Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Then that would say a lot about you as a man Would it suck for the husband? Of course, but I would feel like they were my kids because I had raised them as such. It would be disturbingly sociopathic to turn that off like tht. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 And to repeat yet again - which of two innocent parties is to suffer??? We have made a societal choice and it is not the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Unsuffer the children on somebody else's back then. Do you have any children? Have you ever raised any at your expense? Would you have absolutely no problem whatsoever being a slave to the upbringing of the fruits of the ultimate betrayal in a marriage/relationship that is infidelity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 You're really just ignoring the main issue and instead spouting rhetoric. The law is clear. The policy is clear. Child post-divorce are entitled, by law, to the same resources that they had when within the intact family, no matter the cause of the divorce or the conduct of the divorcing parties. Saying "screw, let the mom find more money", or "screw it, go after the real dads" is a non-starter because that simply will not happen, nor should it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Unsuffer the children on somebody else's back then. Do you have any children? Have you ever raised any at your expense? Would you have absolutely no problem whatsoever being a slave to the upbringing of the fruits of the ultimate betrayal in a marriage/relationship that is infidelity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 There is all kinds of stupid in this thread. Just mindblowingly retarded thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 There is all kinds of stupid in this thread. Just mindblowingly retarded thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 In other words, an average CDC thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Ban children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Ban children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 There is all kinds of stupid in this thread. Just mindblowingly retarded thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Ban sex? Let's not get crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The support continues because the parent has provided such support in the past. In the case of a biological parent the obligation of support arises due to being the biological parent. In the case of other situations it arises due to the existence of a past parental relationship, as here. At law it is the obligation of a parent to provide for children - in the absence of an ability to do so the government may step in to provide a basic level of support. However that obligation on the parent continues. If Social Services pays money to support a child when there is an existing support order, that order is assigned to the government and becomes enforceable in the hands of Social Services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 So we agree that it is about financial responsibility? There is nothing mandated by law except financial support. So a male acts as a parent based on false premises, finds out the truth, and is forced to continue playing the part because of already being cast as such? You once again fail to explain why the male is responsible in the eyes of the law. Yes, in law it is the obligation of a parent, but a male who did not father children is not a parent (or should not be considered as such), merely filling the parent role. Your entire argument rests on what's best for the child when it comes to financial support. There is nothing about the "father" taking an actual part in being a parent. Arguments such as stawns' bear no significance, as what he thinks a man "should do" is as irrelevant as the mother's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noheart Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The children should not be punished because of the mother. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The Divorce Act determines who the children of the marriage are using criteria based not just on the biological lineage, but also on the relationship that the children and parents have. s.2(2) of the Divorce Act has this to say about the definition of "child of the marriage": (2)For the purposes of the definition “child of the marriage” in subsection (1), a child of two spouses or former spouses includes (a)any child for whom they both stand in the place of parents; and (b)any child of whom one is the parent and for whom the other stands in the place of a parent. As you can see, biological connection is not part of the test. As Wetcoaster has said earlier (in slightly more archaic language ), since the dad has been standing in the place of a parent (in loco parentis), that satisfies the test as per s.(2). Or, to use your own language, "filling the parent role". So, there's your legal explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 So then reward the mother. Yes, totally logical. I don't understand it, I see a lot of guys go through this in my profession in the oil and gas industry Wife sends man to work while she spends all the money then has sex with everyone and gets knocked up. Because she is knocked they better get married!!! now she must stay at home and raise the kids. Because the husband makes enough for both She continues to rack up debt and notches on her belt. This goes on for years until he finally catches her in the act, he is devistated and can no longer trust her. They get a divorce she gets the kids that may or may not be his the house, cause the kids need a house the car, cause you gotta drive the kids child support cause that's the only "dad" the kids have alimony cause the wife has raised the kids and is financially dependent on the husband last but not least the comfort of knowing some other dude is banging your x-wife, sitting in your chair, and disciplining the kids in the house you are paying for. Bravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 You do not present a legal argument in defense of the law being argued. What you just stated is similar to "the bible is right because part 2, section 3 of the bible says it is". It is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 So we agree that it is about financial responsibility? There is nothing mandated by law except financial support. So a male acts as a parent based on false premises, finds out the truth, and is forced to continue playing the part because of already being cast as such? You once again fail to explain why the male is responsible in the eyes of the law. Yes, in law it is the obligation of a parent, but a male who did not father children is not a parent (or should not be considered as such), merely filling the parent role. Your entire argument rests on what's best for the child when it comes to financial support. There is nothing about the "father" taking an actual part in being a parent. Arguments such as stawns' bear no significance, as what he thinks a man "should do" is as irrelevant as the mother's actions. If the main concern is the child's financial well being (and you did a phenomenal job showing as much in this thread) , there is no reason a man should bear the responsibility and not the state. The law does not reflect what is right, nor what is best, but merely what the law is. "The reason pot smokers go to jail is because it's the law." I hope you can see the inherent fault in such reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noheart Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 No fault divorce as I set out above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.