Originally posted by Ray Gunz I>The man is not the father. This has been proven by DNA, and he therefore feels he has been unknowingly living a lie for 16 years, which of course he has. He should be compensated in some way, the easiest of which is to relieve him of any financial responsibility for the children, which are not his.
If in doubt, check it out. Momma's baby, Poppa's maybe. After 16 years the poor sap is the father, whether it's biological or not. If, on the other hand, we were talking about newborns or toddlers, I'd fight it all the way to the Supreme court myself.
>Had he known they were not his and accepted the father role, then what you say would be true, but he did not know because he was never informed. He is therefore not the father on any conceivable level.
Originally posted by Ray Gunz IDoes this mean that if you meet an unmarried woman with four children aged 4-8 who father left her 3 months previously after being with her for 10 years, then decide to marry her. You then have two children, then divorce her 8 years later and are awarded custody of the two children you fathered. Do you have a financial responsibiity for the four children she had before you met, because you have had a major part in their life to date?
If in doubt, check it out. Momma's baby, Poppa's maybe. After 16 years the poor sap is the father, whether it's biological or not. If, on the other hand, we were talking about newborns or toddlers, I'd fight it all the way to the Supreme court myself.
What happens when she gets a new partner? Does your financial responsibilty then end and he assumes responsibiity?
Originally posted by LundosYou'd b e wasting your time and hard earned money. Such rulings have been upheld by appeal courts, including the Supreme Court. The lawyers have made enough money while accomplishing nothing for the man. The justice system stinks.
The man has been had! The slut has no memory of an extramarital affair preceding the birth? How many did she sleep with then? If that ruling was against me, I would have appealed it at once - with a different attorney. A good one.
It's wothwhile reading the Court's decision at http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii68884/2008canlii68884.html:
It concludes: The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent’s own conduct, whether it be delay in pursuing support, an attempt to contract out of support, or the failure to disclose an extramarital affair that may have led to the conception of the child. Mr. Cornelio was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage; the relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children. The fact of that relationship, which continued for six years before separation and then for 10 years after separation, even if it has now become strained, is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children’s material needs.
[24] Even if this matter were approached on the basis of fairness to the respondent, I would conclude that his child support obligations toward the twins continues notwithstanding that he is not their biological father. By his own admission, Mr. Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with “Tony” and he developed suspicions that she had known Tony during the marriage and that he might be the father of all three of their children. Notwithstanding these suspicions, Mr. Cornelio sought joint custody of all three children and entered into a consent order that provided for his ongoing and important involvement in their lives and for the provision of child support. It was not until access was interrupted and Ms. Cornelio commenced these proceedings seeking increased child support that the respondent began pursuing this issue. As Mendes da Costa U.F.C.J. noted in Spring, a support obligation to a child created by one’s conduct during the marriage cannot be cast aside after separation. I can only conclude that this motion by Mr. Cornelio is a response to the current conflict with the applicant and his unfortunate alienation from the children, which may well be temporary.
The case isn't as simple as the article makes it.
>OK, so more facts become known. He still did not know that he was not the father, although the mother did know all along that he wasn't. In addition, the mother was illegally interferring with his legal right of access, and it would seem to me that this latter fact would raise his suspicions as to whether or not he was actually the father, thus the DNA tests which prove beyond doubt that he is not the father.
>While it is true that support is the right of the children, this right must be given by the father, who is clearly not the man in question. The fact that the mother has illegally denied access shows that she wants him out of the life of the children.
>Divorce means that he must be allowed to move on with his life, and since he is not the father, he must be given that right.
Hey don't get me wrong. I feel bad for the guy. Bottom line is, in cases like this courts will always take the females side for the sake of the children. Yes the system stinks, but as you can see by no1marauder's posting he had allot to do with the predicament he got himself into. So way I see it, it's sour grapes on his part. Life is like a game of poker, sometimes a good bluff will win you a hand.
Originally posted by Ray Gunz II don't see it as the courts taking the woman's side. He is the father of the children, no matter the biology. He has raised them and formed a bond with them and they cannot be discarded like old shoes because he is angry with the mother.
Hey don't get me wrong. I feel bad for the guy. Bottom line is, in cases like this courts will always take the females side for the sake of the children. Yes the system stinks, but as you can see by no1marauder's posting he had allot to do with the predicament he got himself into. So way I see it, it's sour grapes on his part. Life is like a game of poker, sometimes a good bluff will win you a hand.
For the life of me, I cannot understand people who would harm a kid (emotionally or otherwise) simply to get back at the other parent. That is selfishness of the worst degree.
Originally posted by MimorI agree, and both parties are just as guilty. Her lie is causing as much emotional damage, if not more.
I don't see it as the courts taking the woman's side. He is the father of the children, no matter the biology. He has raised them and formed a bond with them and they cannot be discarded like old shoes because he is angry with the mother.
For the life of me, I cannot understand people who would harm a kid (emotionally or otherwise) simply to get back at the other parent. That is selfishness of the worst degree.
Originally posted by Ray Gunz I>You could not pay me enough money to be a judge in these kinds of cases. There is not enough money in the country.
I agree, and both parties are just as guilty. Her lie is causing as much emotional damage, if not more.
>However, while I have a tendency to agree, I must respectfully disagree on one point. He is not the father, no matter how you look at it.
>He raised those children under false pretenses because of the lie the mother perpetuated. If a bond was formed, in his mind that bond was permanently severed as a result of the DNA tests combined with the mother's stubborn illegal denial of his access rights, and the court's refusal to enforce those rights
>(Why did the judge refuse to enforce access, as happened in my own case which is not nearly as complicated?)
>Therefore, he clearly wants to put it all behind him and move on with his life and he should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, that invalidates the divorce for him, but not for her.