• 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

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...
yea. i was concerned about that, too
he has been these girls' father for up to 16 years and then he goes to court to disavow them
can't even imagine how much that must hurt
worse than being disowned, because even then 'ownership' was once recognized

and my speculation is this fellow did not know or even suspect the girls were not his own until his estranged wife exposed that ugly truth to him once the marriage was found irreparable
can't imagine how much that would hurt, either, knowing that the kids you had helped feed and raise for 16 years were from the seed of another man. that he had been so deceived for 16 years has to cut to the quick

so, in all of this, we see that there are definitely no winners. the kids are deeply hurt and left to the custody of their deceptive, whoring mother. and the father, feeling wronged, betrayed the unconditional love of his daughters

the whole situation sucks. but the judge made the right call
 
If the man who raised the children to sub adulthood isn't their father, but the unknown Lothario who slept with their mother years ago is, then it follows that fatherhood depends on biology, and that fatherhood begins when the father's sperm meets the mother's egg. Therefore, fatherhood begins at conception. If that is so, then the father has as much of a stake in any decision about abortion as the mother does.
 
clownboy said:
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).
Click to expand...

Yes - the articles I've read are very limited on facts because they're underage.

And legally - they just ruled they were. So obviously you just don't agree . . . I think you'd feel different if you were in their position. I definitely would.

Let's pretend this: My husband didn't adopt my boys.
He married me with them having been born so knowledge was there.

Lets say that a few years ago when I left him and took the kids we got a divorce.

He - is all they know as a father - no ruling of the court. No biological connection to a father who was never in their life for a variety of reasons - would change that FOR THE KIDS. They will have memories of him as their father and think of him as their father for their entire life - because that's what he was.

That relationship to a child doesn't' end just because of some legalities and secret revelations.
 
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 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...

The bolded is untrue. He is still their dad, simply not their biological father. That difference is very important. His love and respect for his children should not be diminished by the actions of his ex-wife, but the child support is likely required to be paid to her, making it such a bitter pill to swallow.
 
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...

Agreed. If he had any doubts previously about the paternity of those children, he should have sought that out long before he raised them. It takes MUCH more to be a parent, then just donating sperm or an egg.
 
What if we were in a different situation entirely:

What if - let's say - Mom died . . . and on her deathbed she told the truth.

Would the naysayers who don't believe he's 'legally bound' to them be content with given permission/the right to continue to care for them even though they weren't biologically his? Or would they want the children placed in the care of their bio dad?

I guarantee you that everyone would say 'of course they're his kids! He has the right to continue to raise them - the fact that they were fathered by someone else so many years ago doesn't matter because he is there for them!' . . . see - that establishes it right there.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
And legally - they just ruled they were. So obviously you just don't agree . . . I think you'd feel different if you were in their position. I definitely would.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't rule the kids were his, nor is there any mention of visitation or him having ANY parental rights. The court just ruled he must pay the child support anyway.

Also not mentioned in the article, does he get to see the kids? Perhaps he took this move after the court ruled he could no longer have any visitation (because he is not the legal father).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The bolded is untrue. He is still their dad, simply not their biological father. That difference is very important. His love and respect for his children should not be diminished by the actions of his ex-wife, but the child support is likely required to be paid to her, making it such a bitter pill to swallow.
Click to expand...

My son is adopted and I very much agree with what you've said here. I did not give birth to him like I did my daughter and they are no different in my eyes because of it.

I can understand his bitterness toward his ex-wife - however - he is a truly heartless SOB if after raising these children for most of their lives, states now that they are not "his children".

Instead of whining about the paternity at THIS POINT - why doesn't he seek sole custody of the children and have his exwife pay child support to him? If I were him, I'd also find out what it would take to adopt them.

Whatever. People are so stinking selfish and self absorbed any more. It makes me sick to my stomach.

I feel horrible for these kids ...
 
clownboy said:
No, they didn't rule the kids were his, nor is there any mention of visitation or him having ANY parental rights. The court just ruled he must pay the child support anyway.
Click to expand...

We actually don't know any of the other stuff - we can't assume one way or the other when it's not provided.
 
Henrin said:
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...

Wait a minute....1. That is exactly what they are saying...Support is for the child, not the custodial parent. 2. Losing parental rights, but will still be involved in their lives? Are you kidding here? Look, If I found out that the guy I thought loved me, and was my father, all of the sudden was not, and won't support me, do you really think I'd want to see the guy? pfft, I'd tell him to F off.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Sure - you don't get the emotional and psychological impact. . . that's fine.
Click to expand...

I get it just fine for most of the issue, but not for including someone else in their life.

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'
Click to expand...

No, the basis of my position is that the biological father must give up his parental rights before someone else can have access to those rights. In this case, a man signed into legal responsibilities under a lie by the mother that both mislead another party and bypassed the rights of the biological father. The contract should obviously be null and void and its both fraud and a right violation. As for support, that is more of a result of a system that I frankly reject.

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...

I don't recall him saying he didn't care for them. Anyway, since they are not his kids they are just people he cares about or not. It's that simple.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The bolded is untrue. He is still their dad, simply not their biological father. That difference is very important. His love and respect for his children should not be diminished by the actions of his ex-wife, but the child support is likely required to be paid to her, making it such a bitter pill to swallow.
Click to expand...

Legally I suppose, but I'm obviously not referring to illegitimate legalities there.
 
I don't think child support, for children you raised for what..16 years(?) is where you allow legal justice for the way his wife treated him. Caring for chilrden either falls on taxpayers, or the parents, and he's the parent, it's his responsibility regardless (and the ex wifes of course).

I don't know enough about the law but maybe this guy has a case to be made in some civil action against his ex-wife.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
My son is adopted and I very much agree with what you've said here.
Click to expand...

The bolded part of the sentence makes your situation much different. He was not given any choice in the matter. Perhaps, had he known at the time of their births, he would have adopted them. That choice was taken away from him.

And we still don't know how much of his parental rights were stripped from him because it was found he is not the father (legally).
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
My son is adopted and I very much agree with what you've said here. I did not give birth to him like I did my daughter and they are no different in my eyes because of it.

I can understand his bitterness toward his ex-wife - however - he is a truly heartless SOB if after raising these children for most of their lives, states now that they are not "his children".

Instead of whining about the paternity at THIS POINT - why doesn't he seek sole custody of the children and have his exwife pay child support to him? If I were him, I'd also find out what it would take to adopt them.

Whatever. People are so stinking selfish and self absorbed any more. It makes me sick to my stomach.

I feel horrible for these kids ...
Click to expand...

I am assuming that the beef is with the ex-wife and he desires to deprive her, rather than the children, of court mandated financial support. It is unfortunate that child support is awarded to the custodial parent rather than placed into a trust under control of the minor children and/or a court appointed trustee on their behalf. I have seen far too many use the "child support" funds to buy a fancier car, dump the offspring off at their parents house and then enjoy being "free" to spend more time (and money) away from that XXXX's kids.
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute....1. That is exactly what they are saying...Support is for the child, not the custodial parent.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. You can still care for a child and not want to be forced to support them. They are separate issues that involve different emotions and rational.

2. Losing parental rights, but will still be involved in their lives? Are you kidding here? Look, If I found out that the guy I thought loved me, and was my father, all of the sudden was not, and won't support me, do you really think I'd want to see the guy? pfft, I'd tell him to F off.
Click to expand...

That is your choice. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Wait a minute....1. That is exactly what they are saying...Support is for the child, not the custodial parent.
Click to expand...

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?

j-mac said:
2. Losing parental rights, but will still be involved in their lives? Are you kidding here? Look, If I found out that the guy I thought loved me, and was my father, all of the sudden was not, and won't support me, do you really think I'd want to see the guy? pfft, I'd tell him to F off.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Henrin said:
I get it just fine for most of the issue, but not for including someone else in their life.



No, the basis of my position is that the biological father must give up his parental rights before someone else can have access to those rights. In this case, a man signed into legal responsibilities under a lie by the mother that both mislead another party and bypassed the rights of the biological father. The contract should obviously be null and void and its both fraud and a right violation. As for support, that is more of a result of a system that I frankly reject.



I don't recall him saying he didn't care for them. Anyway, since they are not his kids they are just people he cares about or not. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

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

And like I said some number of posts ago - the bio fathers should assert their 'rights' if that's what they want and then have the courts decide on that separate issue.

See - this is where lack of info is a bitch . . . maybe the bio dads never cared and always knew? To many guys who have one-night stands and affairs who then father children out of that they just don't care and walk away - dissolving rights without going through any sort of legal avenue to do so.

Further - the courts can't force her to tell who they might be if she doesn't want to . . . and so on. She made the decision all those many years ago.

Women are granted the ultimate say from the beginning because we're hte ones who are pregnant and carry / birth the child. If an estranged or uninvolved biological father wants to be involved in said child's life THEY should pursue it IMMEDIATELY.

I only hear crickets.
 
clownboy said:
The bolded part of the sentence makes your situation much different. He was not given any choice in the matter. Perhaps, had he known at the time of their births, he would have adopted them. That choice was taken away from him.

And we still don't know how much of his parental rights were stripped from him because it was found he is not the father (legally).
Click to expand...

Here's the thing.... the father MUST have had doubts prior to his divorce, otherwise, why would paternity testing be done at the end of the marriage.

My argument is this: If the man had any inkling of a doubt, then he should have voiced that concern and had a paternity test preformed long before now. Who raises children from a young age and has hidden doubt, and then 16 years later says, "Oh but no.. I have cared for, provided for and loved these children this long... but NOW... oh no. I hate their mother and I'm sending the message to the children that I couldn't care less about them because I'm not the one who 'created' them"?

He was given a choice. If he had doubts about the paternity - he had to choice whether or not to persue that avenue. He chose not to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am assuming that the beef is with the ex-wife and he desires to deprive her, rather than the children, of court mandated financial support. It is unfortunate that child support is awarded to the custodial parent rather than placed into a trust under control of the minor children and/or a court appointed trustee on their behalf. I have seen far too many use the "child support" funds to buy a fancier car, dump the offspring off at their parents house and then enjoy being "free" to spend more time (and money) away from that XXXX's kids.
Click to expand...

I have witnessed this myself. And yes, I agree with much of what you've stated.

And yes, he most definitely has the right to feel the way he does toward his ex-wife... however... his responsibility in the matter should also be taken into account. Sounds like she has made some very dishonest and poor choices and so has he. I would have addressed the doubt a long while ago - IF it was that important to me. It's just sad that now the children are the ones that have to suffer because two "adults" can't seem to get their **** together.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Here's the thing.... the father MUST have had doubts prior to his divorce, otherwise, why would paternity testing be done at the end of the marriage.
Click to expand...

Again, we're speculating because the reporting doesn't tell us. But the DNA testing may have been requested by the mother. Maybe he was trying for custody and she used this to deny him that.

TheGirlNextDoor said:
My argument is this: If the man had any inkling of a doubt, then he should have voiced that concern and had a paternity test preformed long before now. Who raises children from a young age and has hidden doubt, and then 16 years later says, "Oh but no.. I have cared for, provided for and loved these children this long... but NOW... oh no. I hate their mother and I'm sending the message to the children that I couldn't care less about them because I'm not the one who 'created' them"?
Click to expand...

I know, that would be a dick move, right? But some folks don't believe as we do. But, that isn't the issue, the fact is, though he's been acting as a parent all these years, he's not their legal father and has no parental rights under the law (I'm guessing Canadian law is similar to ours).

TheGirlNextDoor said:
He was given a choice. If he had doubts about the paternity - he had to choice whether or not to persue that avenue. He chose not to.
Click to expand...

No, he wasn't. There's no mention of him knowing or being given any choice in any of this.
 
I wonder if the father pursued custody of the children?
It would seem that it would be more just all the way around if he had custody, and the sleeping around mother were the one paying child support. That way, the girls would know that their father was still their father, the father wouldn't have to pay child support to a mother who cheated on him, and the kids wouldn't feel abandoned.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The rights of the children trump all others in such cases - it always has and always will.
Click to expand...

Which isn't right and simply stating that fact doesn't support it.

And like I said some number of posts ago - the bio fathers should assert their 'rights' if that's what they want and then have the courts decide on that separate issue.
Click to expand...

If it is known who the father is than the rights should be placed in occurrence with that. Clearly, this would involve a court decision, but then, that is rather obvious.

See - this is where lack of info is a bitch . . . maybe the bio dads never cared and always knew? To many guys who have one-night stands and affairs who then father children out of that they just don't care and walk away - dissolving rights without going through any sort of legal avenue to do so.
Click to expand...

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

Further - the courts can't force her to tell who they might be if she doesn't want to . . . and so on. She made the decision all those many years ago.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but then that is not needed either. No support has to occur and no father has to come forward or be in place.

Women are granted the ultimate say from the beginning because we're hte ones who are pregnant and carry / birth the child. If an estranged or uninvolved biological father wants to be involved in said child's life THEY should pursue it IMMEDIATELY.
Click to expand...

Yeah..yeah. :roll:
 
Henrin said:
No, its not. You can still care for a child and not want to be forced to support them. They are separate issues that involve different emotions and rational.
Click to expand...

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....

Child Support
Financial support paid by a parent to help support a child or children of whom they do not have custody. Child support can be entered into voluntarily or ordered by a court or a properly empowered administrative agency, depending on each state's laws.

Child Support Glossary - FindLaw
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom