• 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

"It"?? Would it change how you felt about that child after having raised them for 15 years??

It really is, IMHO, an immature attitude, this trying to break down the responsibility of raising a child to the point where no responsibility is taken, either financial, or otherwise. A symptom of the "me" generation no doubt.
 
"It"?? Would it change how you felt about that child after having raised them for 15 years??

it would change everything. Have you ever had a child? I have one son and the greatest minute of my life was holding him knowing that I helped make this and he is part of me. For that to just be ripped away from you would be devastating, regardless of the love you woudl still feel for the child your whole life upto that point would of been a lie. Some posters on here are quick to judge this guy but I have to say if I found out my child wasn't mine it would crush my soul.
 
it would change everything. Have you ever had a child? I have one son and the greatest minute of my life was holding him knowing that I helped make this and he is part of me. For that to just be ripped away from you would be devastating, regardless of the love you woudl still feel for the child your whole life upto that point would of been a lie. Some posters on here are quick to judge this guy but I have to say if I found out my child wasn't mine it would crush my soul.

I have two kids, neither of whom are biologically mine. Granted, I knew that ahead of time.

I doesn't change a thing, and I feel the same way I would feel if they were "mine."
 
Depends on the jurisdiction, sadly. "Social" Dad should win, but I've seen the family courts do some godawful ****ed-up things.

I am willing to make a gentleman's wager, though, that if the court ordered him to pay child support that they would support him in a custody dispute against the biological father.

Except we don't know that he wasn't (the non-bio dad) already denied custody because he wasn't the children's legal father. Again I remind everyone this is Canada, different court system, different laws than here in the US (where it's really state by state).
 
it would change everything. Have you ever had a child? I have one son and the greatest minute of my life was holding him knowing that I helped make this and he is part of me. For that to just be ripped away from you would be devastating, regardless of the love you woudl still feel for the child your whole life upto that point would of been a lie. Some posters on here are quick to judge this guy but I have to say if I found out my child wasn't mine it would crush my soul.

It would hurt no doubt, but would you not still feel the lifetime of bonding up to that point for the child?
 
I have two kids, neither of whom are biologically mine. Granted, I knew that ahead of time.

I doesn't change a thing, and I feel the same way I would feel if they were "mine."

no offence mate but not everyone is you and like you said you knew ahead of time.
 
Except we don't know that he wasn't (the non-bio dad) already denied custody because he wasn't the children's legal father. Again I remind everyone this is Canada, different court system, different laws than here in the US (where it's really state by state).

We don't know that he wasn't a convicted child molester, either, if we're going to just start making **** up.
 
It would hurt no doubt, but would you not still feel the lifetime of bonding up to that point for the child?

of course you would but I imagine you would also feel betrayed and hurt and would want to get back and the mother anyway you could. I would still pay for the childs eductaion, clothes etc but that would be out of my own pocket and it would be my choice. I dont think its right that a court should make this man pay if he doesnt want to, thats his right.
 
"It"?? Would it change how you felt about that child after having raised them for 15 years??

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.
 
Why not? Don't you feel a responsibility to take care of the child you created?

Of course, I consider it my responsibility to take care of my children. This is a personal affair and not one the government needs to involve itself in.
 
Of course, I consider it my responsibility to take care of my children. This is a personal affair and not one the government needs to involve itself in.

Thats what it comes down to for me, morally you shoudl continue to look after the children like they were still your own but that should be your choice. I just dont think the courts should have the right to make this guy pay a penny to his horrible excuse for a wife if he doesnt want to. The "women" should of kept better track of all her **** buddies and make them pay.
 
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.

If they weren't a parent before, how are they "punished" by not becoming a parent after? Nobody has a right to be a parent to a child they don't even know exists.
 
of course you would but I imagine you would also feel betrayed and hurt and would want to get back and the mother anyway you could. I would still pay for the childs eductaion, clothes etc but that would be out of my own pocket and it would be my choice. I dont think its right that a court should make this man pay if he doesnt want to, thats his right.

By using the child as a wedge? Oh man.
 
Of course, I consider it my responsibility to take care of my children. This is a personal affair and not one the government needs to involve itself in.

The courts are involved due to the overwhelming amount of young males who would shirk that responsibility. Either they pay, or we do.
 
The courts are involved due to the overwhelming amount of young males who would shirk that responsibility. Either they pay, or we do.

Of course the government made that choice and then people like yourself are deciding to use that as their argument. Don't be surprised if I don't respect it.
 
If they weren't a parent before, how are they "punished" by not becoming a parent after? Nobody has a right to be a parent to a child they don't even know exists.

Of course they do.
 
If they weren't a parent before, how are they "punished" by not becoming a parent after? Nobody has a right to be a parent to a child they don't even know exists.

Actually, they do. Having never consented to give up their parental rights, they cannot lose them, even if they didn't know they existed. Only a court can grant an involuntary termination of parental rights, but the reasoning is very specific, and non-notification isn't one of them.
 
By using the child as a wedge? Oh man.

not sure where you got that from. I would get back at the mother by having little to no contact with her ever again and she would not get a single penny directly from me. Any money for the kids would go into secure savings accoutns or I would take them to the store and buy them clothes etc myself.
 
We don't know that he wasn't a convicted child molester, either, if we're going to just start making **** up.

Get a grip. My supposition as to what might have happened, in light of the dearth of real reporting on the issue, is a good as yours. You've been speculating every bit as much. At least I'll labeled my speculation for what it is.
 
Actually, they do. Having never consented to give up their parental rights, they cannot lose them, even if they didn't know they existed. Only a court can grant an involuntary termination of parental rights, but the reasoning is very specific, and non-notification isn't one of them.

I'm not speaking legally. With rare exceptions like this case, I think the family court system in most of the Western world is bat**** insane.
 
Since I define parents as the people who have consented to supporting their children, I absolutely support forcing parents to support their children. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
What seems to be lacking in the discussion today is situational context. The man knew of his wife's affairs well in advance of the divorce and chose to stay with his wife and conceived a child with her, the only child biologically his. Granted, he assumed the first three were also his, but becoming aware of his wife's infidelity, he chose not to seek paternity tests at that time, showing a certain level of love for the children, as well as his wife.

Fast forward a decade and now the marriage is over - during divorce proceedings, whether it was his idea or his lawyers, the man decides to have paternity tests done on all four children and discovers that three of them are not his and there are multiple other biological fathers. The wife, apparently, doesn't know who the fathers may be or perhaps chooses not to give possible names. Since the husband has accepted "fatherhood" of the children that he didn't biologically create for 16, 14 and 12 years respectively, the court decides that he continues to be financially responsible for their care irrespective of their parental lineage.

It is not clear from reports whether or not the husband wants to continue to support the children outside of a court order, but it is abundantly clear that he chose to fight such a court order, likely on the advice of his lawyer. In divorce proceedings, people frequently do what their lawyers advise them to do even if they would morally or emotionally wish to do otherwise.

In my view, this court decision isn't unreasonable considering the family's background. It is more questionable in the Kansas case where the sperm donor father has had no parental involvement for three years and none of the parties wanted him to and contracted that arrangement and now the Kansas state government is seeking support from him because the lesbian parents are seeking social assistance from the state.
 
Since I define parents as the people who have consented to supporting their children, I absolutely support forcing parents to support their children. :2razz:

And I don't because unlike you I actually understand what you said. :2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom