A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada

[smokes]

The Laws protect the Woman no matter if the woman is right or wrong. Where are the laws to protect the men?

http://www.yourjewishnews.com/2013/02/w6592.html

A man was devastated when he found out that three of his four children are not his.

The man in Montreal, Canada, had been married for 16 years to the same woman.

The couple, had four children ages 16, 14 and 12, who are girls along with a boy of nine-years-old.

The couple separated in 2010. While going through the divorce and custody issues, the man found out that he was not the father of his three daughters, although their son is his.

Even more bizarre: all three girls have different fathers.

But the worst yet to come, even after learning that the kids who he loved and raised as his own were not his, the judge ordered him to pay his former wife child support for all the children.

Since he is the only father the children have known and he raised them as his own, he is responsible as if he was the father.

In another case, a man named, Pasqualino Cornelio, was paying child support for his twins, but he later demanded DNA testing. When he found out that he was not the father of the twins, now 16, the judge ordered that he has to continue paying child support.

[Riviera82]

It's totally unfair and pretty much criminal if you ask me. Men are the ones who truly get ****, at least in this scenario anyway.

[AriGold]

A story about not paying your bills on yourjewishnews.com lol..

[stawns]

The Laws protect the Woman no matter if the woman is right or wrong. Where are the laws to protect the men?

http://www.yourjewis...3/02/w6592.html

A man was devastated when he found out that three of his four children are not his.

The man in Montreal, Canada, had been married for 16 years to the same woman.

The couple, had four children ages 16, 14 and 12, who are girls along with a boy of nine-years-old.

The couple separated in 2010. While going through the divorce and custody issues, the man found out that he was not the father of his three daughters, although their son is his.

Even more bizarre: all three girls have different fathers.

But the worst yet to come, even after learning that the kids who he loved and raised as his own were not his, the judge ordered him to pay his former wife child support for all the children.

Since he is the only father the children have known and he raised them as his own, he is responsible as if he was the father.

In another case, a man named, Pasqualino Cornelio, was paying child support for his twins, but he later demanded DNA testing. When he found out that he was not the father of the twins, now 16, the judge ordered that he has to continue paying child support.

[nucklehead]

No one knows for sure... except your mother and then ...well not always.

But if you think about it motherhood does have it's priviledge. Your mother could only be your mother. No other woman could have been your mother, it's not possible. Your father on the other hand can be any poor slob.

[Monty]

Hmm. Father certainly had no problem helping provide for the kids when he thought they were his and loved them all equally. But now that he finds out that they aren't genetically his, he only wants to provide for one? Sorry, but no.

[smokes]

If this is the case then the mother should be charged with fraud. She was the one who lied to have this man be is this child's lives in the first place. Consider a pregnant wife telling me that she is not pregnant with my child. I would automatically divorce her so she can be with the father of her baby. He became the father under false pre tenses.

My question is that WHY does the mother get no punishment for this when this whole thing started with her being unfaithful in the fiirst place?

[Mr. Ambien]

If this is the case then the mother should be charged with fraud. She was the one who lied to have this man be is this child's lives in the first place. Consider a pregnant wife telling me that she is not pregnant with my child. I would automatically divorce her so she can be with the father of her baby. He became the father under false pre tenses.

[smokes]

The children should not be punished because of the mother. ]

[D-Money]

Seems like a grey area - but the laws are there to protect the children, not the parents.

The principle that comes to mind is this: If you are marry to someone, you agree to share your assets and liabilities. This can work both ways. How many wives have been stuck with debt because of their husband's bad investments and/or indiscretions?

[Monty]

And this is why the guy should be able to remove himself from the birth certificates of the three girls, also nullifying responsibility for them. Let the lying broad deal with the consequences of her infidelity and find out herself who the real fathers are. Indeed this is highly unfair to the father and an utterly asinine rule.

[Jaimito]

Goes the other way too, how many guys don't pay child support? Plenty of absentee fathers in the world.

I always date outside of my ethnic group. It will be easier to tell if the kid is yours. My 5 cents...now the penny is gone.

[avelanch]

The children should not be punished because of the mother. ]

[literaphile]

The paramount concern of family law, especially upon marital breakdown, is the best interests of the child or children - not the splitting partners. The children had the benefit of their father's (or, the one who they thought was their father) income for their entire lives. To excuse him from paying child support for children whom he supported for years would be unfair and possibly devastating to the children.

[Wetcoaster]

There have been similar rulings in the past. Courts have ruled in such cases that where the man acted as the father of the child in fact (referred to as in loco parentis) where he is not the biological father (even if deceived) over a period of time providing financial support for a child or children should continue. It has also been extended to a step child. The basic rule is that child support is the right of the child and any perceived misconduct of the mother is not determinative and does not invalidite .an order for child support.

In BC

Someone who married a parent can be obliged to pay child support to the parent under the Divorce Act as long as the step-parent had a parent-like relationship with the child. Under the Family Relations Act, married spouses and common-law spouses can be obliged to pay child support to the parent as long as the step-parent contributed to the support of the child for at least one year and the application under the Family Relations Act is brought within one year from the step-parent’s last contribution to the support of the child. Step-parents can be obliged to pay child support even when the other biological parent is already paying child support.

http://www.cba.org/b...family/117.aspx

Also see this article -

Potential Child Support Obligations of Non-Biological Parents

A Court may order that you pay support for a child of whom you are not a biological parent. This may, for example, be a child of your former spouse (whether you were married or not). Such a child support award would be based on your being “in loco parentis”, which means a Court would find that you were standing in the place of a parent. The courts’ prevailing approach is that if you acted as if you were a parent to a child, and held yourself out as such a parent, then the fact that you are not related by blood will not relieve you of an obligation to contribute to that child’s expenses. This will be particularly true where the child has a need and you have the ability to pay.

In the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Chartier v. Chartier, a man who had played an active role in the life of his wife’s daughter from a previous relationship attempted to avoid any child support obligation by severing his relationship with the child after the separation. The Supreme Court found that a person cannot unilaterally withdraw from a relationship in which he or she stands in the place of a parent. In other words, the man’s relationship with the child during the course of his marriage to the child’s mother gave rise to his child support obligation. His attempts at altering that relationship after the separation did not terminate his responsibility to contribute to the child’s expenses.

On being faced with an application for support for a non-biological child, the Court will consider a number of factors, objectively rather than subjectively, including:

• The nature of the relationship between the adult and the child, to determine whether the adult in fact stood in the place of a parent. Intention of the adult will be important, expressed not only formally and explicitly, but also implicitly, through actions. The Court will ask, for example:
  • Did the child participate in extended family functions, just like a biological child would?

  • Did the adult provide financially for the child?

  • Did the adult discipline the child?

  • Did the child and the adult spend time alone, with the adult caring for the child and sharing activities with him or her?

  • Did the adult attend medical appointments, meet with teachers, take the child to extracurricular activities?

  • Did the adult participate in and/or make alone decisions relating to the child’s health, welfare, education and upbringing?

  [*]The needs of the child at the time of the hearing or order (although the existence of a parental relationship will be determined as of the time of family functioned as a unit);

  [*]The opinion of the child as to the nature of his or her relationship with the adult, although this enquiry will be but one piece of the puzzle (along with all of the other factors); and

  [*]The representations of the adult as to the nature of the relationship.

The above list is not exhaustive and is presented as a guide only.

While it is legal to provide in a cohabitation agreement or marriage contract that a non-biological parent will not be liable for child support for a child/children of the other spouse (from a previous relationship), it is important to note the provisions of section 56(1) and (1.) of the Family Law Actwhich state that:

a) in a determination of an issue relating to the education, moral training, custody or access to a child, the court may disregard the provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the issue, if to do so is in the child’s best interests; and

in a determination of the issue of child support, the court may disregard a provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the issue, if the provision is unreasonable having regard to the

Child Support Guidelines

(for more information on the Guidelines, see separate article).

http://www.harrisand...ticle.php?id=87

[aGENT]

I ended up paying child support to my ex for a daughter that wasn't mine. As "unfair" as it was, I actually found that to be the least detestable element of the situation.

I wish I could have given more to the daughter and less to the mother and had more power/control of what the money was spent on... I shudder to think what her mother wasted that money on where I would have set money aside for college / a trust fund if I had my druthers.

[Lockout Casualty]

Who in their right minds think a man should be responsible for someone else's kids? The law should protect the children without punishment for the man - we as a society should pick up the tab for the children. A man who is paying for someone's seed to grow cannot dedicate his full efforts toward his own children, if he has them or may want them in the future. Find the guy who put the bun in the oven, don't rip off the guy who baked the bun thinking it was his. Every man should be able to dedicate his full efforts toward his own children, not some bastard's bastards. Spread responsibility across the millions of working Canadians than single individuals trying to live their lives who did nothing wrong.

Talk about kicking a man when he's down.

[Mr. Ambien]

The least the father can do is help support the children. He is the only father they have ever known. And as I said before, he certainly loved them and cared for them before knowing about this. What worries me is that now he has no interest in his children.As for the wife, trust me, she will see the consequences for this, much more than the father (if you can call helping support children a conseqence). The mother will, rightfully so, have to deal with children who will grow to resent what their mother did, never knowing their real fathers. She does not have an easy road ahead.The father can come out looking like a king in all of this by simply being loving, supporting father to only kids he has ever been a father for.Is it fair? No. But as the saying goes, "Life is not fair." Be a man, do the right thing. Sometimes, the right thing isn't "fair."

[sedated]

Always wear a condom, kids. Don't think there aren't woman out there that look at the size of your wallet and wonder if having a kid would be worth it to milk child support money out of you.

[D-Money]

The least the father can do is help support the children. He is the only father they have ever known. And as I said before, he certainly loved them and cared for them before knowing about this. What worries me is that now he has no interest in his children.As for the wife, trust me, she will see the consequences for this, much more than the father (if you can call helping support children a conseqence). The mother will, rightfully so, have to deal with children who will grow to resent what their mother did, never knowing their real fathers. She does not have an easy road ahead.The father can come out looking like a king in all of this by simply being loving, supporting father to only kids he has ever been a father for.Is it fair? No. But as the saying goes, "Life is not fair." Be a man, do the right thing. Sometimes, the right thing isn't "fair."