I wish I could kick this judge in the nuts.

"While the failure of (Anciolina) Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair and that the twins might not be his biological children may well have been a moral wrong against Mr. Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support,"Ontario Superior Court Justice Katherine van Rensburg wrote in her decision.

This is why women can't be judges.

Or allowed to talk.

"While the failure of (Anciolina) Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair and that the twins might not be his biological children may well have been a moral wrong against Mr. Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support,"Ontario Superior Court Justice Katherine van Rensburg wrote in her decision.

A woman judge made this decision? Color me shocked! Justice van Rensburg obviously doesn't know the first thing about justice. "You were cheated on, lied to, tricked out of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars? That's horrible! Oh, wait, you have a penis. Quit crying and pay up or go to jail."

Asa Phelps: Write your state legislator if you object.

My state legislator will fix things in Canada? Cool!

as a father who has a stepson from a previous marriage (He is 12 and I raised him since he was 2) he calls me dad and I feel like a father to him. Although I do not pay child support on him, I would not hesitate to adopt him and I'd be willing to pay child support. If, as a father that lovingly raised these girls, then he should not contest the support paid to them. The money is for their well being and if he really loved them as a father he should not have a problem with it. Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

mandingueiro: Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

This is all well and good except that the checks don't go to the kids. The money goes to his lying ex-wife who can use it for anything she wants, so long as it is even tangentially related to the children.

This biatch told him one whopper of a lie. Why should he be further penalized for having believed it?

JacksBlack: mandingueiro: Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

This is all well and good except that the checks don't go to the kids. The money goes to his lying ex-wife who can use it for anything she wants, so long as it is even tangentially related to the children.

This biatch told him one whopper of a lie. Why should he be further penalized for having believed it?

i know that. However (and I'm being optimistic here) if the check goes to the overall well being of the kids such as paying for rent or mortgage, food on the table, a healthy family environment, than the money is well spent. If the father is paying out his ass and the kids are wearing tattered clothes and overall seem unhappy or miserable, then yes, something is wrong and the father should do his best to remedy the situation through the courts. Obviously, the kids are old enough wherein the court will ask them questions regarding their living standards. If he is a real father, if he saw this type of maltreatment then he should file for custody, no matter the outcome.

/just my $.02

Is he a man?
If so, then according to family court these days, he's automatically guilty of something and can be arbitrarily punished.

JacksBlack: so long as it is even tangentially related to the children.

Not so.. She can go and buy crack with it and there's nothing he can do about it. Nothing at all.. I had this discussion with my lawyer..

/pays child support.

mandingueiro: if the check goes to the overall well being of the kids such as paying for rent or mortgage, food on the table, a healthy family environment, than the money is well spent.

Great, since you're so concerned with these kids' well being, why don't you reimburse the guy for every child support payment he makes?

Oh wait, you only care when it's not your money being spent.

INTERTRON: mandingueiro: if the check goes to the overall well being of the kids such as paying for rent or mortgage, food on the table, a healthy family environment, than the money is well spent.

Great, since you're so concerned with these kids' well being, why don't you reimburse the guy for every child support payment he makes?

Oh wait, you only care when it's not your money being spent.

not my kids. thats why we have a social welfare system, an inadequate one at that.

mandingueiro: not my kids.

They're not his kids, either, yet you seem to have a problem with him not paying child support for somebody elses' kids, lest you call him a deadbeat dad.

INTERTRON: mandingueiro: not my kids.

They're not his kids, either, yet you seem to have a problem with him not paying child support for somebody elses' kids, lest you call him a deadbeat dad.

go back and read the f*ckin article and my previous posts.

mandingueiro: go back and read the f*ckin article and my previous posts.
Already did, you're not going to blame your moronic ideas on me:

mandingueiro: Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.
Clearly either he keeps paying this chick for some kids who aren't his, or he hates the kids and he's a deadbeat dad.

mandingueiro: as a father who has a stepson from a previous marriage (He is 12 and I raised him since he was 2) he calls me dad and I feel like a father to him. Although I do not pay child support on him, I would not hesitate to adopt him and I'd be willing to pay child support. If, as a father that lovingly raised these girls, then he should not contest the support paid to them. The money is for their well being and if he really loved them as a father he should not have a problem with it. Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

I'm glad that your situation is working out well and that you're being a good father to these children. However, you're comparing apples to oranges. In your case, you were never under the assumption that your son was your biological son. This other person was defrauded and is now being forced to continue to pay the person who defrauded him. It really sucks that there are children involved, it really does. But, as previous people said, the money is going to the woman, who can then spend it on pretty much whatever she wants. There's a big difference between someone continuing to be a positive influence in a child's life and being forced to pay money to support kids you were defrauded into believing were yours.

So the lesson here is never, ever pay child support until AFTER you've had a DNA test, because once you've let yourself be defrauded out of child support, you're legally obliged to continue being defrauded forever.

Can you imagine this in a corporate setting? Secretary is caught embezzling, and successfully argues that since they were allowed to get away with it up till now, the company has to let them carry on stealing.

Just farking shoot the biatch.



/bitter

If his name is on the birth certificate, he is the father and liable for support, no matter what the DNA test says.

Which is why if any prospective fathers have any doubts about paternity, absolutely do not sign the birth certificate. The entire hospital staff, particularly the nurses, will pressure you intensely to sign. Don't do it if you're unsure.

Let him stick it in her pooper and call it even.

puffy999: Duh. Slutty coonts and their bastard off spring have to eat, too.

And biatches like this farking slut coont whore biatch smelly vagina judge like to fark men over in this regard.

Wow. Tell us how you really feel.

If you raise kids for 16 years as your own, and one day you find out they weren't your spawn, do you suddenly stop caring about them? Do they suddenly stop looking at you as the person who raised them and cared for them all that time, and vice versa?

He got lied to, and that sucks. They're still his kids. He raised them. They're always going to feel like he's their dad, and if he suddenly no longer gives a shiat about them because of a shiatty thing their mother did, then he's an asswipe.

The issue of what the child support actually goes to is totally immaterial to this discussion--it's just as reprehensible if it's being misused when the kids are biologically yours as when they're not.

/Sorry kids, I raised you for over a decade and a half, but all those times I said I loved you, it was only because I thought you had half my DNA.
//fark off, farkers.

Kelbesque: If you raise kids for 16 years as your own, and one day you find out they weren't your spawn, do you suddenly stop caring about them? Do they suddenly stop looking at you as the person who raised them and cared for them all that time, and vice versa?

He got lied to, and that sucks. They're still his kids. He raised them. They're always going to feel like he's their dad, and if he suddenly no longer gives a shiat about them because of a shiatty thing their mother did, then he's an asswipe.

The issue of what the child support actually goes to is totally immaterial to this discussion--it's just as reprehensible if it's being misused when the kids are biologically yours as when they're not.

/Sorry kids, I raised you for over a decade and a half, but all those times I said I loved you, it was only because I thought you had half my DNA.
//fark off, farkers.

he's only raised them for 6 years. theyve been divorced for ten. He should only be liable for 2 more years. situation sucks, but the courts rule in the best interest of the children, not justice. Something should happen to the mother though, she has defruded her ex for 10 years. Civil court?

If he's smart, he sues for full custody.

Not only did she perpetrate a fraud on him, her excuse about not knowing who the father was due to medication would be the perfect opening for a drug test. Unless she's been in rehab lately....

Go get her, buddy.

Kelbesque: If you raise kids for 16 years as your own, and one day you find out they weren't your spawn, do you suddenly stop caring about them?

He only raised them for 6. After that, they divorced, and since women always get custody of the children, the other 10 years were most likely spent with the guy giving money to his ex wife and being able to see the kids for a few hours a month.

angrygrizzly: If he's smart, he sues for full custody.

Not only did she perpetrate a fraud on him, her excuse about not knowing who the father was due to medication would be the perfect opening for a drug test. Unless she's been in rehab lately....

Go get her, buddy.

good idea, except this case will prolly be used against him in that he does not wish to care for the kids.

family law has gotta be one of the crappiest branches to get into. People being told by their lawyers to file a PFA just to strengthen their case.

mandingueiro: as a father who has a stepson from a previous marriage (He is 12 and I raised him since he was 2) he calls me dad and I feel like a father to him. Although I do not pay child support on him, I would not hesitate to adopt him and I'd be willing to pay child support. If, as a father that lovingly raised these girls, then he should not contest the support paid to them. The money is for their well being and if he really loved them as a father he should not have a problem with it. Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

That's what I came to say!
Well put.

So... what?

I think he should make the argument that he is obviously entitled to custody if he's the father in spite of genetics, then, and try to take 'em away from the woman. but, then, I'm kind of a dick.

mandingueiro: Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

In that case, you owe my kids child supports money
Pay up sucker!



/Not fair is it?

Moonk:
he's only raised them for 6 years. theyve been divorced for ten. He should only be liable for 2 more years. situation sucks, but the courts rule in the best interest of the children, not justice. Something should happen to the mother though, she has defruded her ex for 10 years. Civil court?

Skimmed the article. Still, 6 years is long enough to form an attachment. The child support payments aren't fraud. Even if he'd known there and then that the kids weren't his when they got divorced, he'd be legally required to pay child support. She deceived him, but that wasn't, ultimately, a means by which she deprived him of money. The kids are, for all intents and purposes, his. He's the only father they've ever known. If she didn't know until the DNA test that he wasn't the father, then she's not even legally culpable for the misrepresentation. At least in the US, this is Canada and we all know that Canada is made of fail. In any case, at this point, any punishment meted out upon the mother is, inherently, a punishment that carries on to the kids, so the distinction is basically nil.

INTERTRON:
He only raised them for 6. After that, they divorced, and since women always get custody of the children, the other 10 years were most likely spent with the guy giving money to his ex wife and being able to see the kids for a few hours a month.

Your speculation as to what their custodial situation is doesn't really lend anything to your argument. I've seen more than a few abusive custodial situations in the father's favor, like my friend's sister, whose ex gets to have the kids sent to him on every holiday, no matter where he is, at the wife's expense while he pays no alimony or child support, and the courts sit on their thumbs and wiggle them.

