Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada


  • Please log in to reply
276 replies to this topic

#61 MM16

MM16

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts
  • Joined: 10-September 06

Posted 16 February 2013 - 01:56 AM

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.


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?
  • 0

#62 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:07 AM

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?


I believe the law is that he acted as a father to these kids, and is now legally obligated to care for them. The fact that it was basically fraud has no bearing. In some situations even if you date a single mom but break up she can ask for child support.

It really sucks for the guy, and he is being unfairly punished, on top of finding out that children he thought for years were his actually weren't. Talk about kicking a guy when he's down.
  • 0

#63 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:26 AM

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.
  • 0

#64 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 16 February 2013 - 05:24 AM

This just in, the law is an ass.
  • 3

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#65 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:26 AM

Yet if something like this happened to a woman...There would be a parade and speeches about sexism.
  • 1

#66 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,035 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:18 AM

Yet if something like this happened to a woman...There would be a parade and speeches about sexism.

Exactly, I'm going through a divorce right now and I feel that in family court I won't really get a fair custody trial just because I am a man...Everything seems orientated towards keeping the children with mommy no matter how crazy she is, how many drugs she's done or how many strange men she's brought around the children.
  • 1

#67 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 February 2013 - 10:41 AM

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?

The issue here is the children and their best interests. In this case they should not be made to suffer for the actions of the mother.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#68 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 February 2013 - 10:43 AM

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.

Unlikely that criminal charges would be recommended by police or approved by Crown Counsel as I would expect this would be considered a civil matter.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#69 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 February 2013 - 11:00 AM

Yet if something like this happened to a woman...There would be a parade and speeches about sexism.

Sort of hard to conceive of a similar situation. It is pretty clear who the biological mother of a child is.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#70 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:06 PM

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.

Edited by jmfaminoff, 16 February 2013 - 12:07 PM.

  • 0

#71 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:20 PM

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.

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.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#72 VancouverCanucksRock

VancouverCanucksRock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,553 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 09

Posted 16 February 2013 - 01:38 PM

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.

Hiow do you know they even know she had their kids? Females be trifling!!!
  • 0
Posted Image WHen idiots think numbers are words, I do believe in 2012 for cleansing Earth of the idiots

#73 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,226 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 16 February 2013 - 01:57 PM

It can suck to be a man in Canada, it's only fair since it sucks to be a woman almost everywhere else.

Edited by Jägermeister, 16 February 2013 - 01:58 PM.

  • 2

Jagermeister.jpg


#74 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 16 February 2013 - 11:15 PM

It can suck to be a man in Canada, it's only fair since it sucks to be a woman almost everywhere else.


That is profoundly stupid.
  • 1

#75 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:27 AM

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.
  • 0

#76 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:15 AM

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.


Like the car in your example, the real fathers can have their children back and all the expenses that come with them.

Why should the "best interests of the child" ride on the back of some poor unrelated and unwilling guy who is not even their father, but was fraudulently tricked into thinking so??? If I was him, it shouldn't matter to me if they all got run over by a truck.

Is this an example of a system designed to save costs to itself (through welfare payments, etc.) by putting someone else on the hook with the bill, no matter how outrageous the reason?
  • 0

#77 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,429 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:21 AM

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.
  • 2

Posted Image


#78 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,226 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

That is profoundly stupid.


As are most things said in jest.
  • 0

Jagermeister.jpg


#79 lmm

lmm

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:31 PM

wait a minute, Mathman here. Married 16 years, oldest kid, 16 years??? Dad should have done the math a long time ago.
  • 0

#80 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:05 PM

wait a minute, Mathman here. Married 16 years, oldest kid, 16 years??? Dad should have done the math a long time ago.


Most couples tend to be together for a little while before marrying. She probably got pregnant, told him it was his, and so they married.
  • 0

#81 VancouverCanucksRock

VancouverCanucksRock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,553 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 09

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:01 PM

Most couples tend to be together for a little while before marrying. She probably got pregnant, told him it was his, and so they married.

LOL I can't believe people's lack of common sense around this frickin world!!
  • 0
Posted Image WHen idiots think numbers are words, I do believe in 2012 for cleansing Earth of the idiots

#82 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,524 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:29 PM

So the non biological dad gets to pay for the kids he thought were his and aren't or, track down the true biological fathers and make them pay for kids they did not know they had ?

Two bad solutions. Perhaps it is just the government keeping it's costs down.
  • 0

#83 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 659 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:28 PM

If a child was hanging from a burning building, I would pull the kid out of it for the benefit of the child but it doesn't mean that I will raise that child after I save him/her.

Fact is that if I am not the biological father, and the mother and I divorced because of her infidelity, the children should be taken care of by the mother, the one person we know is biologically related to these children, if she can't afford to take care of the children, then she should apply for financial assistance. It's not fair for the children to pay for the sins of the mother but the mother should have thought of that herself.

