MattyM Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 He stood as the parent to the children for years. I set out the applicable law above. The actions of the wife have no bearing on his obligations to act in the best interest of the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Wet I always love readig your posts, learn quite a bit and I appreciate you posting. So I understand what you say the law says, but as I mentioned before, the "father" stayed under falsified means. If he had know the truth when the children were first born he would have had the option to leave with no reprecusion. However he was lead to believe they were his children. Like I said I know what you said the law states but in this case the law maybe a little off. Step-parents have paid support but they go in knowing what they are getting into, unfortunately this poor chap was lied to and thought he was doing the right thing. Had he left the mother when the children were born no one would hold anything against him, but because he stuck around under falsified reasons now he's the one go has to pay. Like others have asked where are the biological fathers? Yes the children should be taken care for, but I feel for this guy it's a devistating blow. Also the argument could be made that if he really loved them he would take care of them, but that should be his choice not the laws. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 Can the father at least press charges on the mother for fraud. He will still pay the child support but the mother should go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaBestPlaceOnEarth Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 This just in, the law is an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 Yet if something like this happened to a woman...There would be a parade and speeches about sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Yet if something like this happened to a woman...There would be a parade and speeches about sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Wet I always love readig your posts, learn quite a bit and I appreciate you posting. So I understand what you say the law says, but as I mentioned before, the "father" stayed under falsified means. If he had know the truth when the children were first born he would have had the option to leave with no reprecusion. However he was lead to believe they were his children. Like I said I know what you said the law states but in this case the law maybe a little off. Step-parents have paid support but they go in knowing what they are getting into, unfortunately this poor chap was lied to and thought he was doing the right thing. Had he left the mother when the children were born no one would hold anything against him, but because he stuck around under falsified reasons now he's the one go has to pay. Like others have asked where are the biological fathers? Yes the children should be taken care for, but I feel for this guy it's a devistating blow. Also the argument could be made that if he really loved them he would take care of them, but that should be his choice not the laws. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Can the father at least press charges on the mother for fraud. He will still pay the child support but the mother should go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Yet if something like this happened to a woman...There would be a parade and speeches about sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 It is not the kids fault here. I think the measure the court uses is whether there was an established parental relationship role, and not an issue of paternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 It is not the kids fault here. I think the measure the court uses is whether there was an established parental relationship role, and not an issue of paternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverCanucksRock Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Except that's irrelevant. Men not paying child support for their own children is a different beast entirely. Unless you're saying this guy should suffer the consequences of other dads being deadbeats, which is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 It can suck to be a man in Canada, it's only fair since it sucks to be a woman almost everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 It can suck to be a man in Canada, it's only fair since it sucks to be a woman almost everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 If I was the father in this court case, I would do everything I can to make sure the mother either goes to jail for fraud or take her to civil court and sure for damages and emotional distress. to be completely honest, I could care less about the children if they are not mine, if I wanted to take care of other people's bastard children, I would have worked in an orphanage. Not my children, not my problem. As for the children, sorry but life ain't fair blame it on your mother. A man should have the right to his own money so that he can rebuild a new family and use money on his real children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 It is the classic legal conundrum - which of two innocent parties is to suffer for the improper actions of a third party. If you purchased a stolen car even where you had no reason to suspect that the car was not under the legal ownership of the seller - the original owner gets the car back. In this case as a matter of policy we we balance it against the best interests of the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 The children should not be punished because of the mother. ] As much as it's traumatic to the father to learn this, what about the kids? Stawns is right...they're the innocent parties in this and both "parents" need to continue to support them. It's all about being adults and accepting and dealing with difficult situations with the least amount of collateral damage to the children involved. No matter what, they come first. Bugger...the kids never tricked anyone. And the truck comment is pretty harsh...it just doesn't work that way and I'm glad adoptive and foster parents don't share your thinking or we'd all be in trouble. It takes a village.... Wow, smokes too...such vitriol directed towards kids is a little disturbing. "Money" isn't everything. What if these kids enriched the man's life? You don't abandon kids, period. So if you saw kids hanging out the window of a burning building would you just walk by and ignore them? Because they're not yours? Or would you take care of the situation because it's the right thing to do? And it actually doesn't "suck" to be a man in Canada, where that fact alone may bring you up to a 19% higher paycheck than your female counterparts. So you can afford to pay for the kids that call you Dad whether or not you biologically conceived them whilst sleeping with their mother. I don't blame the man for being upset...classy wife who took her vows and family so seriously. But he got tangled up with her and there are children involved so he needs to be a man and put their interests first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 That is profoundly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 wait a minute, Mathman here. Married 16 years, oldest kid, 16 years??? Dad should have done the math a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 wait a minute, Mathman here. Married 16 years, oldest kid, 16 years??? Dad should have done the math a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.