A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada

[Wetcoaster]

Same reason a man pays - children's financial well being. That's the goal of such laws forcing men to financially support others' bastards, isn't it?

[Buggernut]

That seems very twisted and bitter.

The goal is the the best interests of the child.

[Wetcoaster]

It's just wrong to fulfill the best interests of the child on another man's dime.

[Buggernut]

That is a policy choice and IMHO the correct one.

[Wetcoaster]

In principle, it's just plain theft though.

[literaphile]

It's just wrong to fulfill the best interests of the child on another man's dime.

[Buggernut]

Either the children or the man have to bear the burden - there's just no other way around that. Unless the mom has a money tree growing in her backyard, she can't do it. So the policy choice is between the kids and the dad. To me the choice is clear.

[Electro Rock]

Canada has been a feminazi and mangina run country for decades now, so its no shock when rulings go this way.

[Kesler Is Bestler]

No one knows for sure... except your mother and then ...well not always.

But if you think about it motherhood does have it's priviledge. Your mother could only be your mother. No other woman could have been your mother, it's not possible. Your father on the other hand can be any poor slob.

[Wetcoaster]

Not his children, not his property, not his problem.

[Wetcoaster]

Canada has been a feminazi and mangina run country for decades now, so its no shock when rulings go this way.

[Wetcoaster]

Either the children or the man have to bear the burden - there's just no other way around that. Unless the mom has a money tree growing in her backyard, she can't do it. So the policy choice is between the kids and the dad. To me the choice is clear.

[Mr. Ambien]

Either the children or the man have to bear the burden - there's just no other way around that. Unless the mom has a money tree growing in her backyard, she can't do it. So the policy choice is between the kids and the dad. To me the choice is clear.

[smokes]

Someone somewhere is burning their jockstrap right now.

[fagin]

There have been similar rulings in the past. Courts have ruled in such cases that where the man acted as the father of the child in fact (referred to as in loco parentis) where he is not the biological father (even if deceived) over a period of time providing financial support for a child or children should continue. It has also been extended to a step child. The basic rule is that child support is the right of the child and any perceived misconduct of the mother is not determinative and does not invalidite .an order for child support.

In BC

Someone who married a parent can be obliged to pay child support to the parent under the Divorce Act as long as the step-parent had a parent-like relationship with the child. Under the Family Relations Act, married spouses and common-law spouses can be obliged to pay child support to the parent as long as the step-parent contributed to the support of the child for at least one year and the application under the Family Relations Act is brought within one year from the step-parent’s last contribution to the support of the child. Step-parents can be obliged to pay child support even when the other biological parent is already paying child support.

http://www.cba.org/b...family/117.aspx

Also see this article -

Potential Child Support Obligations of Non-Biological Parents

A Court may order that you pay support for a child of whom you are not a biological parent. This may, for example, be a child of your former spouse (whether you were married or not). Such a child support award would be based on your being “in loco parentis”, which means a Court would find that you were standing in the place of a parent. The courts’ prevailing approach is that if you acted as if you were a parent to a child, and held yourself out as such a parent, then the fact that you are not related by blood will not relieve you of an obligation to contribute to that child’s expenses. This will be particularly true where the child has a need and you have the ability to pay.

In the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Chartier v. Chartier, a man who had played an active role in the life of his wife’s daughter from a previous relationship attempted to avoid any child support obligation by severing his relationship with the child after the separation. The Supreme Court found that a person cannot unilaterally withdraw from a relationship in which he or she stands in the place of a parent. In other words, the man’s relationship with the child during the course of his marriage to the child’s mother gave rise to his child support obligation. His attempts at altering that relationship after the separation did not terminate his responsibility to contribute to the child’s expenses.

On being faced with an application for support for a non-biological child, the Court will consider a number of factors, objectively rather than subjectively, including:

• The nature of the relationship between the adult and the child, to determine whether the adult in fact stood in the place of a parent. Intention of the adult will be important, expressed not only formally and explicitly, but also implicitly, through actions. The Court will ask, for example:
  • Did the child participate in extended family functions, just like a biological child would?

  • Did the adult provide financially for the child?

  • Did the adult discipline the child?

  • Did the child and the adult spend time alone, with the adult caring for the child and sharing activities with him or her?

  • Did the adult attend medical appointments, meet with teachers, take the child to extracurricular activities?

  • Did the adult participate in and/or make alone decisions relating to the child’s health, welfare, education and upbringing?

  [*]The needs of the child at the time of the hearing or order (although the existence of a parental relationship will be determined as of the time of family functioned as a unit);

  [*]The opinion of the child as to the nature of his or her relationship with the adult, although this enquiry will be but one piece of the puzzle (along with all of the other factors); and

  [*]The representations of the adult as to the nature of the relationship.

The above list is not exhaustive and is presented as a guide only.

While it is legal to provide in a cohabitation agreement or marriage contract that a non-biological parent will not be liable for child support for a child/children of the other spouse (from a previous relationship), it is important to note the provisions of section 56(1) and (1.) of the Family Law Actwhich state that:

a) in a determination of an issue relating to the education, moral training, custody or access to a child, the court may disregard the provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the issue, if to do so is in the child’s best interests; and

in a determination of the issue of child support, the court may disregard a provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the issue, if the provision is unreasonable having regard to the

Child Support Guidelines

(for more information on the Guidelines, see separate article).

http://www.harrisand...ticle.php?id=87

[Mr. Ambien]

.......And one wonders why spousal murder is in such abundance.

[c00kies]

No one knows for sure... except your mother and then ...well not always.

But if you think about it motherhood does have it's priviledge. Your mother could only be your mother. No other woman could have been your mother, it's not possible. Your father on the other hand can be any poor slob.

[fagin]

Either the children or the man have to bear the burden - there's just no other way around that. Unless the mom has a money tree growing in her backyard, she can't do it. So the policy choice is between the kids and the dad. To me the choice is clear.

[literaphile]

The consequences of such policies obviously have not been thought through, the people making and supporting such policies have some one-sided subjective tunnel vision for "the sake of the children".

[Mr. Ambien]

Really? You should read this: http://www.ag.gov.bc...law/pdf/faq.pdf

Q: Was there consultation on the changes to the family law?

• There were extensive consultations conducted over five years throughout B.C. in developing the new Family Law Act. The act also benefits from extensive research, including reviews of family laws from Canadian and international jurisdictions.

• The White Paper released in July 2010 included proposals for a new family law and draft legislation. The ministry received feedback from more than 500 organizations, including men’s and women’s groups, community-based organizations, and multicultural and aboriginal family services, and members of the public during the consultation process.

• The Family Law Act reflects a carefully considered balance of the research and the diverse perspectives raised during the broad consultations.

Edited to clarify that this is for the incoming Family Law Act, which strengthens the best interests of the child presumptions in basically every area of family law.