Fish, by your reasoning, a biological parent could come out of the woodwork and take away the child you had been raising for the last decade – the child you thought was yours, the child you love more than life itself, the child whose own universe revolves around you who in her mind is her parent.
Don’t punish the child for the sins of the mother.
Keep in mind that here in Ontario child support is the child’s right, not the mother’s or father’s right.
The father raised the child as his own. That created an obligation for child support. Child support was paid to the mother for the benefit of the child, meaning that it was spent on the child. The mother did not profit from the child support.
As far as addressing the sins of the mother goes, the remedy for adultry in Canada is divorce, not a monetary judgment. If one’s husband or wife fucks around, once does not have a right to a cash pay-out.
I’ve come across this on a few low end cases – basically the mother picking a fellow at random out of several she has been sleeping with (inevitably the one with the best income). That’s where DNA tests make all the difference.
As far as your intimation that the court should pick someone at random, that’s just plain stupid and you know it.
The actual father is the fellow who raised the child, be he a bio-dad or cuckold. In Ontario, if the bio-dad were located, he would also have to pay child support.
As far as the government paying rather than established parents paying, that’s unfair to everyone – I’m surprised that you take such a strong socialist position as to suggst that money should come from the government when the established father no longer wants to share in the cost of raising his children.
Hmm. I guess “Bottoms up!” or “Here’s mud in yer eye!” skate pretty close to that line into wishing harm on a Doper.
I guess I don’t know where to start, either.
In Ontario, child support will go up or down depending on the payor’s income. If the father’s income went up, then he would have to pay more. To determine this, payors are required to disclose their income each year upon request by the recipient. As you can see from the judge’s Reasons, such disclosure was not forthcoming, but now that disclosure has been made, quantum can be properly decided (see my previous post about the Child Support Guidelines herein Ontario).
As far as access goes, I expect that was just a ploy by the mother, given that it is a typical ploy in low end cases (hold the kids for ransom). In any event, the kids are old enough that any custody or access order will be meaningless with regard to whom they chose to live with or spend their time with.
I get that. No problem.
Do you know the mother did not profit from it? I dated a legal assistant in a divorce law firm a few years ago. The stories she had were hair raising. In one particular case a woman, whose divorce had been finalized a few years earlier, came in demanding they go back after her husband for more child support because the kids needed it. Here’s the thing, each kid received $18,000/month (yes I typed that right). That is $432,000/year for the two kids (who at the time were ages 9 & 11). On what planet does it take $432,000/year to raise two children? Even if you give them the best of everything, private schools, designer clothes, an X-Box in every room you cannot get there. And the woman wanted MORE!
Anecdotal to be sure but in this case we do not know how much he was giving her and how far it went to support the kids. Maybe they are poor and what he is able to pay comes nowhere near meeting all the children’s needs. Or maybe he covers it just fine. What we do know is after the divorce was final she went back to court demanding more and at the same time wanted to limit her ex husband’s access to the kids further. At the least the woman has enough money to hire an attorney to sue her husband. I wonder how far the money paid to attorneys would have gone to supporting the kids?
As has been noted before though there is NO oversight on how the mother spends the money she gets. She is really only liable to provide the kids the basics.
What cash pay out? The husband is not asking for a cash payout, the wife is. She fucked around, she had another man’s children and she is asking for MORE money from the dupe. I do not dispute the man in this case needing to provide support to the kids but to me this is adding insult to injury.
In Ontario, yes and yes. Child support obligations under the Ontario Family Law Act exist regardless of gender and regardless of marital status.
In a practical sense, that would economically punish the child. In a legal sense, that would impinge on the child’s right to child support. Bear in mind that it is not the mother’s right, it is the chlid’s right.
Nonsense. If we define the father as the one who raised the children instead of the one who impregnated the mother, it diminishes the responsibility of the impregnator, along with diminishing the responsibility of the mother to maintain the marriage contract of creating children who are biologic offspring of a mutually-agreed upon father.
Defining a “father” for the purpose of establishing financial responsibility should be strictly limited to the impregnator.
At the point of establishment of cuckoldry, the husband involved can decide whether or not to stay in the relationship. He might well factor in whether or not there is likely to be additional financial support from the biologic father. He might well factor in his personal relationship with the child. But he should not be forced to be financially responsible for a child he did not biologically father.
The best interest of the child and mother are irrelevant. It might be in the best interest of many children in this world to make me financially responsible for them. Of what relevance is that if I am not their biologic parent?
In Ontario, child support is based on both parents paying for the support of the child, with one parent paying the child’s expenses directly and the other parent contributing to the payment of those expenses by way of paying child support.
That would be emotionally devesating to the children in most cases.
In Ontario, women are not seen as the default parent and men are not seen as the default provider. A good rule of thum in custody/access/child support disputes here in Ontario is that the odd are whatever the parenting arrangements were prior to separaton, similar parenting arrangements will continue following separation, and child support will follow according to the parenting arrangements.
That means that if during the marraige dad was the income earner and mom stayed home taking care of the kids, then after separation that will contine and dad will pay child support in accordance with his income. If both parents worked outside the home and both shared more or less equally in taking care of the kids, then that will continue and each parent will pay child support to the other in acordance with each payor’s income (obviously there would be a set-off).
Even the “tender years” doctrine has been tossed out.
You do realize there can be more than one person who is responsible for a child’s support? Having the father who supported the children for years continue to do so in no way, shape, or form, diminishes the responsibility of the man who provided the genetic material
No, it shouldn’t. If someone becomes a father through his actions and intent, that person is also responsible for the child. Again, support is not just limited to only the genetic parents.
Yes, he should. If he is the father of the child (in every sense but the biological, he is responsible for that child. Again, it’s not the children’s fault their mother lied to their father. They are still owed a duty of support.
It’s nice that, at the very least, you admit the child’s best interests are irrelevant in child support cases. I, of course, disagree.
Maybe “faithful, loving wife” needs to get real. She has, after all, her proof of maternity. Usually, anyway. I see no problem with a husband, etc. requesting a DNA test at the time of birth, even if there’s no cause for suspicion.
I think potential benefit to the child outweighs any (emotional) discomfort to the mom.
Peace,
mangeorge
Except in this case the man’s actions were premised on a fraud. He might never have stuck around if he had known the truth. As noted it is now the man’s responsibility when his wife has a baby to presume she may be a cheating liar and he had better get a paternity test or forever be stuck supporting another man’s child?
I thought in a legal sense a decision I make in good faith but based on fraudulent information by the other party would not be held against me. It is the reverse in this case.
How much support? I can see not allowing them to live in poverty. But once they are fed, clothed, have a reasonable roof over their head is that it? Or is the man on the hook for X-Boxes and Air Jordan sneakers too?
I bow to your legal experience in Ontario family law. 
As far as the wife misusing the child support in this thread’s case goes, have a look at the judge’s Reasons. If there was an issue over misuse of funds, the judge would not have left it hanging. Instead, the judge has simply directed the parties to do their calculations and come back with a number – that strongly suggests that the quantum will be determined in accordance with Child Support Guidelines. If not, the court will address this as the case continues.
That’s not the way it works in Ontario. The child support recipient has discretion, but it is not unfettered. If child support is not used for the benefit of the child, the court can step in. The “basics” is anyting that is not special or extraordinary with respect to the incomes of the parties. Thus the “basics” for a wealthy family would include a lifestyle for the child appropriate to a wealthy family, and the “basics” for a poor family would include a lifestyle for the child appropriate to a poor family.
You asked why the wife’s adultry was not addressed. Concerning adultry, there is no remedy in law in Canada at this time other than divorce (terminating the marriage contract). However, in the case at hand, the issue is not so much one of adultry as it is an issue of the wife willfully misleading the husband into believeing that the child was his. Willfully misleading a person to his detriment is generally something for which the court can consider giving relief.
So let’s look at the relief the court might give. When asked to provide a remedy, a court can do many things, including changing or terminating a contract, making an injunction, ordering specific performance, or making a monetary award.
Concerning the matter at hand, an injuncton against further adultry would be silly, particulary since the parties have been separated for a decade. An order for specific performance would be silly, for the deed was done and the seed was planted, and there is no going back in time to chage that. An order for financial compensation could be made, either directly against the wife, or indirectly by reducing child support paid by the father (you will note that this was done in one of the cases cited by the judge), but either way a cash pay-out it would place a financial burden on the wife that in reality would reduce the standard of living of the child, which would impinge on the child’s right to child support.
I never claimed to be a lawyer (in any country). I noted it was anecdotal. That said she had many stories (she always left names out of it) that were obnoxious in what was happening. I strongly suspect she was not working in the one divorce firm in the US where such stories could be told. Take it FWIW.
Hmm…well, if I have children ANYONE suing me and earning a monetary judgment against me will, by definition, be reducing my children’s standard of living. Therefore I should be judgment proof as long as I have kids right?
(Yeah, I know that is not how it works. Just trying to point out the absurdity and inconsistency of it all.)
Not under Ontario law. Both an estranged biological parent and an estranged step-parent would have to pay child support. Should a custody dispute arise between the father who acted as a father but was not biologically related and the biological parent who never acted in the role of a father, you can bet your sweet bippy that the bio-dad would lose, for here such matters are decided on the best interest of the child, not strictly on whose sperm swam where.
The botom line is that once you create a child, or raise a child as if that child is your own, you are on the hook for child support, for that child relies on you.
The Supreme Court of Canada, the judiciary, Parliament, and the Legislatures all take a very different position from you.
Ask yourself this. If you had raised a child for ten years, and you and that child loved each other greatly, would it be right for a bio-dad to sweep that child away from you simply because he was the sperm doner? Think of your answer and get back to me on whether or not the best interests of the child are irrelevant when deciding who should be resoponsible for a child. Responsibility for a child is not something that can be turned on or off on a whim.
That seems way too logical for this discussion.
Anyway, this makes for great reading after the thread about over-the-top pet owners.
A “fraud” that was not, in any way shape or form, the child’s fault. And that’s what we’re talking about. CHILD support.
But, unless there has been a change in procedures I haven’t heard about, he knew it was, at the very least, a possibility. And, as the court pointed out in this case: "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. "
Let me try a different tack. There are two general ways that a person can be held responsible for supporting a child. Biological is one. If you are the child’s biological father or mother, you owe a duty to support that child. There is another, well recognized way, and that is raising a child as your own, also known as in loco parentis. If you hold a child out as your own, raise that child, and support that child, you create a duty to support that child. And that duty doesn’t disappear simply because your wife lied to you.
Ahhh, but here’s the problem. Child support is, to use your analogy, a third party. Once again, the child, in no way shape or form, was responsible for the fraud. Yet the father’s duty to that child doesn’t disappear because he learned that his wife lied to him.
I just want you to know I read these questions. And, to me, it’s a complete tangent to the issues in this case and I have no interest into a hijack like that. I hope you understand.