• 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

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
16,169
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
MONTREAL - A father has been ordered to pay child support to his ex-wife despite results of DNA testing that found three of the four children he helped raise are not biologically his, a Quebec Superior Court ruled.

The man learned the shocking news after he demanded DNA testing when he and his wife of 16 years separated in April 2010.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

If he suspect those kids were not biologically his then he should have got dna tested right there and then, not after raising the kids for a decade or so. That said hopefully his wife didn't get anything except for child support in the divorce.
 
Article isnt available to me. But how do you know that he behaved as their real father. He could have known full well or in the back of his mind for quite some period of time that they were not his. There is always more to a story than is shared. However if he raised/loved/supported them as his own i agree as a father he should have been willing to continue supporting them regardless. What about the real fathers, can she collect from him and them? And why cant she go after them? She had enough energy to sleep around to tjat extent but not to track them down and provide her illegitimate children with their real fathers?
 
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.

Sometimes the emotional betrayal gets in the way of doing what's right.
I do think there should be some kind of punishment for infidelity though.

It's as if courts just brush it aside, but that is spousal abuse in my book.
 
I don't see the problem here. :shrug:

If the guy isn't the father of the kids, he just isn't the father of the kids. Acting in the role of a father doesn't change that.
 
Sounds as reasonable as requiring that totally unrealted taxpayers pick up the tab, the likely alternative. ;)
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Not enough info is given for me to really think about this one - how *long* did he know they weren't really his children? Did they divorce because she had cheated time and again? OR did he learn of this years ago?

I think that matters - it's really key . . . I go two ways: If he knew years ago and accepted it - and they're divorcing now for other reasons - then he should support his children. You don't have to be biologically related in order to be *a father* to children . . . the children did nothing wrong.

If he *just* found out - and this affair-affair-affair revelation is why he divorced her and demanded testing then - I don't know - I'm tempted to say he shouldn't pay support . . . but the support isn't for *her* - it's for *the kids* - and if they're divorced they're suffering enough. IT's not their fault, again, their mother cheated.

Poor kids. This is THEIR father regardless . . . and he's rejecting them and, honestly, hating them.

Now that I've thought about it - he's quite vile . . . I can't decide if he's more disgusting or just as disgusting as she is.

What a ****ed up situation and the ones really suffering are their kids - every shred of a possibly reasonably life they've had was just ripped away - and then they were **** on to add to it.
 
I don't see the problem here. :shrug:

If the guy isn't the father of the kids, he just isn't the father of the kids. Acting in the role of a father doesn't change that.

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?

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.

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.

Somehow, people have gotten the impression that I don't approve of the court's decision. This is not the case.
 
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.


The husband testified that he knew about the affairs, however, he also thought he was the biological father of all the children.

It's not the fault of the children, but it's not the fault of the man either that he isn't the father of the those other kids. BTW, so what is the responsibility for the biological father of those children, nothing?
 
It's not the fault of the children, but it's not the fault of the man either that he isn't the father of the those other kids. BTW, so what is the responsibility for the biological father of those children, nothing?

Pretty much, yeah. Which is worse, finding out that your wife has cheated on you and had children by other men, or finding out that your wife had children by other men and those men are now legally entitled to steal them from you?
 
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.
.

Just because a court ordered it, doesn't make it right does it?

Again I'll ask, what is the responsibilty then of the biological fathers? Nothing? Do you think that is correct?

The man thought he was their bioilogical father and it turns out he isn't. Is that his fault?
 
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?

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.



Somehow, people have gotten the impression that I don't approve of the court's decision. This is not the case.

I wasn't trying to imply you have a position one way or another, just clarifying for your reading public - and just to correct, he is the biological father of one of the four, the last one, not three of the four.
 
Pretty much, yeah. Which is worse, finding out that your wife has cheated on you and had children by other men, or finding out that your wife had children by other men and those men are now legally entitled to steal them from you?

And if any of those fathers comes forward, they will be able to steal the children away anyway. In almost all court rulings the biological parents have rights over the non-biological.
 
Just because a court ordered it, doesn't make it right does it?

No. What makes it right is that he is their father, paternity tests be damned. He raised them for ten years in his home. They bear his name. They are his children and he is responsible for them.

Again I'll ask, what is the responsibilty then of the biological fathers? Nothing? Do you think that is correct?

Yes. The biological "fathers" should have no responsibility here-- and, correspondingly and more importantly, no rights.

The man thought he was their bioilogical father and it turns out he isn't. Is that his fault?

No. Is it his childrens' fault? No. They shouldn't lose their father because of their mother's adultery-- and if he were a man, he would do right by his children regardless.
 
The husband testified that he knew about the affairs, however, he also thought he was the biological father of all the children.

It's not the fault of the children, but it's not the fault of the man either that he isn't the father of the those other kids. BTW, so what is the responsibility for the biological father of those children, nothing?

If the biological father was known of any of the other three children, I'm sure either the mother or father could take them to court - there are, apparently, three different fathers for the oldest three children. That said, courts have gone on record now for several years as saying that the father children have known all their lives is the responsible father, regardless of who biologically fathered the child.

It is curious though that in a recent news article I saw - I'm not sure if it was in the US or in Canada - where a lesbian couple, through artificial insemination, had a child and then divorced and the courts decided that the sperm donor had to pay child support rather than the female "father". Does seem to be a double standard.
 
Pretty much, yeah. Which is worse, finding out that your wife has cheated on you and had children by other men, or finding out that your wife had children by other men and those men are now legally entitled to steal them from you?

There was an interesting case I read a while back.
Wife got pregnant, had twins (iirc), then divorced her husband, who was the legal father and moved in with the biological father.
The twins were still infants.

How would you view that?
 
And if any of those fathers comes forward, they will be able to steal the children away anyway. In almost all court rulings the biological parents have rights over the non-biological.

Yes, but that is because of the nonsense people are putting forward in this thread, that the biological father matters more than the father who gave them his name.
 
There was an interesting case I read a while back.
Wife got pregnant, had twins (iirc), then divorced her husband, who was the legal father and moved in with the biological father.
The twins were still infants.

How would you view that?

I'd say it depends on which man's name is on the birth certificate. Mother chooses the hearth, father chooses the children.
 
Yes. The biological "fathers" should have no responsibility here-- and, correspondingly and more importantly, no rights.

However, in most cases, that isn't the case. If any of these fathers comes forward, they would have the rights because they are their biological father.

No. Is it his childrens' fault? No. They shouldn't lose their father because of their mother's adultery-- and if he were a man, he would do right by his children regardless.

And if he doesn't want to raise them, that is his right. It is the responsibility of the biological parents both financially to raise a child.
 
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.

I don't think this is unprecedented. I believe laws in all states enforce that any children born in a marriage are automatically assumed (by the law) to be the husband's unless exception is taken at birth. I'm not certain of that, but I believe it to be true.

Nice try, JERK. 'Course she is, too . . .
 
Yes, but that is because of the nonsense people are putting forward in this thread, that the biological father matters more than the father who gave them his name.

That "nonsense" has been put forth by court precidence.
 
I'd say it depends on which man's name is on the birth certificate. Mother chooses the hearth, father chooses the children.

I understand that, however when it comes to who is the effective father, the bio father would be.
Assuming that he and the mother stay together, he will have the most time to spend with the children and the children would likely recognize him, as the father.
 
I don't think this is unprecedented. I believe laws in all states enforce that any children born in a marriage are automatically assumed (by the law) to be the husband's unless exception is taken at birth. I'm not certain of that, but I believe it to be true.

Nice try, JERK. 'Course she is, too . . .

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. All it does is get supported by hope - hope that if they're on death row for murdering 50 people in some sick twisted crazy **** that they'd see their wrongs and remember that they're supposed to be loving on the inside. . .you know - that genuine blind motherly ****.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom