• 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

SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, it isn't. A person who raises a child is a parent.

He can become the father for all practical purposes if he raises the child, and he can become the legal father if he goes through some legal hoops. But in the this case, the man in question is both the practical and the legal father.
Click to expand...

Yes, for all practical purposes, but he isn't.


Because, at this point, there are 4 children between the ages of 9 and driving age who all think of him as their father, and who can be substantially harmed by his sudden absence.
Click to expand...

Yes, and only one is his. I'm not entirely sure why it matters if the kids are harmed though. That seems to be a different issue.

Because he is legally the father.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm saying that should be changed since he clearly is not the father of the kids as he thought when that happened. If the state wants men to support children that are not theirs then clearly they need to consider DNA tests on delivery. Of course, the man could always ask for that, but haha, that isn't going to go so well.

Because he already MADE a decision to be the father, and once you have made that decision, you can't simply walk away from it.
Click to expand...

Yes, on false pretenses and I happen to disagree with the last bit.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Because they're not his children.
Click to expand...
biologically, they are not. but i believe we can all agree that to be a legal father one does not always have to provide the sperm
he acted in the capacity of father for at least 16 years, based on the age of the oldest girl/daughter

I find it clinically insane that you want to take money from a victim to give to a whore because she couldn't keep it in her pants. Not only are there zero consequences for her actions, you want to incentivize her by giving her money for it.
Click to expand...
i would want to know your qualifications to find anyone clinically 'insane' before i accepted your pronouncement
the 'father' will be compelled to incur the costs to raise the three children whose DNA he does not share because he has been doing this in the role of the father for (presumably) at least 16 years
yes, the mother is certainly a whore. one whom he lived and slept with such that the final child was of his own making
if she were receiving alimony - which there is no indication is happening - then that would appear to constitute incentivizing her disloyalty. but the money the father will have to pay is 'child support'. that money is intended to be for the welfare of the children of the marriage. his legal children
 
CanadaJohn said:
You'd be wrong - the donor and the lesbian couple have a legal contract between the two parties that removes the donor from any legal or financial responsibility for the child - both the donor and the lesbian couple wish to honor that contract but the state is challenging it because the lesbian couple now appear to need state social assistance.
Click to expand...

Nope. They may have had a contract made up and signed, but without the state required process, much of that contract is invalidated by law.
 
justabubba said:
biologically, they are not. but i believe we can all agree that to be a legal father one does not always have to provide the sperm
he acted in the capacity of father for at least 16 years, based on the age of the oldest girl/daughter


i would want to know your qualifications to find anyone clinically 'insane' before i accepted your pronouncement
the 'father' will be compelled to incur the costs to raise the three children whose DNA he does not share because he has been doing this in the role of the father for (presumably) at least 16 years
yes, the mother is certainly a whore. one whom he lived and slept with such that the final child was of his own making
if she were receiving alimony - which there is no indication is happening - then that would appear to constitute incentivizing her disloyalty. but the money the father will have to pay is 'child support'. that money is intended to be for the welfare of the children of the marriage. his legal children
Click to expand...

You're saying that the biological factor of whether he's actually the father or not is completely irrelevant. By that logic, no man should ever be responsible for any kids that he does not willingly sign a piece of paper for. **** all of the women who want child support from a man who doesn't want to be a father, right? Where are the actual biological fathers of these kids, and why is that irrelevant?

Secondly, there is absolutely zero guarantee that the kids will see a cent of that money. I know for a lot of women that's just beer money.
 
MaggieD said:
Just an aside. If a man signs the birth certificate as the father, he becomes the legal father. UNLESS the legal father comes forward, goes to court and is awarded a paternity test. Then all bets are off. At least I THINK that's the case.
Click to expand...
So he's the real father unless the real father comes along? Sounds more like an anti-man conspiracy brought about by attorneys and women.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, but that doesn't negate that it's wrong to walk away from a child you raised from birth and took responsibility for after 10-15 years.
Click to expand...

Now see, again, you're assuming that the man is walking away from the children - I don't know that to be true - all we know is that he is challenging a court ordering him to pay his ex-wife child support for children who he just now found out are not biologically his. He may very well be a great dad and be prepared to provide them with everything they need, directly, without the court and his ex-wife as middlemen.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So by your logic, taking initial responsibility for a child at the hospital is the absolute only thing that matters, right? If biology isn't a factor, we shouldn't be able to make any man take responsibility for his offspring, seeing as how we can't force him to sign anything, right? Men should be able to impregnate as many women as they want without responsibility, as long as they don't sign paperwork.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct.

Men are not the sole sentient entity. They can't "go around impregnating women." That's a decision the woman decides to allow. It may happen by accident, but all the power of creating a child or not is still in her hands even at that point.

So, yes, the man should be permitted to walk away AT THE OUTSET. Many men will stay, some will leave, but ultimately, it is not necessary a bad thing if they leave -- unwilling parents don't tend to be very good parents, and if the decision is made during pregnancy the woman still has time to plan.

But not after 10 years of raising that child and being legally responsible for them.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, you are correct.

Men are not the sole sentient entity. They can't "go around impregnating women." That's a decision the woman decides to allow. It may happen by accident, but all the power of creating a child or not is still in her hands even at that point.

So, yes, the man should be permitted to walk away AT THE OUTSET. Many men will stay, some will leave, but ultimately, it is not necessary a bad thing if they leave -- unwilling parents don't tend to be very good parents, and if the decision is made during pregnancy the woman still has time to plan.

But not after 10 years of raising that child and being legally responsible for them.
Click to expand...

Well, at least we've gotten to the root of it. It only matters to you what is on paper, and not what actually happened. You have no idea the kind of **** storm you would get as a guy by asking for a paternity test with your wife.
 
clownboy said:
All of that is wrong. Biology does indeed determine legal parentage. The assumption that they were his at birth was a false one. And as for that last, if you marry someone with children from another and then divorce them, you have zero responsibility for them after the divorce (legally as long as you didn't adopt them in the meantime).
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. As Maggie said above, even if the bio father comes forward and fights for custody, he is not guaranteed to win.

And that is not true if you signed the birth certificate.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Now see, again, you're assuming that the man is walking away from the children - I don't know that to be true - all we know is that he is challenging a court ordering him to pay his ex-wife child support for children who he just now found out are not biologically his. He may very well be a great dad and be prepared to provide them with everything they need, directly, without the court and his ex-wife as middlemen.
Click to expand...

And he has every right to fight for that. It's obvious that courts are really biased against men when it comes to child support. But the DNA of the children isn't relevant after he spent their entire lives raising them and has legal responsibility.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Well, at least we've gotten to the root of it. It only matters to you what is on paper, and not what actually happened. You have no idea the kind of **** storm you would get as a guy by asking for a paternity test with your wife.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It matters to me what responsibilities a person accepts. It just happens to be that a contract is a good way to make that salient.

What actually happened is that he raised these children from birth. He already has a contract, as far as I'm concerned, and the legal contract is just more proof of that.
 
MaggieD said:
Just an aside. If a man signs the birth certificate as the father, he becomes the legal father. UNLESS the legal father comes forward, goes to court and is awarded a paternity test. Then all bets are off. At least I THINK that's the case.
Click to expand...

That's a state law determination and will vary from state to state. But this is Canada. Whole different kettle of fish. Here in Oregon and in California at least, a birth certificate is not a contract but a registration with the state. Like when you register your vehicle only the states typically require you provide more proof where it comes to registering your car.
 
Time to take the dog for a walk - I've enjoyed the discussion - thanks everyone - I'll check back in later - have fun!
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, it isn't required, but IF HE SIGNS IT, it is his child regardless of the child's DNA.

If he did not sign it, this case would be over.

And yes, legally, it is a contract.
Click to expand...

So basically I can inflict fraud on people as long as I get them to sign a contract saying they agree to the fraud.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
So he's the real father unless the real father comes along? Sounds more like an anti-man conspiracy brought about by attorneys and women.
Click to expand...

The courts have held forever that a child born in a marriage is legally the husband's child. It's nothing new. Up until 1985? There was absolutely no way to prove otherwise. Perhaps one might argue that laws haven't caught up, but that's the fact.

A man cannot disenfranchise a biological father of his paternity rights by signing the birth certificate as the father -- whether he's been cuckolded or not. That is most assuredly the way it should be.
 
Henrin said:
So basically I can inflict fraud on people as long as I get them to sign a contract saying they agree to the fraud.
Click to expand...

By nature, a fraud is not doing what you say or what the client expects you to do. So the contract is null, because it would inevitable contain a falsehood.

Signing a birth certificate does not state that you must be the biological parent. There is no fraud. Only his (unfortunately incorrect) assumptions.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Wrong. It matters to me what responsibilities a person accepts. It just happens to be that a contract is a good way to make that salient.

What actually happened is that he raised these children from birth. He already has a contract, as far as I'm concerned, and the legal contract is just more proof of that.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the contract is fraudulent making it null and void.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, it doesn't. As Maggie said above, even if the bio father comes forward and fights for custody, he is not guaranteed to win.

And that is not true if you signed the birth certificate.
Click to expand...

That's going to vary from state to state, but in every state I know of the bio father is guaranteed a win if they have not relinquished their parental rights (THAT is typically what they have to goto court to prove). And signing the birth cert means nothing. Again, you're just registering the child with the state.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Wrong. It matters to me what responsibilities a person accepts. It just happens to be that a contract is a good way to make that salient.

What actually happened is that he raised these children from birth. He already has a contract, as far as I'm concerned, and the legal contract is just more proof of that.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest problems with your logic is that men aren't even remotely treated on the same level as women in custody suits. Even if the mother were a crackwhore and the man had a great job and was actively fighting to keep the kids, it would still be near impossible for him to get custody. In such a decision they would even factor in that she's the biological parent and he isn't. He's not supporting his kids by paying her money, he's simply paying her money. She can do absolutely whatever she wants with that money. How many non-biological mothers do you know that are paying biological fathers child support? Or even any women period paying child support?

It seems more important to you that we simply assign a father, no matter who it is. Why is the state not even remotely interested in finding the real fathers?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
By nature, a fraud is not doing what you say or what the client expects you to do. So the contract is null, because it would inevitable contain a falsehood.

Signing a birth certificate does not state that you must be the biological parent. Their is no fraud. Only his (unfortunately incorrect) assumptions.
Click to expand...

I would very much like to know the percentage of men that sign a birth certificate not thinking they are the father? I'm guessing right around 99% percent of them thought they were the father and consider it void if its found they are not.
 
Henrin said:
I would very much like to know the percentage of men that sign a birth certificate not thinking they are the father?
Click to expand...

Don't know. But I know one within my family who signed it knowing he wasn't the bio father.
 
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...

I have to agree. His spite is directed at the wife, but the children are the ones caught in the crossfire. I agree with the law in that he continues to pay child support.
 
CanadaJohn said:
According to you, yes, both would be, because the "father" figure in the lesbian couple has been a father to the child for all her 3 years of life and is named on the birth certificate. You can't claim that a lesbian or gay couple is the equivalent of a straight couple when it comes to raising children and then fall back on gender stereotypes when the going gets tough.
Click to expand...

According to me, yes, you are right about that. I don't think that a lesbian would be exempt from child support if she raised the child and is legally a parent. I don't fall back on gender stereotypes at all, I'm going after spousal support in my divorce because my ex-wife made 2/3 of our combined income.
 
MaggieD said:
The courts have held forever that a child born in a marriage is legally the husband's child. It's nothing new. Up until 1985? There was absolutely no way to prove otherwise. Perhaps one might argue that laws haven't caught up, but that's the fact.
Click to expand...

We've been able to determine paternity for a long, long time now and I don't believe that a child born in a marriage is legally the husband's child once it's been determined he is not in fact the biological father.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom