Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
276 replies to this topic

#91 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:27 PM

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


I have a stepdaughter, so in that case, yes. And, if I were to raise a child for 16 years, I'd likely say yes to that too. This isn't some random guy. He's the de facto father.

#92 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:27 PM

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

Except in this case he stood in a parental relationship for years.
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.

#93 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:44 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?

Option 3: Make the mom find out who the dad is and give responsible dad an opt-out chance, making the mom pay both portions if she can't find out.

Kids are already taken care of with government benefits/programs.

Child support in this fashion being required for the father even though he really isn't the father (not his fault he didn't know) is a method of screwing a dad for being both lied to and being responsible. In no way, shape, or form is this the decent thing to do, and it encourages loser dads who skirt child support.

I'd suggest people consider the bigger picture here but a section of people only wish to obsessively look at the children rather than all in the equation. This is why such laws written are horrendous.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 February 2013 - 10:49 PM.


#94 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:49 PM

Option 3: Make the mom find out who the dad is and give responsible dad an opt-out chance.

Kids are already taken care of with government benefits/programs.

Child support is a method of screwing a dad for being both lied to and being responsible. In no way, shape, or form is this the decent thing to do, and it encourages loser dads.


Are you really arguing that government programs will adequately replace the father's income? Child support is supposed to allow the children to continue to enjoy the benefit of both parents' incomes. I'm not sure if you know how much government programs provide - not to spoil the surprise, but it's not much, if any.

Again, your response ignores the mandate of the law: the best interests of the children. You, and many other posters here, just want to see the dad get back at the mom. Robbing the kids of child support is not the best way to go about that. Let him sue in the civil justice system - hopefully he wins there.

#95 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:00 PM

Are you really arguing that government programs will adequately replace the father's income? Child support is supposed to allow the children to continue to enjoy the benefit of both parents' incomes. I'm not sure if you know how much government programs provide - not to spoil the surprise, but it's not much, if any.

Again, your response ignores the mandate of the law: the best interests of the children. You, and many other posters here, just want to see the dad get back at the mom. Robbing the kids of child support is not the best way to go about that. Let him sue in the civil justice system - hopefully he wins there.

I already know the "mandate of the law", I addressed it and pointed out my disagreement with it, so repeating it means nothing to me.

And actually what I wish to see, in this case for example, is the dad freed from financial burden for something that isn't his fault. Essentially he's civilly guilty for not having kids and must pay for children not his own because he was lied to, merely because he took responsibility believing he was the dad.

What this does is:

1) Not punish the person who was lying, encouraging more of this in the future.

2) Punish the person who was being honest and responsible, encouraging more child support skirting loser dads in the future.

I'm sure glad people are so concerned about the children and nobody else in the equation, nor the ramifications of such naivety. The obvious thing to do here is free the dad of financial responsibility of children that are not his if he so chooses to be freed from it, and make it the mother's responsibility to find out who the real father(s) are, in turn making her financially liable for both portions until she can. That seems pretty fair to me and discourages women from lying on a birth certificate and trying to scam child support payment off a responsible guy. Unfortunately the system is set up to screw a responsible man here, no doubt about it.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 February 2013 - 11:04 PM.


#96 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:08 PM

I already know the "mandate of the law", I addressed it and pointed out my disagreement with it, so repeating it means nothing to me.

And actually what I wish to see, in this case for example, is the dad freed from financial burden for something that isn't his fault. Essentially he's civilly guilty for not having kids and must pay for children not his own because he was lied to, merely because he took responsibility believing he was the dad.

What this does is:

1) Not punish the person who was lying, encouraging more of this in the future.

2) Punish the person who was being honest and responsible, encouraging more child support skirting loser dads in the future.

I'm sure glad people are so concerned about the children and nobody else in the equation, nor the ramifications of such naivety. The obvious thing to do here is free the dad of financial responsibility of children that are not his if he so chooses to be freed from it, and make it the mother's responsibility to find out who the real father(s) are, in turn making her financially liable for both portions until she can. That seems pretty fair to me and discourages women from lying on a birth certificate and trying to scam child support payment off a responsible guy. Unfortunately the system is set up to screw a responsible man here, no doubt about it.


Well then, I'm sure glad you're not in charge.

#97 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,992 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:21 PM

It just seems like a lazy way out for the legal system. Have they even attempted to locate the biological father? I mean, I think the guy has a MORAL obligation to the kids he raised for 16 years (not necessarily in the form of monetary support) and he does, obviously, have a legal obligation as ruled by the court, but I don't think he SHOULD have a legal obligation, IMO.

The mother ... what a terrible person. I REALLY REALLY hope that the child support is 100% being used for the children at least. At the end of the day, we all know it won't, though.

#98 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:23 PM

Well then, I'm sure glad you're not in charge.

Yeah, unlike yourself and others I'd not be into making fathers financially liable for being lied to, and not being financially responsible for children not theirs just because they did the responsible thing when they believed it was their children. The obvious thing to do here is be a loser dad and you're off the hook in this scenario.

And yes indeed children would be just fine on government assistance and the mother's income if necessary. The notion that the children would be screwed is silly and does not emphasize responsibility for anyone other than the victim.

It just seems like a lazy way out for the legal system. Have they even attempted to locate the biological father? I mean, I think the guy has a MORAL obligation to the kids he raised for 16 years (not necessarily in the form of monetary support) and he does, obviously, have a legal obligation as ruled by the court, but I don't think he SHOULD have a legal obligation, IMO.

The mother ... what a terrible person. I REALLY REALLY hope that the child support is 100% being used for the children at least. At the end of the day, we all know it won't, though.

Exactly. If the mother was sapping government assistance instead of the victimized father they might be more into either making the mother responsible for lying, or making her responsible for finding the real father(s), rather than taking the easy way out "for the kids" and tossing financial burden upon the responsible guy, who is, for the umpteenth time, the victim in this equation.

No consideration for the father has been made, which is why it encourages skirting child support and being a loser dad.

Edited by zaibatsu, 17 February 2013 - 11:27 PM.


#99 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:39 AM

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.


Where the sexism comes in is the fact that he needs to pay child support for his own son, this means that even though the mother cheated on him with three different people and lied to the husband for so many years, she still gets custody of their one legitimate child. Hands down the child should be with the father in this case, yet the mother gets an automatic buy from the courts that she's a better parent because she's a woman.

#100 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:49 AM

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?


The best interest of the children is for the mother to confront their biological father and get child support from them, that is the person that should be doing the right thing, not for an unwilling victim who has pretty much suffered enough as it is. If the courts request the mother to disclose the real fathers, the real fathers have an opportunity to do the right thing, The children get to know their real fathers, The ex husband can resume his life and spend his time taking care of his real son.

Boom boom boom everyone is happy.

This verdict screams passing the buck.

This guy should get a medal for taking care of these children in the first place, but now forcing this on a man. The mother, the court, the biological fathers have all had a turn bending this guy over. The best interest of the children has not been served and the best interest of the victim has not been served. Government saving money on future court costs has definitely been served.

Furthermore this verdict is a waking advertisement to women to cheat on their husbands, no consequence for making your husband raise your bastard children. Not to mention for men who likes to try to break up happy homes.

Edited by smokes, 18 February 2013 - 04:10 AM.


#101 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Homer Hall Of Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,295 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:15 AM

I already know the "mandate of the law", I addressed it and pointed out my disagreement with it, so repeating it means nothing to me.

And actually what I wish to see, in this case for example, is the dad freed from financial burden for something that isn't his fault. Essentially he's civilly guilty for not having kids and must pay for children not his own because he was lied to, merely because he took responsibility believing he was the dad.

What this does is:

1) Not punish the person who was lying, encouraging more of this in the future.

2) Punish the person who was being honest and responsible, encouraging more child support skirting loser dads in the future.

I'm sure glad people are so concerned about the children and nobody else in the equation, nor the ramifications of such naivety. The obvious thing to do here is free the dad of financial responsibility of children that are not his if he so chooses to be freed from it, and make it the mother's responsibility to find out who the real father(s) are, in turn making her financially liable for both portions until she can. That seems pretty fair to me and discourages women from lying on a birth certificate and trying to scam child support payment off a responsible guy. Unfortunately the system is set up to screw a responsible man here, no doubt about it.


You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb.

Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring.

How do you force a woman to find out? What if she's a tramp who slept around at the time and there were multiple men involved? So the kids starve throughout the process? What if the biological father is long gone and she doesn't even know where he is? I do agree that, ideally, it would be best to find out and transfer the responsibility to the man who donated sperm, but I think the measures in place try to take the route that's the least disruptive to the children. They've known this man as "Dad" their entire lives and to yank that rug would be wrong. It's a tough situation, but one of the children IS his, so do you simply "pay" for him? Then that money gets too thinly spread because, obviously, all children involved have to be cared for and then he suffers in the process?

2421657-1-1-1-1-1.jpg

You can be livin the dream at home. Dont even need to put yer pants on.

-Offensive Threat


#102 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:35 AM

You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb.

Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring.


Because they can choose to, and not to.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but I had a post on the first page that suggested the government picks up the tab. I'm baffled by such arguments as "how can anyone walk away from kids after so many years" - how can anyone think forcing a "parent" to do this is right? They ARE NOT HIS. Some will love them as own, others will despise anything to do with that family, none of us will always to do the same thing.

The entire problem is children's financial well being - GIVE THEM MORE GOVERNMENT MONEY. Who will be burdened more by taking care of kids, the government representing millions or a single individual who has his own life, own kids, and own ambitions and desires? There is no good reason for the law to function as is, beside people thinking it's "right" to force a man to pay for others' kids (after already having his world destroyed learning they aren't his) because they're dependent on him. You don't force people in a free country to pay for unrelated children simply because they were lied to long enough. Well, I guess we do, but our governments are already full of stupid, incompetent leaders who shouldn't be trusted to run a convenient store.

#103 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:05 AM

You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb.

Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring.

How do you force a woman to find out? What if she's a tramp who slept around at the time and there were multiple men involved? So the kids starve throughout the process? What if the biological father is long gone and she doesn't even know where he is? I do agree that, ideally, it would be best to find out and transfer the responsibility to the man who donated sperm, but I think the measures in place try to take the route that's the least disruptive to the children. They've known this man as "Dad" their entire lives and to yank that rug would be wrong. It's a tough situation, but one of the children IS his, so do you simply "pay" for him? Then that money gets too thinly spread because, obviously, all children involved have to be cared for and then he suffers in the process?


What am I, invisible? Have the government pay.

#104 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,406 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:03 AM

You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb.

Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring.

How do you force a woman to find out? What if she's a tramp who slept around at the time and there were multiple men involved? So the kids starve throughout the process? What if the biological father is long gone and she doesn't even know where he is? I do agree that, ideally, it would be best to find out and transfer the responsibility to the man who donated sperm, but I think the measures in place try to take the route that's the least disruptive to the children. They've known this man as "Dad" their entire lives and to yank that rug would be wrong. It's a tough situation, but one of the children IS his, so do you simply "pay" for him? Then that money gets too thinly spread because, obviously, all children involved have to be cared for and then he suffers in the process?

The well being of children is already considered by government which is why women are afforded so many programs to assist them. Government could also attempt to find the real father, chances are they won't want to screw around either since they're so adamant about making someone pay.

This is an issue of parenthood and financial responsibility, as well as the ramifications of such acts.

Man is responsible and takes are of children he thinks are his, finds out wife lied and paternity test reveals he isn't the father, gets punished and cannot remove his responsibility as the father as he should be able to.

This is not the man's fault, so punishing him gives a pass to the woman veiled as "the well being of children". Great for the children, great for the mom, pathetic deal for the guy here.

As for how to force the woman to find out, who knows, that's her problem, and since society wants someone to pay, why not the person who acted out of dishonesty and infidelity? When she opens her legs to a bunch of different men and lie to her husband, that's another thing not his responsibility to figure out for her, and truthfully not government's either, make her responsible for both portions should the guy choose not to have anything to do with kids that aren't his. However, as it currently stands, mother gets a free pass for infidelity and dishonesty, all because some lawmakers arbitrarily decided the only actual "victim" in circumstances like this should be hit because the notion that the children's well being is harmed by father not being in the picture to fork over a chunk of his salary to kids that aren't his, all because he did the right thing and was responsible for children he believed was his. This kind of thing, especially now that it's becoming more prominently known, will prevent father in laws from wanting to help take legal responsibility for the children of a mother that he knows aren't his, because should the other dad disappear, the responsible guy again will be screwed.. it also will foster more loser dads who want to evade responsibility for their children due to not knowing if it's truly theirs, and knowing that should they be financially responsible they'll be forced into paying for children not theirs anyways.

As it is men have very few choices and options in matters surrounding children. It's nice that everyone else has rights without consideration of the guy in the equation, but cases like this where the disparity leans so heavily against a man deserve the criticism it gets.


There is no good reason for the law to function as is, beside people thinking it's "right" to force a man to pay for others' kids (after already having his world destroyed learning they aren't his) because they're dependent on him. You don't force people in a free country to pay for unrelated children simply because they were lied to long enough. Well, I guess we do, but our governments are already full of stupid, incompetent leaders who shouldn't be trusted to run a convenient store.

Well said.

Edited by zaibatsu, 18 February 2013 - 10:05 AM.


#105 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

Where the sexism comes in is the fact that he needs to pay child support for his own son, this means that even though the mother cheated on him with three different people and lied to the husband for so many years, she still gets custody of their one legitimate child. Hands down the child should be with the father in this case, yet the mother gets an automatic buy from the courts that she's a better parent because she's a woman.

I missed the report that he in fact sought custody of the child.
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.

#106 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,952 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:21 AM

4 kids, 4 fathers. For crying out loud, what kind of idiot DNA is this woman passing along?

Maybe she has stock in the DNA paternity testing company?
Posted Image

#107 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:28 AM

What am I, invisible? Have the government pay.

Why should the government pay?
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.

#108 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,279 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:33 AM

The fact of the matter is, he can't PROVE that he had no idea until recently that the kids weren't his.

Maybe they had an open marriage.

Maybe they were swingers.

Maybe she slept around, he forgave her, decided to love the kids as his own...but then later in life, changed his mind?

There are a number of possibilities.

PBF020-Skub.gif


#109 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:35 AM

The fact of the matter is, he can't PROVE that he had no idea until recently that the kids weren't his.

Maybe they had an open marriage.

Maybe they were swingers.

Maybe she slept around, he forgave her, decided to love the kids as his own...but then later in life, changed his mind?

There are a number of possibilities.

Yup.

And none of which have any bearing on the best interests of the child.
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.

#110 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Homer Hall Of Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,295 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:49 AM

The well being of children is already considered by government which is why women are afforded so many programs to assist them. Government could also attempt to find the real father, chances are they won't want to screw around either since they're so adamant about making someone pay.

This is an issue of parenthood and financial responsibility, as well as the ramifications of such acts.

Man is responsible and takes are of children he thinks are his, finds out wife lied and paternity test reveals he isn't the father, gets punished and cannot remove his responsibility as the father as he should be able to.

This is not the man's fault, so punishing him gives a pass to the woman veiled as "the well being of children". Great for the children, great for the mom, pathetic deal for the guy here.

As for how to force the woman to find out, who knows, that's her problem, and since society wants someone to pay, why not the person who acted out of dishonesty and infidelity? When she opens her legs to a bunch of different men and lie to her husband, that's another thing not his responsibility to figure out for her, and truthfully not government's either, make her responsible for both portions should the guy choose not to have anything to do with kids that aren't his. However, as it currently stands, mother gets a free pass for infidelity and dishonesty, all because some lawmakers arbitrarily decided the only actual "victim" in circumstances like this should be hit because the notion that the children's well being is harmed by father not being in the picture to fork over a chunk of his salary to kids that aren't his, all because he did the right thing and was responsible for children he believed was his. This kind of thing, especially now that it's becoming more prominently known, will prevent father in laws from wanting to help take legal responsibility for the children of a mother that he knows aren't his, because should the other dad disappear, the responsible guy again will be screwed.. it also will foster more loser dads who want to evade responsibility for their children due to not knowing if it's truly theirs, and knowing that should they be financially responsible they'll be forced into paying for children not theirs anyways.

As it is men have very few choices and options in matters surrounding children. It's nice that everyone else has rights without consideration of the guy in the equation, but cases like this where the disparity leans so heavily against a man deserve the criticism it gets.

Well said.


Actually, it IS his responsibility to make sure he knows who he's hooking up with. Now, obviously, it's hard to do if deception is part of that but part of me asks where was he when she was sleeping with several different men? You'd think there'd be signs.

To those suggesting kids should be part of the welfare system - really? And there aren't that many options for women/children except to live in poverty and struggle. The man is possibly (see D's post) a casualty in this as well, but the ultimate well being of children is always a priority. Common law spouses are entitled to portions of assets based on that relationship - why shouldn't married people be responsible for what happened during theirs (relationships)? Biological aspects to parenthood are only part of it...when you nurture, care for, feed, watch milestones happen, wipe tears, enjoy laughter that comes with raising kids, it also counts for something. Those kids are part of this man even if not through DNA.

If the mother sought and was awarded custody, I wonder about why that is. She's obviously not really taking the best interests of her kids very seriously in her life decisions.

2421657-1-1-1-1-1.jpg

You can be livin the dream at home. Dont even need to put yer pants on.

-Offensive Threat


#111 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:55 AM

This is not the man's fault, so punishing him gives a pass to the woman veiled as "the well being of children". Great for the children, great for the mom, pathetic deal for the guy here.


You're right - it's not the man's fault. Nor is it the children's fault. There are two innocent parties here who are suffering because of the mom. So the question is, which innocent party should bear most of the burden? The man, or the children? I would argue that the children should not bear the burden since the man is in a better position to replace his lost income.

#112 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Homer Hall Of Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,295 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:05 AM

So very well said ^^

2421657-1-1-1-1-1.jpg

You can be livin the dream at home. Dont even need to put yer pants on.

-Offensive Threat


#113 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:43 AM

The fact of the matter is, he can't PROVE that he had no idea until recently that the kids weren't his.

Maybe they had an open marriage.

Maybe they were swingers.

Maybe she slept around, he forgave her, decided to love the kids as his own...but then later in life, changed his mind?

There are a number of possibilities.


I'm sure they would have been brought up loud and clear in court if any of those points were true.

#114 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:53 AM

Actually, it IS his responsibility to make sure he knows who he's hooking up with. Now, obviously, it's hard to do if deception is part of that but part of me asks where was he when she was sleeping with several different men? You'd think there'd be signs.


Now you're placing blame on the victim for somebody else's deceipt and dishonesty???

To those suggesting kids should be part of the welfare system - really? And there aren't that many options for women/children except to live in poverty and struggle. The man is possibly (see D's post) a casualty in this as well, but the ultimate well being of children is always a priority.


The PRINCIPLE of the matter should come before the "well being of the children". They're not his children. He should not have to foot the bill for their well being. Putting them on the welfare system fits perfectly with your suggestion that it takes a village to raise a child, and as far as living in poverty and struggling, welcome to a large expansive club. Mother being a slut, lying and playing dirty should not be a ticket out.

#115 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,531 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:59 AM

Yet another reminder to never get involved in a relationship with a women with non adult children.

That is unless your willing to risk paying for those children until adulthood.

#116 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,927 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:01 PM

Yet another reminder to never get involved in a relationship with a women with non adult children.

That is unless your willing to risk paying for those children until adulthood.


Yup I learned my lesson. Made a point NEVER to date women with kids after that fiasco. Must suck for the women with kids dating pool though...
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#117 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:04 PM

I'm sure they would have been brought up loud and clear in court if any of those points were true.

However we would not know because in family law matters the details are usually confidential.
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.

#118 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:05 PM

Yet another reminder to never get involved in a relationship with a women with non adult children.

That is unless your willing to risk paying for those children until adulthood.

Except this is not one of those cases. These children were born during the marriage.
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.

#119 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,108 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:06 PM

Yup I learned my lesson. Made a point NEVER to date women with kids after that fiasco. Must suck for the women with kids dating pool though...


And Single moms across the world are rejoicing.

I for one am glad I didn't limit myself when I re-entered the dating scene.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

 

cdc-unavailable.jpg


#120 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,927 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:07 PM

And Single moms across the world are rejoicing.

I for one am glad I didn't limit myself when I re-entered the dating scene.


I'm a married man now, not sure why they'd be rejoicing now?
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image




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.