• 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

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...

Wow. What a mess. Parent 1 is a chronic cheater who doesn't have enough brains to avoid getting pregnant and who doesn't have an ounce of self-preservation and goes around having sex without protection in this day and age. Parent 2 knows about the cheating and puts up with it for almost 2 decades, raises 4 kids and then turns around and tries to get out of child support for 3 of those kids who grew up calling him Daddy.

I just feel sorry for the kids.

From a legal standpoint, though, I disagree with the court's decision. These 3 kids are not legally his and he shouldn't have to support children fathered by other men unless he adopts them. And that's what a decent man would do. Adopt them. No matter how messed up things get with the mother, these kids see him as their Dad. He raised them from infancy. They're his kids in every way that matters.
 
Muhammed said:
Positive. And your link confirms what I said.

The money is not paid to the court.
Click to expand...


Well, it's a small point, but I think he may have meant court ordered. But, I do know this, for example child support in say Michigan is paid to a organization called "Friend of the court". They report to the court system, and are directed to collected court ordered support, and distribute it. If you don't pay, you won't find yourself in front of a bureaucrat, rather in front of a Judge.

So, I guess if you want to split hairs, then you're correct, support is not paid directly to the courts, but they are paid to the state. A minor distinction.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Pick your poison. Is the person who provided the sperm the father, as in Kansas: Kansas hits up sperm donor for child support - CNN.com , or is it who raised them?

What happens if the biological father wants parental rights? Are you going to support kicking the raising father out of the picture in favor of the biological father, or would tell the biological father to take a hike since he didn't raise them?

Its all about consistency in the law, and you can't pick and choose which way you want it to work.
 
justabubba said:
they do
it's administered thru the custodial parents

it is a terribly flawed system, not unlike sending welfare checks to layabout parents of kids in a single-parent household and hoping the kids receive enough of it to maintain their welfare
but unfortunately, it is better than any other system yet devised
Click to expand...

I disagree to a point.
There are clearly ways of making it better, it's just that there is a lot of resistance to such changes.
One change that should be made is making infidelity a serious matter in a divorce, with some kind of consequence.

As it is now, you can screw an entire orchestra, while married and not much will come of it.
Err, in some states at least.
 
Samhain said:
Pick your poison. Is the person who provided the sperm the father, as in Kansas: Kansas hits up sperm donor for child support - CNN.com , or is it who raised them?

What happens if the biological father wants parental rights? Are you going to support kicking the raising father out of the picture in favor of the biological father, or would tell the biological father to take a hike since he didn't raise them?

Its all about consistency in the law, and you can't pick and choose which way you want it to work.
Click to expand...

The Kansas case is strange indeed, I think that judge/Kansas law is whacked and should be overturned on appeal. It seems that Canada has much better laws/judges.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I disagree to a point.
There are clearly ways of making it better, it's just that there is a lot of resistance to such changes.
One change that should be made is making infidelity a serious matter in a divorce, with some kind of consequence.

As it is now, you can screw an entire orchestra, while married and not much will come of it.
Err, in some states at least.
Click to expand...

That tide is slowly changing...More and more fathers are winning custody in court...The important thing in a divorce, as with much in life, is that when evaluating, and approaching a contentious fight, best to take the emotion out of it.
 
Samhain said:
Pick your poison. Is the person who provided the sperm the father, as in Kansas: Kansas hits up sperm donor for child support - CNN.com , or is it who raised them?

What happens if the biological father wants parental rights? Are you going to support kicking the raising father out of the picture in favor of the biological father, or would tell the biological father to take a hike since he didn't raise them?
Click to expand...

Easy choice.

Biological father gets priority.
 
j-mac said:
That tide is slowly changing...More and more fathers are winning custody in court...The important thing in a divorce, as with much in life, is that when evaluating, and approaching a contentious fight, best to take the emotion out of it.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the tide or who is usually winning it's still best not to get married to begin with. :mrgreen:
 
j-mac said:
That tide is slowly changing...More and more fathers are winning custody in court...The important thing in a divorce, as with much in life, is that when evaluating, and approaching a contentious fight, best to take the emotion out of it.
Click to expand...

The problem I have, at least in this situation, is that while I agree with Kori, the disputing father is the father, both legally and morally.
I can't help but get past the problem that these children were falsely presented to him, as his.

It's disgusting and just as immoral as the legal father trying to back out.
 
Henrin said:
Easy choice.

Biological father gets priority.
Click to expand...

Therefore, the person who gets parental rights priority gets the responsibilities that come with that designation: parental support.
 
j-mac said:
Well, it's a small point, but I think he may have meant court ordered. But, I do know this, for example child support in say Michigan is paid to a organization called "Friend of the court". They report to the court system, and are directed to collected court ordered support, and distribute it. If you don't pay, you won't find yourself in front of a bureaucrat, rather in front of a Judge.

So, I guess if you want to split hairs, then you're correct, support is not paid directly to the courts, but they are paid to the state. A minor distinction.
Click to expand...
Then the state gives it to the custodial parent who can do whatever the hell they want to with it. They can buy the kids new shoes or they can blow it all at the casino or whatever.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The problem I have, at least in this situation, is that while I agree with Kori, the disputing father is the father, both legally and morally.
I can't help but get past the problem that these children were falsely presented to him, as his.

It's disgusting and just as immoral as the legal father trying to back out.
Click to expand...


Well, that can be a mess, but regardless of the way in which they were presented to him, or if he up until the divorce thought they were his, the fact remains that to that point they were cared for, and treated by him to be his children. If he felt that way before the divorce, then he should, (only my opinion here) man up, and continue to feel that way after....It's not the kids fault that their parents made the mistakes they did.
 
Muhammed said:
Then the state gives it to the custodial parent who can do whatever the hell they want to with it. They can buy the kids new shoes or they can blow it all at the casino or whatever.
Click to expand...

NO! Child support, although very liberal in terms of what it is spent on, ie: housing, utilities, clothing, food, etc. If you can prove that your estranged spouse is taking the support money, and gambling it away for example, then you go back into court, and she could very easily lose those children.

The receiving spouse must still put the money toward things that benefit the child.
 
j-mac said:
Well, that can be a mess, but regardless of the way in which they were presented to him, or if he up until the divorce thought they were his, the fact remains that to that point they were cared for, and treated by him to be his children. If he felt that way before the divorce, then he should, (only my opinion here) man up, and continue to feel that way after....It's not the kids fault that their parents made the mistakes they did.
Click to expand...

I agree, if nothing else, at least until they're grown.
 
Henrin said:
Easy choice.

Biological father gets priority.
Click to expand...

I still don't get this.

IF the children were young - maybe . . . but 12, 14 and 16 years of being with this man - That much time passes and no. It just doesn't flow that way.

What - what if they were 30 and one died and then everyone finds out the truth from Mom - would their biological father be looked up and called in as next of kin? Or to make the arrangements? No

What if one was 22 and went to jail - call bio dad up?

No - biological only means something when that individual is in their life . . . and after all that much time (which is longer than my marriage) - the past is THE PAST and nothing to be conjured up *just* because a couple divorced.

That's just a copout and it's bull****.

It's up to the kids as they get older when and how they might want a relationship with their bio parent that's not in the picture - up to them and no one else to stir that pot. What if they don't?

If they were 2 it might be a different story - but they're not. They're almost adults. In just 2 years the oldest will be 18. Right now she's a sophomore in high school :shrug: It's only in their best interest if they WANT it for theirselves. It's bad enough Mom and Dad divorced - and bad enough they've learned all this about their selves. . . sounds like things are ****ty enough - and some want to have strange men they never know and might not want to know SUPPORT them now?

Why - so the father they DO know can skip town and spite his children that he's raised just out of anger towards their mother?

Wow - definitely NOT good for the girls - is it? No - it's not. At some point the PARENTS aren't factored in much at all and we're long past that time, here.
 
Samhain said:
Therefore, the person who gets parental rights priority gets the responsibilities that come with that designation: parental support.
Click to expand...

In the current system, yes.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I still don't get this.

IF the children were young - maybe . . . but 12, 14 and 16 years of being with this man - That much time passes and no. It just doesn't flow that way.

What - what if they were 30 and one died and then everyone finds out the truth from Mom - would their biological father be looked up and called in as next of kin? Or to make the arrangements? No

What if one was 22 and went to jail - call bio dad up?