In any case, this dude has no leg to stand on. You raise kids, they imprint on you, they're yours. No matter how far they go away. It's a far greater travesty when the courts prioritize DNA over rearing, and surrogate parents or guardians who brought the kids up lovingly from toddler to teen get stripped of custody because the DNA-bearer suddenly decides they want their crotch-fruit back.

Relationships are built on interpersonal interactions, not strings of five-carbon sugars and nucleotides.

So the kids are 16 . . . Why not have the money paid into a trust fund that they have limited access to, and the mother has none. The person they know and accepted as a parent lives up to his responsibilities, the lying ex-wife doesn't get to keep defrauding him, and the kids are provided for.

Oh, and while we're at this making sense business could we please biatchslap the mom for having kids to jerk her husband around with? Slap dad too. Just because their mom lied doesn't make them inhuman. Taking out your hurt feelings on kids does, however, make you a bit of a monster.

justifiable homicide

mandingueiro: as a father who has a stepson from a previous marriage (He is 12 and I raised him since he was 2) he calls me dad and I feel like a father to him. Although I do not pay child support on him, I would not hesitate to adopt him and I'd be willing to pay child support. If, as a father that lovingly raised these girls, then he should not contest the support paid to them. The money is for their well being and if he really loved them as a father he should not have a problem with it. Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

I think he should still have the right in the eyes of the law to refuse payments. You'd hope he wouldn't, but if I was in his situation I'd much rather provide the support based on what I consider necessary and what I want to provide rather than what the law states.

Kelbesque: Moonk:
he's only raised them for 6 years. theyve been divorced for ten. He should only be liable for 2 more years. situation sucks, but the courts rule in the best interest of the children, not justice. Something should happen to the mother though, she has defruded her ex for 10 years. Civil court?

Still, 6 years is long enough to form an attachment.

Given that he's not the biological father, that's for him to decide. Not you, I or the state.

Better watch out, this is the type of thing that could push a guy into buying a Santa suit...

lajimi: He needs to appeal to another court for an unbiased judgement.

I love you.

/would totally have Al Bundy's babies

Tea_Tempest_pot: So the kids are 16 . . . Why not have the money paid into a trust fund that they have limited access to, and the mother has none. The person they know and accepted as a parent lives up to his responsibilities, the lying ex-wife doesn't get to keep defrauding him, and the kids are provided for.

Oh, and while we're at this making sense business could we please biatchslap the mom for having kids to jerk her husband around with? Slap dad too. Just because their mom lied doesn't make them inhuman. Taking out your hurt feelings on kids does, however, make you a bit of a monster.

Who says the father doesn't want to provide? Perhaps he just feels, as I would, that provisions should be on his terms. What he feels he wants to contribute. Could be that he doesn't want to see a penny falling into his wife's lap and controlling all payments would be one way to do that.

Amateur! Serves him right for not takin' it to this judge instead:



She woulda laid down the law!

mandingueiro: JacksBlack: mandingueiro: Yeah, he got lied to, but his love as a father transcends it--unless he's a shiatty dead-beat dad, then all i've said is out the window.

This is all well and good except that the checks don't go to the kids. The money goes to his lying ex-wife who can use it for anything she wants, so long as it is even tangentially related to the children.

This biatch told him one whopper of a lie. Why should he be further penalized for having believed it?

i know that. However (and I'm being optimistic here) if the check goes to the overall well being of the kids such as paying for rent or mortgage, food on the table, a healthy family environment, than the money is well spent. If the father is paying out his ass and the kids are wearing tattered clothes and overall seem unhappy or miserable, then yes, something is wrong and the father should do his best to remedy the situation through the courts. Obviously, the kids are old enough wherein the court will ask them questions regarding their living standards. If he is a real father, if he saw this type of maltreatment then he should file for custody, no matter the outcome.

/just my $.02

The State take their cut or of the check plus you have so called court fees every year or so

SidVacant:
Kelbesque: Moonk:
he's only raised them for 6 years. theyve been divorced for ten. He should only be liable for 2 more years. situation sucks, but the courts rule in the best interest of the children, not justice. Something should happen to the mother though, she has defruded her ex for 10 years. Civil court?

Still, 6 years is long enough to form an attachment.

Given that he's not the biological father, that's for him to decide. Not you, I or the state.

Actually, his attachment means shiat. Parents are farks half the time anyway--that doesn't absolve them of responsibility. The kids, on the other hand, their attachment matters a lot. You seem to be arguing that it is unreasonable for the state to force a primary caregiver to continue providing after the end of a marital relationship if the children aren't biologically related.

This is basically idiotic on its face. Relationships are not built on DNA, they are built on human interaction. During their most formative years, he was, for all intents and purposes, their father. He raised them. Nothing will ever change that. He doesn't get to decide to punish them suddenly because their mother lied, or because kids who don't share his DNA aren't worth anything to him. Well, he does, by going to court and swearing before the state that they aren't worth shiat to him anymore, but not by being legally absolved from continuing to support them.

He has the right to be a dick and refuse to provide them emotional support. He doesn't have the right to withhold from their livelihood.