VancouverCanucksRock Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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: /topic/339993-a-reason-it-sucks-to-be-a-man-in-canada/#entry11140320">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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The problem here is that family law is so skewed toward mothers it is ridiculous. Family law in Canada is filled with sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Does the "informed" part of the "consent" come into play anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Do you care about the "best interests" of other people's children so much that you'd give your life and limb for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Do you care about the "best interests" of other people's children so much that you'd give your life and limb for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n00bxQb Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Well then, I'm sure glad you're not in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 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: /topic/339993-a-reason-it-sucks-to-be-a-man-in-canada/#entry11140320">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 ( 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 ( 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 ( 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.