Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

smokes

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada

Recommended Posts

"A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada"

I don't know...by the sounds of the story, there are at least 3 men out there who have no problem with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does there really have to be hidden misogyny there? You can hate laws that greatly favour women without being misogynstic in the slightest.

This whole thing is just a great cluster .... .Just glad its not me in that situation. (Or anyone else on this board). I know a situation locally where a girl slept with four different guys in a week. She told the richest one that he was the daddy. She has no idea who actually is and he is now most likely raising someone elses kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that has bothered me about this thread more than anything is the title, "A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada." I actually think being a man in Canada has worked out pretty well, for the most part.

I mean really, how easy should we really have it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biology is the utmost importance in this issue. Who's bloodline do these children carry? It's not the "father's" why should he be the one responsible for carrying someone else s bloodline. In a world where everyone else worries about themselves, this is a travesty. Canada unfortunately has turned into a country where it's citizens are forced to perform charity and in this case the father is required by law to perform a charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biology is the utmost importance in this issue. Who's bloodline do these children carry? It's not the "father's" why should he be the one responsible for carrying someone else s bloodline. In a world where everyone else worries about themselves, this is a travesty. Canada unfortunately has turned into a country where it's citizens are forced to perform charity and in this case the father is required by law to perform a charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then he can have a paternity test if he wants to determine that. The story is much different as the two were married and the husband, though deceived, believed he was the father and was their father up to the point of the truth coming out. Regardless of the information coming out, the father obviously loved the kids as his own, and I can't see why he wouldn't continue to do so. Thus, he should be responsible for them.

Bottom line is you don't punish the kids to get back at the mother. I suspect a lot of the posters in this thread are not parents, or don't have a prominent role in their children's lives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Best Interests of the Child" is a basic guiding principle for the courts in setting custody, support and access orders and it varies depending upon the individual facts and circumstances.

Whenever the court considers issues involving children, its first and foremost concern is the best interests of the children, not whatever the particular wishes of a parent are, no matter how well-intentioned those wishes might be: it's about child or children. As a result, in any application concerning children a parent must show that the outcome sought is the outcome which is in the child's or children's best interests.

Section 16(8) of the Divorce Act defines it thusly :

In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.

In BC Section 24 of the Family Relations Act is titled "Best interests of child are paramount" and goes into detail about what children's "best interests" means:

When making, varying or rescinding an order under this Part, a court must give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child and, in assessing those interests, must consider the following factors and give emphasis to each factor according to the child's needs and circumstances:

(a) the health and emotional well being of the child including any special needs for care and treatment;

(
B)
if appropriate, the views of the child;

© the love, affection and similar ties that exist between the child and other persons;

(d) education and training for the child;

(e) the capacity of each person to whom guardianship, custody or access rights and duties may be granted to exercise those rights and duties adequately.

It is the obligation of a parent to support the child, not the government. And under the law the father in this case is considered the parent because of a past history of the parental relationship despite not being the biological father. The term parent in these circumstances has an extended meaning beyond biological parent.

The wrongdoing of the mother is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were so kind, you would note that I have not once mentioned the mothers' actions in this thread. They are irrelevant. You seem to forget that I'm not Zaibatsu on occasion.

Again, does the court force the "father" to act as a father figure or take any action beyond handing over part of his income? You repeatedly fail to explain why the financial burden falls on a man and not the state. You haven't presented any argument for why the children benefit from the father's, and would not equally benefit from the government's support - does the government money buy less school clothes? Does the man's money keep the children tucked in at night?

Taking the above factors into consideration, how do (a) through (e) affect the "father's" responsibilities? For example, what will the man be required by court to do if the child is learning impaired? I don't presume "access rights" means "you must see your child". In other words, being a father figure is not mandated, while being the financial support is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not about getting back at the mother like retribution for infidelity .. its giving a man the freedom from responsibility (moral and financial) over a matter he likely won't (logically) want to be involved in any further. Maybe you would want to stay in that situation but I wouldn't . And contrary to the belief espoused in the last sentence I am a parent .. one who, in a prior relationship, also had a prominent place acting as a girls father with an ex of mine because her actual dad wanted nothing to do with her. Impositions like this help create loser dads like that skirting responsibility, and aid women who wish to act fraudulently and get away with it by forcing a guy who was lied to and cheated on to continue bearing responsibility for children that aren't his and rationally doesn't want to. This is not helping kids this is bending over honest and responsible dad's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were so kind, you would note that I have not once mentioned the mothers' actions in this thread. They are irrelevant. You seem to forget that I'm not Zaibatsu on occasion.

Again, does the court force the "father" to act as a father figure or take any action beyond handing over part of his income? You repeatedly fail to explain why the financial burden falls on a man and not the state. You haven't presented any argument for why the children benefit from the father's, and would not equally benefit from the government's support - does the government money buy less school clothes? Does the man's money keep the children tucked in at night?

Taking the above factors into consideration, how do (a) through (e) affect the "father's" responsibilities? For example, what will the man be required by court to do if the child is learning impaired? I don't presume "access rights" means "you must see your child". In other words, being a father figure is not mandated, while being the financial support is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if you spent say 10 years raising these kids as your own, loving them as your own and find out they don't have your blood, you would cast them out of your life? That says a lot about you as a man and a human being. The kids did nothing wrong and should be not be punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see two babies side-by-side at the maternity ward. Both are equally cute. One you know to be biologically your own child. The other you know as not your own. Which do you love more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at it through tunnel vision. "On the hook financially for" is the wrong angle on this. The money is secondary and the issue that sits on top of the list is that he was and should still be considered "Dad". If the only thing in his mind that determined that was sperm, then he should have had things checked out at square one - reason to or not, it's his issue. He's been Dad and should continue to be Dad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not even remotely the same situation. he raised them, loved them for their entire lives, not looking at them in the maternity ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetics does matter. Being duped into thinking they were yours should give you the right to back out of your mistake and not being a slave to raising them for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetics does matter. Being duped into thinking they were yours should give you the right to back out of your mistake and not being a slave to raising them for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.