• 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

Did the guy adopt the children? Or just help raise them? If he adopted them, than yea they are his children... if not, then he is technically not financially responsible for them.
 
meh, tough situation.. a real ****ty situation actually...I'm glad it's not me in it.

his whore of an ex caused some mighty big problems for his family.. that's for damn sure.

I guess if I was in his shoes, I would pay the child support and then shoot for custody... (provided he isn't a piece of **** like his ex is)... then live a good life as revenge.


i'm a bit biased though.... I won custody of our 2 kids from my ex, and I care for my old buddies ( KIA) wife and kid ( my godson)....I'm all about fatherhood...there's no greater glory than being a good father.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, that will no doubt help the girls grow up to be well adjusted adults.
Click to expand...
Maybe the mother shouldn't be a cheating skank then.

If this man really loves his daughters, and they are his daughters regardless of the double helix in their cells, then he won't reject them regardless of what their mother has done.
Click to expand...

That's for him to decide, but that double helix makes a huge difference, whether you choose to believe it or not.
 
Surtr said:
Maybe the mother shouldn't be a cheating skank then.



That's for him to decide, but that double helix makes a huge difference, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Click to expand...

So, if the mother is a cheating skank, then the daughters have no right to grow up to be well adjusted adults, and having raised children to sub adults is less important than having donated your DNA to them?

Sorry, I just think you're wrong about both of those statements.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, if the mother is a cheating skank, then the daughters have no right to grow up to be well adjusted adults
Click to expand...
Growing up to be well adjusted isn't a right. It's not the man's fault that his wife is a terrible person, and he has no obligation to those children upon finding out that they are the products of infidelity. You want to get mad, get mad at the cheating whore ex-wife who lied to him for all those years, and put him, and those children in that position.

and having raised children to sub adults is less important than having donated your DNA to them?
Click to expand...
That should no longer be his problem, should he choose to leave.

Sorry, I just think you're wrong about both of those statements.
Click to expand...
And you're free to do so.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is painful!! People are jumping all over this guy for trying to find out if his kids are his or not. Not only is he having to pay child support for them, but his wife is being rewarded for adultery.

This is why I tell all the young guys I know are still single to stay single. This is the kind of thing that comes out of the misandric society we now live in. If the tables were turned and it was found that the man had cheated during his marriage no matter the circumstances, the man would have the book thrown at him. But this woman cheated on her husband and she is being rewarded with it. Where is the man that she had these other kids with? Why is the man that was cheated on having to pay for another mans kids? Why is this woman not being scrutinized?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Wow! Why would anyone take the chance of being a sperm donor?
Click to expand...

Well it should be noted that is the exception to the rule, but it's enough to show why it's never a good idea no matter the avenue to donate sperm.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Just a couple of points of clarification. Firstly, the husband testified that he was aware the wife had affairs. Secondly, the youngest child, his only son, is biologically his - his three oldest, daughters, are not biologically his - thus, he was still if not in love with her, in bed with her, well after the infidelity and thus accepting of her lifestyle. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, this is an order for "child support" not spousal support - the children have only known one father and they should not be punished for the sins of their parents, particularly the mother's.
Click to expand...

In Texas it doesn't matter where the sperm came from. If the man's name is on the birth certificate it's his child.

Children deserve the support of both parents if at all possible. Child support is about the welfare of the child.
 
LowDown said:
In Texas it doesn't matter where the sperm came from. If the man's name is on the birth certificate it's his child.

Children deserve the support of both parents if at all possible. Child support is about the welfare of the child.
Click to expand...

How is this man expected to bring up 2,3 or 4 more of his lineage if hes stuck paying for some other dudes genetics? Infringing upon his rights to bring up kids from his own nuttsack leads to possible oblivion. Your blood descendants continue you and all your fathers and mothers before. Her lineage (wife) is already continued as these kids came out of her vagina. It is wrong to force the guy to continue someone elses blood lineage. This might as well be nobles impregnating the peasantry.
 
Capster78 said:
This is painful!! People are jumping all over this guy for trying to find out if his kids are his or not.
Click to expand...

Actually, and I could be wrong, but I thought I saw somewhere that the three girls had this man listed as their father on their birth certificates, and that before this divorce, and the ensuing revelations of the wife's cereal infidelity, he raised these girls from birth as their father. No one is jumping on him for finding out, but rather the cold and callous way that he just tosses them aside after finding the information that he is not biologically their father, even if he is in every other way.

Not only is he having to pay child support for them...
Click to expand...

He has supported them as his own for 16 years now, and the girls had no part in their mother's reprehensible actions in the marriage, so why should that support stop?

but his wife is being rewarded for adultery.
Click to expand...

How so? I am not aware of any alimony being awarded her in this case, we are talking about support for the children.

This is why I tell all the young guys I know are still single to stay single.
Click to expand...

Not all women are this woman.

This is the kind of thing that comes out of the misandric society we now live in.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and I don't know how Canadian courts are ruling, but here in the US, more, and more men are winning in these cases.

If the tables were turned and it was found that the man had cheated during his marriage no matter the circumstances, the man would have the book thrown at him.
Click to expand...

We don't incarcerate people for adultery, so I don't know what you mean by "having the book thrown at him"...

But this woman cheated on her husband and she is being rewarded with it.
Click to expand...

Again, support is for the children, so how is she being rewarded?

Where is the man that she had these other kids with?
Click to expand...

Don't know that, but if he has not been in their lives at all, and not shown to have anything to do with them other than donating the sperm, then what does he matter?

Why is the man that was cheated on having to pay for another mans kids?
Click to expand...

Up to this point in their lives, they were not another man's kids, they were his in every way, including support. Now because he got hurt in this, you want him to be able to shirk that?

Why is this woman not being scrutinized?
Click to expand...

She is. Otherwise we wouldn't know about her affairs. I think most rational people would surmise that her actions in the marriage were reprehensible.

We don't punish son's in this country for the sins of the father, and likewise, these girls shouldn't be punished for the actions of their mother.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
How is this man expected to bring up 2,3 or 4 more of his lineage if hes stuck paying for some other dudes genetics? Infringing upon his rights to bring up kids from his own nuttsack leads to possible oblivion. Your blood descendants continue you and all your fathers and mothers before. Her lineage (wife) is already continued as these kids came out of her vagina. It is wrong to force the guy to continue someone elses blood lineage. This might as well be nobles impregnating the peasantry.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This guy raised these girls as his. His name was on their birth certificate. And up to this point they have only known him as their father. Now because DNA testing shows that someone else actually donated the sperm to create them says nothing to the bonds, and life they have known as their father, and you seem to be saying that these girls are disposable because their mother committed adultery. Man, that's cold.
 
j-mac said:
Nonsense. This guy raised these girls as his. His name was on their birth certificate. And up to this point they have only known him as their father. Now because DNA testing shows that someone else actually donated the sperm to create them says nothing to the bonds, and life they have known as their father, and you seem to be saying that these girls are disposable because their mother committed adultery. Man, that's cold.
Click to expand...

He may be "as a father" to them but he will never truly be their father. Upon learning they arent from his loins he may choose to act as a father. But to pin this guy for child support because he happened to be there is unfair in itself. It is up to the mom to pick up the extra slack or time to find the blood fathers. If the blood father were to walk into their lives he could rip custody away from him even though he acted as a father. This is the state forcing parental morals on a dude who isn't the real father.... Remember this next time some guy kills his ex-wife and her 3 kids on the news. This is nothing more than a ploy to steal this mans money 'guised as benevolent decisions.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
How is this man expected to bring up 2,3 or 4 more of his lineage if hes stuck paying for some other dudes genetics? Infringing upon his rights to bring up kids from his own nuttsack leads to possible oblivion. Your blood descendants continue you and all your fathers and mothers before. Her lineage (wife) is already continued as these kids came out of her vagina. It is wrong to force the guy to continue someone elses blood lineage. This might as well be nobles impregnating the peasantry.
Click to expand...

Well, they are not 'genetics', they are children. Family law gives their welfare the greatest priority.

The moral of the story is don't marry a skank who sleeps around if you're concerned about your blood line. Choice of mate is as good a test of fitness as any.
 
LowDown said:
Well, they are not 'genetics', they are children. Family law gives their welfare the greatest priority.

The moral of the story is don't marry a skank who sleeps around if you're concerned about your blood line. Choice of mate is as good a test of fitness as any.
Click to expand...

So now you are saying we should punish people into caring for children that aren't theirs if they are stupid enough. I thought this was about "doing the noble thing". Having a family shouldnt be akin to getting stuck with a lemon because you signed a contract. Only to find out the very core and reason for the relationship was all one big giant lie. He signed the dotted line saying he bought a porche. But they gave him a pinto. But seeing as he had the pinto for so long hes stuck with it. I would hate to be any of your best friends. I guess the longer you know and care for someone the more okay it is to get screwed over.

If I thought a tree in my yard was mine for 10,000 years but it turns out it was on my neighbors property line does it make the tree mine?

I guess the moral of the story is dont be a ***** and demand paternal testing. Even if it would ruin your relationship "because you dont trust her" and make her a single mom anyways. Everyone can claim its for the good of the children but I just see a woman, attorneys and a judge looting this mans pie because they think they have a good enough reason.
 
This discussion revolves around general principles. We cannot get it right about this specific situation because we are missing most of the vital info. We don't know who ordered/asked for the paternity tests. We don't know what was requested for custody or if there were custody requests. We don't know anything about the birth certificates (not that those really matter here). Heck we don't even know what finally caused the divorce. There must be some reason there's no mention of her getting spousal support.
 
In all honesty, the mother owes the victim of her fraud some compensation.

At the very least, she owes him fifty percent of all room and board and ancillary expenses accrued over all those years. She should be held civilly liable for all the harm her deception caused. The actual father owes a great deal of financial support... But that is not, in any way, the concern of her victim.

The man in this story did not create these children, as a matter of scientific fact. Therefore, he is not financially responsible for their well-being... And never was. To force him to continue to pay any such expenses is beyond the pale. Complete absurdity. Complete travesty of justice.

The story seems fairly plain. If the law compels the judge to make her victim continue to provide resources for her offspring, then that is bad law, and this case should ignite a firestorm to get the laws changed.
 
Last edited:
It sure is nice of the court to allow the bio father(s) to pay nothing towards their own children, isn't it?
 
j-mac said:
Actually, and I could be wrong, but I thought I saw somewhere that the three girls had this man listed as their father on their birth certificates, and that before this divorce, and the ensuing revelations of the wife's cereal infidelity, he raised these girls from birth as their father. No one is jumping on him for finding out, but rather the cold and callous way that he just tosses them aside after finding the information that he is not biologically their father, even if he is in every other way.



He has supported them as his own for 16 years now, and the girls had no part in their mother's reprehensible actions in the marriage, so why should that support stop?



How so? I am not aware of any alimony being awarded her in this case, we are talking about support for the children.



Not all women are this woman.



Maybe, and I don't know how Canadian courts are ruling, but here in the US, more, and more men are winning in these cases.



We don't incarcerate people for adultery, so I don't know what you mean by "having the book thrown at him"...



Again, support is for the children, so how is she being rewarded?



Don't know that, but if he has not been in their lives at all, and not shown to have anything to do with them other than donating the sperm, then what does he matter?



Up to this point in their lives, they were not another man's kids, they were his in every way, including support. Now because he got hurt in this, you want him to be able to shirk that?



She is. Otherwise we wouldn't know about her affairs. I think most rational people would surmise that her actions in the marriage were reprehensible.

We don't punish son's in this country for the sins of the father, and likewise, these girls shouldn't be punished for the actions of their mother.
Click to expand...


You are another one who believes the bio-father/s should pay nothing.

He has no obligation whatsoever to love those children nor provide for them. I can if he wants to, but he shouldn't have to as a matter of law.
 
Samhain said:
In this particular case, its highly possible that the biological father(s) actually didn't know (th)he had a child. Is that person(s) to be punished for not knowing that someone else was raising that child? The answer is no, and the non-biological father is going to be left out of the picture.
Click to expand...

Holding someone responsible for their financial obligations is not a punishment.

When you create offspring, you are responsible for their well-being.
 
JayDubya said:
Holding someone responsible for their financial obligations is not a punishment.

When you create offspring, you are responsible for their well-being.
Click to expand...
What about if they are not your offspring?

As in this case.
 
j-mac said:
Actually, and I could be wrong, but I thought I saw somewhere that the three girls had this man listed as their father on their birth certificates, and that before this divorce, and the ensuing revelations of the wife's cereal infidelity, he raised these girls from birth as their father. No one is jumping on him for finding out, but rather the cold and callous way that he just tosses them aside after finding the information that he is not biologically their father, even if he is in every other way.
Click to expand...
Not wanting to give money to the cheating slut does not = tossing the kids aside.

Get a clue.
 
joko104 said:
It sure is nice of the court to allow the bio father(s) to pay nothing towards their own children, isn't it?
Click to expand...

why not share with us who the bio fathers are from whom the court is not assessing child support

bet you don't know who they are
neither does the mother
 
Muhammed said:
Not wanting to give money to the cheating slut does not = tossing the kids aside.

Get a clue.
Click to expand...

Me, get a clue? You're the one that doesn't seem to understand that child support = support for the child. Sounds like you're the one who needs a clue.
 
j-mac said:
Me, get a clue? You're the one that doesn't seem to understand that child support = support for the child.
Click to expand...
You're the one who is too naive to know that that is not what it means.

It means giving money to the custodial parent. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom