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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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,
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."
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.
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?)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.