why not share with us who the bio fathers are from whom the court is not assessing child support
bet you don't know who they are
neither does the mother
You're the one who is too naive to know that that is not what it means.
It means giving money to the custodial parent. Period.
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 know if he should pay though. I wonder about the real dad or dads. Why should they get away with not paying for children they (or he) created?
Why should an adulterer have the right to split up a man's home after sleeping with his wife?
The man in the article is the real dad. The others were just sperm donors.
You're the one who is too naive to know that that is not what it means.
It means giving money to the custodial parent. Period.
You're the one who is too naive to know that that is not what it means.
It means giving money to the custodial parent. Period.
Support monies collected are expected to be used for the child's expenses, including food, clothing and educational needs. They are not meant to function as "spending money" for the child.[9] Courts have held that it is unacceptable for child support payments to be used to directly benefit the custodial parent.
Child support - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What if she never told the fathers about their children and they never knew? What if they decided they wanted to see their kids and be a part of their kids' lives?
So what if she didn't, and so what if they did? Why should sleeping with another man's wife give them rights to his children? If they wanted children, they should have found wives of their own.
Maybe she lied about being married too? It's possible. :shrug:
What I'm saying is, dipping their wicks doesn't make them fathers. Those children have a father, even if he is being a colossal jackass at the moment, and the courts should be focused on making him do the right thing. Only thing those other men have any business doing is staying the hell away from him and his family.
The man in the article is the real dad. The others were just sperm donors.
What I'm saying is, dipping their wicks doesn't make them fathers.
Um. By that standard, the mom's just an egg donor. It takes both gametes to create a new human being. Once you've created a new human being, you're both responsible for its well being.
The victim of this awful woman's con job is not the father of three of those kids.
He did not agree to adopt this woman's other kids. He was lied to. It would be sick, and wrong, and evil, to make him continue to pay child support for offspring that some other men made with his lying, unfaithful wife. There is no reason to hold him financially responsible for those kids when he had no part in their creation.
He would have to assume that responsibility on his own, willingly, for that to be the case. This sort of fraudulent misdeed ought to carry serious consequences.
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.
Does child support only apply to blood children? That's the question in my mind.
In most of the US and Canada, it applies to any child born within wedlock as well as to blood children.
Two gametes and nine months of resource-intensive gestation which the biological mother exclusively provides. Why do you keep forgetting about that?
No, the father of those three kids is definitely the victim of this awful woman's con job. Else he wouldn't have been their father.
He agreed to be the father of those children
The children have not betrayed him.
What is sick and wrong and evil is letting a father walk away from his obligations to his children because his marriage dissolved.
I didn't forget about it, I just don't think that much matters. I don't see why you do.
Both of those folks should be held responsible for the offspring they created.
That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of the con was to convince him he was their father when he objectively and factually was not.
I say again... the mother owes the victim of her deception compensation, and this liability would far exceed any potential child support that is owed.
And this is why you are so often accused of disregarding women in your stance. You literally don't see the difference between nine months in a womb and fifteen minutes in the backseat of a Volkswagen.
Likewise, you do seem to see the difference between fifteen minutes in the backseat of a Volkswagen and fifteen goddamned years of a raising child... and you seem to think that the former is more important when determining who a child's real father is. This is so morally and logically backward that I cannot conceive of how people honestly believe in it-- but almost everyone else in this thread is treating it as if it were all but self-evident.
Leaving abortion aside
they are not held responsible when they give the child to another family for adoption.
By your logic, both of them should be forced to pay child support the entire time the child is growing up with its adoptive family-- and either of them should have the right to demand custody of the child later, if they change their mind about wanting children.
He objectively and factually raised those children for their entire lives. He is objectively and factually the only father they've ever known and he is-- as a matter of opinion-- a sorry son of a bitch for abandoning his children on the basis of their mother's treachery.
He doesn't owe child support to the mother, he owes it to the children. His children.
She doesn't owe him anything, any more than he would owe her if he'd been the one cheating-- there is no compensation for the years wasted in a failed marriage.
There is a difference. I think you see it to be more than what it is. Pregnancy is not the act of creation; that moment already came and went.
Let's try this another way, then.
If the biological father had been involved with the mother, then abandoned her, and then some other man comes along, marries her, accepts that child as his own? That is something else than what happened here.
But the biological father is also a father in a very real way.
If we're being strict about definitions and not including performing the social expectations expected of someone else, then no, such a person can never be a father... but even then, you can modify the term... "adopted father," "stepfather," etc. And we do. This is descriptive. But the biological father does not even truly need the term "biological," now does he? That's implied. Every Homo sapiens has one; we're a sexually reproducing species.
But in this case? The above never happened. The man never accepted that social role. He never had that opportunity. It was stolen from him. His wife betrayed him. He never, ever consented to raise the children of his wife and another man, and another man, and another man. He is socially nothing and biologically nothing. He was simply a victim. The state is compelling him to continue being his ex-wife's victim. That is wrong.
Gladly, though surely, if we are consistent individuals, and it seems we both are, the same values that inform our positions on that issue will inform our position on this issue.
No, certainly not. But then, they have abdicated that responsibility... in a responsible way, in a way that allowed someone else to voluntarily accept the financial and social obligations of their role, obligations that the parents no doubt felt they could not provide. There is nothing disreputable in that, nothing to disparage, and no, the terms of this arrangement sever financial responsibility.
They are not his children, not socially or biologically. He never agreed to adopt the children of three unknown men and his unfaithful wife.
How much is 50% of the room and board expenses for three children over the course of over a dozen years? He never had the opportunity to agree to pay for those expenses that he was not liable for. He was the victim of a con, a fraud, and frankly he should be entitled to recompense.