# Non-Father must continue child support **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342 "2009-01-08T06:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/161 "2009-01-09T00:25:55Z")
Why are we going about this as if there’s only 2 solutions (non-biological fathers pay, or they don’t)? To me, the easiest thing to do is to stop the bias against men in the laws and make it more equitable. The feminist movement is a long time ago and I would hope that women have it much better now. If a man were to find out the child is not his, and he and the woman divorced, don’t make it mandatory that he has to pay. If the woman can afford it, let her pay Or, perhaps an even more radical idea, give the children to the man (if he wants them) and cut the cheating woman out of the kids’ lives, even if she is the biological mother. After all, it seems to me that the courts are already saying that biology doesnt matter by forcing step fathers to pay for their ex-wives’ kids, then biology shouldnt determine who gets to keep the kids If we can make the laws truly about the kids, we give them to the person who loves them most AND who can care for them. If this is the non-biological dad who makes more money, then so be it Many voices have spoken out about the inequities in the law against men when it comes to custody hearings. I would hope that soon our society no longer sees women as the default parent any more than men as the default provider The most fair thing I can think of would be for the state to subsidize for the caring of the children instead of a non-biological father. Of course that would lead to easy and probably massive fraud. Still, we do have welfare, and I dont think the current state of things is fair to the man ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/162 "2009-01-09T00:28:30Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Out of curiosity, what exactly constitues emotional fraud sufficient to excuse people for behaving so badly toward _children_ that they claimed to love the day before they found out? > > Damn straight I dismiss those opinions. Those opinons _suck_. I wonder if you have any evidence for your assertion that the man in the OP claimed to love his children one day, and then did not love them the day after he found out he was the victim of a fraud? I wonder how you come to the conclusion that the man in the OP behaved “so badly” toward the children that he lived with for 6 years, and then had limited access to for the next 10 years? Did the wife behave “badly” when she went to court seeking to increase payments and cut out the husbands access rights? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/163 "2009-01-09T01:01:03Z")
There’s someone who is being almost totally cut out of this discussion: the children’s biological father. There are many compelling reasons why he should not be kept in the dark about the fact that he has kids. His children might need or want to know who he is, for health reasons if nothing else. He might be interested in his offspring. He too is being denied a very important right, just as is the man who was deceived. It seems very unfair of the court to allow the woman to ignore this obligation. If the woman can no longer get support from the other man, she might suddenly “remember” who the biological father is. If a man feels a real bond with a child that is not biologically his, and he chooses to support that child, that should be HIS decision. Court mandated payments are demeaning, and can be very inflexible if the father loses his job, decides to change careers to a lower paying job, wants to go back to school, or has other children. Child support is not just about the oft-repeated phrase “Take care of the child.” It’s a rigid payment plan that allows very little in the way of flexibility for a man who wants to make voluntary life circumstance changes. So, in this way, yes, child support payments can be punitive, and would definitely seem that way to man who was deceived into supporting kids who are not his own. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/164 "2009-01-09T01:09:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which is one reason I think it’s a bad law. You are given the choice of alienating your wife if she IS “faithful and loving”; or leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation if she’s not. Whenever cases like these come up, one of the first things people defending the system say is “well, you should’ve gotten them tested when they were born !” Laws like this, and the attitudes behind them, make trust stupid. What if it were simply done for every birth in a hospital or birthing center that had access to a lab? What if the onus and accusatory layers were removed by making it pro forma? I know. A Pandora’s Box. But still- an even playing field of testing would remove the accusatory aspect. No? Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/165 "2009-01-09T01:19:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Theoretically no, but in a practical sense the relationship would change because I would probably end up getting divorced and having children with another woman… Hey, this is a fast-moving thread. Perhaps you missed the questions I asked a few pages back: (1) Do you have children? (2) Are you \*\*sure \*\*they are yours? (Of course, genetic testing is one of those things that scientists invented. And we all know what you think about science.) ---
**Author:** ![Race\_Harley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Race\_Harley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Race_Harley)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/166 "2009-01-09T01:40:18Z")
This is a sad case on a bunch of fronts. First up, it’s been revealed that she cheated on him during the marriage at some point. Then, after receiving child support for 10 years, she’s trying to get more while reducing his time with the boys. You’d figure at the age the boys are that she’d want them around their “father” since that’s one of the biggest complains society has about children, especially boys growing up in a one-parent household. She’s not getting any sympathy from me so far. For the father at this point in the boys life not to want to pay further child support isn’t right since he’s the only “Dad” they’ve known. There should be a way, since marriage is a contract between two people, for the father to be able to sue her for damages as he was falsely lead to believe that the twins were his. Anyway you look at it, it’s sad… the boys now know that their Mom is a skank and Dad’s tried to leave them high and dry. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/167 "2009-01-09T01:46:10Z")
> [@Race\_Harley](#): > > Anyway you look at it, it’s sad… the boys now know that their Mom is a skank and Dad’s tried to leave them high and dry. This is not necessarily true. He might choose to contribute to their support voluntarily, outside the realm of a government mandate and on a basis much more under his control, for which I would not blame him one bit. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/168 "2009-01-09T02:06:03Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > This is not necessarily true. He might choose to contribute to their support voluntarily, outside the realm of a government mandate and on a basis much more under his control, for which I would not blame him one bit. Indeed **Rubystreak**. Thank you for not jumping on the “The man in the OP is abandoning his poor children!” bandwagon. He may actuall want to send his kids to Soccer Camp and get them school clothes, rather than sending his ex-wife a cheque each month that could very well simply finance a trip to Aruba for her and a boy-toy. We just are not in possession of the complete set of facts. We do know that the wife lied to him, her sons, and the biological father. We do know that she wanted to get more support and decrease access for her ex-husband. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/169 "2009-01-09T02:09:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Past tense. They probably don’t even remember those years; he’s just a guy who shows up occasionally. Ten years of limited access, especially at that age is easily enough to erode away both sides of a parent-child bond. “probably” “just a guy”, “easily enough”. When you get beyond making guesses, suppositions and assumptions, let me know. Because he was the only father these children knew. He treated them as his children for their entire lives. It’s not like there was some other guy acting as their father. As crappy as your fevered imagination leads you to create facts about his relationship, he was the only father they ever knew, > [@Der Trihs](#): > > He’s not a “father”. He’s a wallet. You should contract Randi for your psychic ability to understand children that you have never met and determine the quality of their relationship with their father through a newspaper article. "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." ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/170 "2009-01-09T02:19:09Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Hey, this is a fast-moving thread. Perhaps you missed the questions I asked a few pages back: No, I ignored them because I prefer not to stray too far into my personal life. > [@](#): > > (Of course, genetic testing is one of those things that scientists invented. And we all know what you think about science.) Oh really? And what in your view do I think about science? ---
**Author:** ![Anomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@Anomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anomie)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/171 "2009-01-09T04:08:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m not surprised that people would abandoned their kids, but I am surprised that people could love their kids one day, then just turn it off like a switch the next. I think that would only be possible if the love was never really there in the first place. Could it really be possible to be a kid’s daddy from the day he’s born, to change his diapers, feed him, help him take his first steps, tuck him in at night, care for him when he’s sick, teach him how to throw a football, have him look up to you and trust you and worship you, then have the inhumanity to be able to turn on a dime and tell him you don’t love him anymore, see you later? > > I concur with the suspicion that those who say they could do that have not had the experience of raising a child. Either that or that are just stone sociopaths. Certainly some fathers do instantly abandon their kids on discovering paternity fraud, but the degree of their love is unknowable. In my friend’s case, there was nothing stone cold about his reaction. Instead, there was months of tears, rage, alcohol abuse, job loss and plenty of counseling. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/172 "2009-01-09T04:09:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Questions of legal responsibility aside, does this guy feel nothing at all for these kids after 16 years as their father? Is he really that cold that he can just tell them, “you’re not mine. Fuck you?” > > That boggles me. I have three daughters. I love them more than anything in this world. If, hypothetically (and this would never happen, but just for the sake of argument), I were to find out one day that any or all of those girls were not really mine, it would change the way I felt about my wife, but there’s no possible way it could change how I feel about my children. I coud no more just walk away and wash my hands of them than I could cut my own arms off. How does this guy live with himself? How unfeeling can a guy be? DtC - I agree with you 100% on the feelings issue, but the problem (and emotions) probably go a little deeper than that. The husband may be perfectly willing, and even happy to support the twins, but at the same time he is helping the mother - the woman that betrayed and cuckolded him. THe woman that is now trying to reduce his access to said twins. So he may feel that he is just being treated as a wallet and not a father. If he is being treated as a wallet, while the mother is trying to reduce his emotional input - why should he allow that (after all - it is the emotional aspect that makes him the daddy right, not the financial?) ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/173 "2009-01-09T05:52:53Z")
A guy who has been playing the role of father for years should still have responsibility for the kids, but I do think that fathers should be able to request a paternity test at birth without the mothers consent or knowledge. There will be a few hours at the hospital where this can be done. This would give fathers with suspicions an option to learn the truth without alienating the wife if the suspicions were unfounded. ---
**Author:** ![grey\_ideas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/dfb087/32.png) [@grey\_ideas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grey_ideas)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/174 "2009-01-09T11:15:48Z")
I’ve skimmed this thread a bit so apologies in advance if this has already been asked. My statement on the general point being discussed, I’m not currently a father but if at some point I am and found out the kid(s) were not mine it wouldn’t matter to me in the slightest (with respect to the kid(s) anyway, I imagine the relationship might take a few knocks), I would continue to care for and love the kid(s) just as much as before. My question is, in the situation where a woman starts a relationship with a man who is looking after a kid on his own, does the same apply to her as the man starting a relationship with a women who is looking after a kid on her own? If the relationship lasted for x years and then broke up, is the woman also responsible for child support payments? In you were in this situation would you have any problems with paying child support? Would the length of ‘x’ make a difference to you regarding your willingness to pay child support? ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/175 "2009-01-09T11:51:31Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Out of curiosity, what exactly constitues emotional fraud sufficient to excuse people for behaving so badly toward _children_ that they claimed to love the day before they found out? > > Damn straight I dismiss those opinions. Those opinons _suck_. Ah, so it’s one of those discussions. Should simply reply that your opinion sucks and refuse to answer too? Yes, it involved _children_. Someone else’s children, that’s the point. Are you denying that there’s a whole other level of love and emotional attachment between a person and their offspring compared to other kids? I don’t feel the same way to other people’s kids as I do about my own daugther, why should I? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/176 "2009-01-09T13:08:51Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > One heartbreaking case I read about recently had two girls switched at birth. One set of parents found out, but never said anything until the girl they were raising died. Then they sued for custody of the other girl. The custodial parent won custody, but the girl latter ran away to the birth parents. > > Jonathan That was the absolutely heart breaking Kimberly Mays/Arlenr Twigg case. The Twiggs found out Arlene’s blood type did not match theirs and she could not be their biological daughter, yet they waited two years, until after she died, to find their “real” daughter and start a custody action for her. They ignored the fact that they had denied Robert Mays the right to know his and his late wife’s “real” daughter.A ridiculouse book written about the case claimed that the Mays had arranged the switch of their sick infant for a healthy one and that Mays was a bad father. Kimberly later had a son that was taken away from her and the last I heard was arrested for prostitution. It’s not hard to figure out who was the real victim in that debacle. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/177 "2009-01-09T13:44:53Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > Just out of curiosity, is anyone aware of cases where step-parents end up having to pay child support after they’re divorced from a parent with kids? > > Let’s say a man marries a mother of a two year-old child. If the biological father isn’t around (so, child support isn’t already being paid), and ten years later they divorce, would the step-father be required to pay child support? Yes, here in Ontario divorced step parents often pay child support. The decision is based on whether or not the step-parent demonstrated a settled intent to treat the child as a child of his family during the marriage. In other words, a short-term marriage in which the step-parent never developed a relationship with the child would likely not later result in child support, wheras a marriage in which the step-parent developed a parental relationship with the child would likely later result in child support. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/178 "2009-01-09T13:48:18Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I don’t know what happened with the wife’s request for more $ and reduced access for the father. I think this particular case was to decide if the father had to keep paying at all. The decision reported in the paper is only one part of the case. The case is still live before the court. Based on what the judge has said concerning this motion, it looks like the amount of child support will be sorted out between the parties, and they will later come back to the court to ask it to make a formal child support order according to what the agree upon between themselves. Odds are very much that they will agree to the husband paying child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines (a formula that sets out how much one pays based on how much one’s income). In these now that financial disclosure has been made and entitlement has been determined. Essentially, the parties will look at the dad’s income and go back to court to ask the judge to make an order on consent setting out that the dad will pay a certain amount based on whatever the government child support table (Child Support Guidelines) says a person should pay relative to his income. In these low end cases where both parents appear to be pieces of shit, it is common for the access parent to hold off on child support for one reason or another, and then the custodial parent to hold off on access in retaliation. Usually the court gets both child support and access flowing again. In this particular case, now that child support is flowing again, it is most likely that the mother will drop her request for access to be reduced, but that’s just a guess on my part. More to the point, now that the children are sixteen, its pretty much up to them to decide how often they see their father. The court can make whatever custody or access order it wants, but it can not be enforced against the kids now that they are over sixteen. The mom should be careful to not overplay her hand, for if the kids cut off all ties with their father, he would have grounds to terminate child support. Here are the Reasons behind the judge’s order: [http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii68884/2008canlii68884.html](http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii68884/2008canlii68884.html) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/179 "2009-01-09T13:50:27Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Here’s another hypothetical: A couple are raising two children and the mother dies, leaving the father as sole guardian. A medical issue reveals his kids are not biologically his. He somehow figures out who the father is, and proves it. Can he sue the biological father for child support? I know from other court cases that even a contract can not sever parental responsibilities of the father in most cases, so would he have a case? > > What if the bio-father sues for custody? If he won would the man who raised the kids be liable for child support? > > Jonathan In Ontario, yes, and yes. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342/180 "2009-01-09T14:03:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s not “child support”, despite being called that. It’s a payoff to the mother; she doesn’t need to spend it on the kids, or even treat them very well. It’s not about “making sure the child is taken care of”; it’s about extracting money from a man, and giving it to a woman, and to hell with the kid’s welfare. When that happens in Ontario, the woman can lose custody of the kids, either to the other parent, or to some other family member, or the the Children’s Aid Society or other child protection agency. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-father-must-continue-child-support/480342.md?page=10)