No - biological only means something when that individual is in their life . . . and after all that much time (which is longer than my marriage) - the past is THE PAST and nothing to be conjured up *just* because a couple divorced.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are saying that they care for the guy that cared for them. Not exactly news to me.


That's just a copout and it's bull****.
Click to expand...

How is it a copout? What you are talking about is a different question than the one we are dealing with here.

It's up to the kids as they get older when and how they might want a relationship with their bio parent that's not in the picture - up to them and no one else to stir that pot. What if they don't?

If they were 2 it might be a different story - but they're not. They're almost adults. In just 2 years the oldest will be 18. Right now she's a sophomore in high school :shrug: It's only in their best interest if they WANT it for theirselves. It's bad enough Mom and Dad divorced - and bad enough they've learned all this about their selves. . . sounds like things are ****ty enough - and some want to have strange men they never know and might not want to know SUPPORT them now?
Click to expand...

So basically you are worried that someone might get rights to their kids and this might harm the children?

Why - so the father they DO know can skip town and spite his children that he's raised just out of anger towards their mother?
Click to expand...

You mean the guy they know as their father, but yeah, pretty much. He isn't their dad and has no responsibility to care for them just because he did it for X amount of years and signed a contract under false pretenses. Of course, the law disagrees with me and apparently so does laws on birth certificates. Apparently, its cool if you are given misinformation when you sign the birth certificate. Can't for the life of me figure out how someone defends that though.

Wow - definitely NOT good for the girls - is it? No - it's not. At some point the PARENTS aren't factored in much at all and we're long past that time, here.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that is damaging to them. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I don't see how that is damaging to them. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Obviously - and that's the crux of the problem, here.

You can't imagine how it might be nothing but a negative for these children to be suddenly supported by someone other than their actual father.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I still don't get this.

IF the children were young - maybe . . . but 12, 14 and 16 years of being with this man - That much time passes and no. It just doesn't flow that way.

What - what if they were 30 and one died and then everyone finds out the truth from Mom - would their biological father be looked up and called in as next of kin? Or to make the arrangements? No

What if one was 22 and went to jail - call bio dad up?

No - biological only means something when that individual is in their life . . . and after all that much time (which is longer than my marriage) - the past is THE PAST and nothing to be conjured up *just* because a couple divorced.

That's just a copout and it's bull****.

It's up to the kids as they get older when and how they might want a relationship with their bio parent that's not in the picture - up to them and no one else to stir that pot. What if they don't?

If they were 2 it might be a different story - but they're not. They're almost adults. In just 2 years the oldest will be 18. Right now she's a sophomore in high school :shrug: It's only in their best interest if they WANT it for theirselves. It's bad enough Mom and Dad divorced - and bad enough they've learned all this about their selves. . . sounds like things are ****ty enough - and some want to have strange men they never know and might not want to know SUPPORT them now?

Why - so the father they DO know can skip town and spite his children that he's raised just out of anger towards their mother?

Wow - definitely NOT good for the girls - is it? No - it's not. At some point the PARENTS aren't factored in much at all and we're long past that time, here.
Click to expand...


As a bio father of one of my children that I had no contact with through out his life, and only recently met, and got the opportunity to host him in our home. It was totally his choice to come and meet me, and it was only after I would say, a couple of years of communicating with him over the phone, and talking about everything. Never would I presume to take the place of the man that raised my son, nor would I consider that he would want me to. The key to our relationship is that it is all up to him, and we are just happy to be a part of his life now.
 
Henrin said:
I don't see how that is damaging to them. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You can't see how suddenly discovering that the man they've called Dad all of their lives is not really their dad at all, that their mother slept around and that they have a biological dad somewhere that they've never met might be damaging? You can't see how their parents getting a divorce, and their dad, no longer dad now, not wanting to acknowledge them as his children could be a problem? You can't see how all of that might be just a tiny bit stressful for a teen age kid?

Oh, sure, my parents are divorced, my dad isn't really my dad, doesn't want to me as his daughter, my biological dad is an unknown, but I'm OK with it, really. Want to go get a burger?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Obviously - and that's the crux of the problem, here.

You can't imagine how it might be nothing but a negative for these children to be suddenly supported by someone other than their actual father.
Click to expand...

