• 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

I wrote: "The rights of the children trump all others in such cases - it always has and always will."

Your response is this:
Henrin said:
Which isn't right and simply stating that fact doesn't support it.
Click to expand...

Then you say:

You can't dissolve rights by non-action. Your statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Apparently you think YOU can - as long as it's the rights of the children that are dissolved . . . That's exactly what you're supporting . . . you want to dissolve the rights of these children. :shrug: No. I'm wrong. I'll restate: you don't even want to dissolve the rights of the children - you want to pretend they don't have any.

They do matter. They matter a lot. They have rights and they matter - more than anything else. Nothing more to say, really.
 
The guy wanted to be in the children's lives, the mother said no way, but that she still wanted child support.

I'm trying to find the original article, but he was paid out 40k in damages from his ex-wife after learning, post divorce, that the children weren't his via Canada's paternity fraud laws.
 
Samhain said:
The guy wanted to be in the children's lives, the mother said no way, but that she still wanted child support.

I'm trying to find the original article, but he was paid out 40k in damages from his ex-wife after learning, post divorce, that the children weren't his via Canada's paternity fraud laws.
Click to expand...

If you can find more revealing articles that would be great - the ones I've found are so slim
 
Last edited:
I haven't read all the posts on this, but I may have a somewhat different POV.
There seems to be an assumption in most posts that the husband didn't have sex with other women. If the wife is having sex with other men as often as the results suggest, the husband should have known. And, my guess is that he did know.
 
clownboy said:
Except in many cases it's not. If the mother can't afford to live on her own efforts, where do you think the child support money is going to go?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. If the child is living in that house, and the mother is using support money to pay for things like rent, food, utilities, etc. then it is deemed to benefit the child regardless of whether or not the mother also benefits. I mean you can't rightly say that the child lives in the house but the mother, what? Lives in the back yard?

Generally speaking from my limited exposure, the child support part of the divorce comes AFTER child custody and visitation are discussed. Perhaps he lost all parental rights, not being their [legal] father and after hearing that objects to paying with no hopes of even having visitation with the kids again.
Click to expand...

That is the emotional side of the argument. I understand what you are saying, but in reality support of the child whether you are allowed to see said child or not, really doesn't matter in the eyes of the court.
 
j-mac said:
All due respect here Henrin....Just what in the freakin' hell are you talkin' bout here? Emotions? Rational? Let me show you how the law defines it....

You care for your estranged children by 1. paying support, and keeping it up to date, as well as providing additional financial support as needed, just as he would do if living in the home. 2. All this pap about Emotions, and Rational are just that. You want to be able to run a game on the kid thinking you are being a parent when you have already told them through your support decision, but still want the benefits of calling yourself a parent, probably to ease your own conscience for basically telling them to fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

Caring for a child, as in how you feel for the child, is different than wanting to provide for the child.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I wrote: "The rights of the children trump all others in such cases - it always has and always will."

Your response is this:

Then you say:

Apparently you think YOU can - as long as it's the rights of the children that are dissolved . . . That's exactly what you're supporting . . . you want to dissolve the rights of these children. :shrug: No. I'm wrong. I'll restate: you don't even want to dissolve the rights of the children - you want to pretend they don't have any.

They do matter. They matter a lot. They have rights and they matter - more than anything else. Nothing more to say, really.
Click to expand...

What rights are we talking about? Sorry, but I need to understand where you coming from in order to either agree with you or disagree with you.
 
Henrin said:
Caring for a child, as in how you feel for the child, is different than wanting to provide for the child.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll tell you what...Bring that line of reasoning into a court when standing in front of a Judge for failure to pay support, and after he stops laughing, you'll be lucky to stay out of jail....k?
 
j-mac said:
Well, I'll tell you what...Bring that line of reasoning into a court when standing in front of a Judge for failure to pay support, and after he stops laughing, you'll be lucky to stay out of jail....k?
Click to expand...

Don't worry that wouldn't be my argument and the problem isn't in the court, but in the law.
 
Henrin said:
Don't worry that wouldn't be my argument and the problem isn't in the court, but in the law.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that the non custodial parent should have to support their children?
 
Henrin said:
What rights are we talking about? Sorry, but I need to understand where you coming from in order to either agree with you or disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Wow - just wow, Henrin. That's tragic. You don't honestly have a clue what their rights are? You need me to spell it out for you?

"They don't have rights . . . . uuuuh - tell me what they are cause I have no ****ing clue." :roll: That's you - unbelievable.
 
man has an affair and he pays out of his ass on the Divorce settlement and child support.

Women has an affair with numerous people and man still has to pay for her kids.


Just another example of the double standard in regards tomarriage contracts in our modern society.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - just wow, Henrin. That's tragic. You don't honestly have a clue what their rights are? You need me to spell it out for you?

"They don't have rights . . . . uuuuh - tell me what they are cause I have no ****ing clue." :roll: That's you - unbelievable.
Click to expand...

No really, what rights are we dealing with here? :confused:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - just wow, Henrin. That's tragic. You don't honestly have a clue what their rights are? You need me to spell it out for you?
Click to expand...

I don't think that a person can legitimately have a right that justifies forcing another person into non-consensual servitude. Children can not have a right to support from their father until a man has agreed to be their father. It is the same argument as to why an unborn child cannot have a right that forces its biological mother to gestate against her will.
 
Henrin said:
No really, what rights are we dealing with here? :confused:
Click to expand...

No no - don't bother . . . according to you they don't have any and they don't matter.

I'll just ignore you for a while before I say something I'll regret because I generally don't get irritated with you, Henrin.
 
Higgins86 said:
man has an affair and he pays out of his ass on the Divorce settlement and child support.

Women has an affair with numerous people and man still has to pay for their kids.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. They're his kids. They've been his kids since the day he gave them his last name.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Fixed that for you. They're his kids. They've been his kids since the day he gave them his last name.
Click to expand...

If the biological father shows up, given he would have to know they exist at this point, and wants custody or to provide support, then what happens? Who wins? Biological or Social Dad?
 
Samhain said:
If the biological father shows up, given he would have to know they exist at this point, and wants custody or to provide support, then what happens? Who wins? Biological or Social Dad?
Click to expand...

Depends on the jurisdiction, sadly. "Social" Dad should win, but I've seen the family courts do some godawful ****ed-up things.

I am willing to make a gentleman's wager, though, that if the court ordered him to pay child support that they would support him in a custody dispute against the biological father.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Fixed that for you. They're his kids. They've been his kids since the day he gave them his last name.
Click to expand...

so what happens if I have a kid with my wife and find out 15 years later its not actually mine, is that tough **** because I gave it my name?
 
Higgins86 said:
so what happens if I have a kid with my wife and find out 15 years later its not actually mine, is that tough **** because I gave it my name?
Click to expand...

You can't find out fifteen years later that your child isn't yours-- the child has been yours all along, and it wasn't your child that betrayed you.

So yes, if you think that being a faithful parent to your loving child is "tough ****", then yes-- tough ****, and I don't feel the least bit bad about saying it.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
You can't find out fifteen years later that your child isn't yours-- the child has been yours all along, and it wasn't your child that betrayed you.

So yes, if you think that being a faithful parent to your loving child is "tough ****", then yes-- tough ****, and I don't feel the least bit bad about saying it.
Click to expand...

blood is thicker than water and its unfair to rob a person of raising their own blood related child.
 
Higgins86 said:
so what happens if I have a kid with my wife and find out 15 years later its not actually mine, is that tough **** because I gave it my name?
Click to expand...

"It"?? Would it change how you felt about that child after having raised them for 15 years??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom