children he believed to be his own. This court was 180 degrees from reality.

Paternity fraud is not legally recognized as a crime and I doubt it's recognized as the basis for a civil suit.

No, I wouldn't. I would however be interested to know who is.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you for a second. Unless your relationship with your father is terrible or you're some kind of sentient lizardpeople, being rejected by your father like that would be a crushing blow.

Yes, actually. If he is not the father of the kids that is information they should know.

For medical purposes, sure. They already know who their father is.
 
See, and the argument over the biodads aside, I just can't accept-- morally or legally-- that a father should be allowed to walk away from his obligations to his children. It's not like they're newborn infants, ready for adoption; these are his children, name and soul.

I'm sorry Viktyr, but in every other sense, even legally for everything else, they are NOT his children. He's no longer married to their mother, they are not in his custody and he is not their biological/legal father. The name means nothing and the soul? Since when is the soul recognised by Canadian law?

Had they not been married but he had lived with the gal all these years and then decided to split would he have to pay child support then? Legally.

The ruling was wrong and lazy.
 
Back
Top Bottom