The problem here is that family law is so skewed toward mothers it is ridiculous. Family law in Canada is filled with sexism.
  • 1

#84 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:00 PM

If a child was hanging from a burning building, I would pull the kid out of it for the benefit of the child but it doesn't mean that I will raise that child after I save him/her.

Fact is that if I am not the biological father, and the mother and I divorced because of her infidelity, the children should be taken care of by the mother, the one person we know is biologically related to these children, if she can't afford to take care of the children, then she should apply for financial assistance. It's not fair for the children to pay for the sins of the mother but the mother should have thought of that herself.

The problem here is that family law is so skewed toward mothers it is ridiculous. Family law in Canada is filled with sexism.

Bizarre analogy. Apples and orangutans.

In this case the husband stood in loco parentis to the children and as such this creates a legal relationship sufficient to fix financial responsibility towards the children.

See:
http://forum.canucks.../#entry11140320

Nothing to do with sexism other than the fact on its face it is obvious who is the biological mother of a child and that is not the case for a father.

Under the law in BC he would be considered a step-parent and liable to pay support

Section 1(1) of the Family Relations Act defines parent as follows:

"parent" includes
(a) a guardian or guardian of the person of a child, or
(b) a stepparent of a child if
(i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year, and
(ii) the proceeding under this Act by or against the stepparent is commenced within one year after the date the stepparent last contributed to the support and maintenance of the child;
Further, s. 1(2) provides:

For the purpose of paragraph (b) of the definition of "parent" in subsection (1), a person is the stepparent of a child if the person and a parent of the child
(a) are or were married, or
(b) lived together in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years and, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage-like relationship may be between persons of the same gender.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 17 February 2013 - 08:00 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#85 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

If a child was hanging from a burning building, I would pull the kid out of it for the benefit of the child but it doesn't mean that I will raise that child after I save him/her.

Fact is that if I am not the biological father, and the mother and I divorced because of her infidelity, the children should be taken care of by the mother, the one person we know is biologically related to these children, if she can't afford to take care of the children, then she should apply for financial assistance. It's not fair for the children to pay for the sins of the mother but the mother should have thought of that herself.

The problem here is that family law is so skewed toward mothers it is ridiculous. Family law in Canada is filled with sexism.

Well put, and spot on analogy.
  • 0

#86 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:17 PM

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....


So why doesn't the "village"/greater collective (ie. government) step up and pick up the slack for the mother's misdeeds, instead of footing the bill all on an unwilling victim?

And the difference between adoptive/foster parents and this guy is, they do it fully willingly knowing that they are raising somebody else's children.

Edited by Buggernut, 17 February 2013 - 10:21 PM.

  • 0

#87 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:18 PM

Bizarre analogy. Apples and orangutans.

In this case the husband stood in loco parentis to the children and as such this creates a legal relationship sufficient to fix financial responsibility towards the children.

See:
http://forum.canucks.../#entry11140320

Nothing to do with sexism other than the fact on its face it is obvious who is the biological mother of a child and that is not the case for a father.

Under the law in BC he would be considered a step-parent and liable to pay support

Section 1(1) of the Family Relations Act defines parent as follows:

"parent" includes
(a) a guardian or guardian of the person of a child, or
( B) a stepparent of a child if
(i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year, and
(ii) the proceeding under this Act by or against the stepparent is commenced within one year after the date the stepparent last contributed to the support and maintenance of the child;
Further, s. 1(2) provides:

For the purpose of paragraph ( B) of the definition of "parent" in subsection (1), a person is the stepparent of a child if the person and a parent of the child
(a) are or were married, or
( B) lived together in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years and, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage-like relationship may be between persons of the same gender.


Does the "informed" part of the "consent" come into play anywhere?
  • 0

#88 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:20 PM

The problem here is that family law is so skewed toward mothers it is ridiculous. Family law in Canada is filled with sexism.


No. You're wrong. The paramount consideration here, as far as the law is concerned, is the best interests of the children. There are two options:
  • Have the man who has acted as the father for the entire lives of the children pay child support so that those children do not suffer financially due to the divorce.
  • Throw the mom and kids out on their asses to get back at the mom.
Which one of those two options do you think is in the best interests of the children?
  • 0

#89 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:21 PM

Does the "informed" part of the "consent" come into play anywhere?

Not in this case. There is no consent per se - it is a factual inquiry.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#90 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:24 PM

No. You're wrong. The paramount consideration here, as far as the law is concerned, is the best interests of the children. There are two options:

  • Have the man who has acted as the father for the entire lives of the children pay child support so that those children do not suffer financially due to the divorce.
  • Throw the mom and kids out on their asses to get back at the mom.
Which one of those two options do you think is in the best interests of the children?


Do you care about the "best interests" of other people's children so much that you'd give your life and limb for them?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.