I am not even considering support as the basis of my position. but if i was than what I said would lead to support by their "actual" father. In any event, I don't see how putting someone into these kids life can damage them in any way.
 
Henrin said:
I am not even considering support as the basis of my position. but if i was than what I said would lead to support by their "actual" father. In any event, I don't see how putting someone into these kids life can damage them in any way.
Click to expand...

Sure - you don't get the emotional and psychological impact. . . that's fine.

What do you mean mean by 'I am not even considering support as the basis of my position' - that's what this whole issues is about: who pays child support? the bio fathers after 12 / 14 / 16 years . . . or the father figure who has been there for 12 / 14 / 16 years and those girls grew up knowing as 'dad - our provider'

To me - the damage is done when the father they HAVE known says 'see-ya - don't care about ya - someone else who doesn't know you at all can provide for you - not me - not my concern suddenly' . . . he shouldn't be allowed to stab the girls in the back like that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You can't see how suddenly discovering that the man they've called Dad all of their lives is not really their dad at all, that their mother slept around and that they have a biological dad somewhere that they've never met might be damaging? You can't see how their parents getting a divorce, and their dad, no longer dad now, not wanting to acknowledge them as his children could be a problem? You can't see how all of that might be just a tiny bit stressful for a teen age kid?
Click to expand...

No doubt the situation is ****ed up and much of that is going to cause stress and maybe depression for the kids, but that is life. There is no reason to acknowledge something that isn't true, sorry. He isn't their dad, its just a cold hard fact of life, but on the bright side he didn't say he didn't love them. Though he might of conveyed that to the kids. I have already said in this thread that I think he did the right thing though.

Oh, sure, my parents are divorced, my dad isn't really my dad, doesn't want to me as his daughter, my biological dad is an unknown, but I'm OK with it, really. Want to go get a burger?
Click to expand...

In my mind when someone says they don't want to be forced to pay child support for kids that are not their own they are not saying they don't love the kids. Sure, it means he will lose parental rights, but that doesn't mean he can't be involved in their life in one way or the other.
 
Henrin said:
No doubt the situation is ****ed up and much of that is going to cause stress and maybe depression for the kids, but that is life. There is also no reason to acknowledge something that isn't true, sorry. He isn't their dad, its just a cold hard fact of life, but on the bright side he didn't say he didn't love them. Though he might of conveyed that to the kids. I have already said in this thread that I think he did the right thing though.



In my mind when someone says they don't want to be forced to pay child support for kids that are not their own they are not saying they don't love the kids. Sure, it means he will lose parental rights, but that doesn't mean he can't be involved in their life in one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I think they've acknowledged it plenty. This whole thing is because they've had no CHOICE but to acknowledge that their mother slept around a lot - lied to their father and lied to them - and that their father who raised them now doesn't want anything to do with them because of what their mother did.

I think that's as about as harsh and brutal as life can get. . . 'it might be depressing but that's life' doesn't cut it.

I'm not about to shove aside their feelings and what's right - for them. I have NO DOUBT that they were required to give their thoughts and feelings to the court during this process - and the court ruled according to what was right FOR THE CHILDREN.

Because that's what courts DO in cases like this - the feelings of the parents are put aside. The CHILDREN are the priority. It's a small recompense for their suffering.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Sure - you don't get the emotional and psychological impact. . . that's fine.

What do you mean mean by 'I am not even considering support as the basis of my position' - that's what this whole issues is about: who pays child support? the bio fathers after 12 / 14 / 16 years . . . or the father figure who has been there for 12 / 14 / 16 years and those girls grew up knowing as 'dad - our provider'

To me - the damage is done when the father they HAVE known says 'see-ya - don't care about ya - someone else who doesn't know you at all can provide for you - not me - not my concern suddenly' . . . he shouldn't be allowed to stab the girls in the back like that.
Click to expand...

The reporting doesn't say if maybe he sought custody or even visitation. Could have been the motivation for the DNA testing in the first place. I could see him having this reaction after finding out and having custody/visitation denied then getting charged for it monthly.

Or maybe he's just one of those folks who believe blood is thicker than water and isn't at all interested in someone else's children. Dick move, but once again, no matter how you spin this - they are not his kids (legally).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom