Court orders man to continue chemotherapy for leukemia even after the positive test result was shown to be an administrative error, because he started the treatment on the assumption that he did have it.

little miss:

Knowingly putting the wrong name on the birth certificate

Unknowingly, according to her.

She attributed the memory lapse to medication she was taking at the time.

Who knew Valtrex caused memory lapses?

RockyMtnMan: But you should never be forced into doing something. Like raising children that AREN'T YOURS!

Just give up. Hubcap has basically said that a guy shouldn't mind being cuckolded. At this point she's a lost cause.

Madbassist1: So you're saying the ex should pay the mom and her boyfriend to raise the kids? I want you to be direct, not circular like you have been.

I don't know what part of "Pay it." isn't direct.

now you're just being snarky. Yes I am proud I dont need the biatchs money so what? I give it back because I dont need it and she could use it, case closed. If you think I am wrong, then that shows you to be the shallow troll you obviously are.

Eh, this is poor form. You can do better than an ad hominem.

[citation needed]

Fine. Link (new window)

I know you're just trolling, but this issue is close to me.

See, that link was just too perfect.

FTFL: This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

[citation needed]

This:
As horrifying as it is, I think he's serious. You've obviously never been a relationship bad enough to make you say "you know, I'm never gonna beat my wife, I don't want to be that guy... but if this is how some of them start, I'm finding it kinda hard to blame them."

Oh I get the Chris Rock statement: "I'm not saying it's right, but I *understand*." The words "had it coming" are what are the problem there: that implies she deserves such a thing. That smacks of blaming the victim, and very nearly excusing any violence ("dude had it coming, he flicked off that burly tattooed biker"... wrong).

"a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision that said if someone acts as a parent and provides support for a child during a marriage, they are obliged to continue that financial support after separation or divorce -- even if the child is not biologically theirs."

Legally forced adoptions? Astonishing.

I agree the system is screwed. Not everything is the same, but the family court system just puts the same cookie cutter stamp on everything, and that is wrong.

My brother had to go to court and get an injuction to keep his ex from putting his name on the birth certificate. He asked for a test first, then he would agree. Good thing too since the child wasn't his. He got lucky, really.

I tried to opt out of child support from my ex. I didn't think I would need it and he is a responsible parent even if I can't live with him. The court said it didn't matter that we both agreed to no child support, he still had to pay. Why? It's not neccisary.

This: Clever Neologism: Dude, if you are trolling, brilliant. If not, damn son.

As horrifying as it is, I think he's serious. You've obviously never been a relationship bad enough to make you say "you know, I'm never gonna beat my wife, I don't want to be that guy... but if this is how some of them start, I'm finding it kinda hard to blame them."

THIS.

The amount of mental and psychological anguish, abuse and, arguably torture that women can - and do - dish out on men entirely sans consequence is one of the primary instigators in spousal abuse and/or murder.

Men can - and are - often charged with mental or emotional cruelty during divorces or even the preceding domestic squabbles and yet women never are.

A woman could break a frying pan in half over a man's head and if he so much as grabs her arm to deflect a second blow HE'S the one going to jail.

My personal and anecdotal experience leads me to believe that women often time intentionally instigate such conflicts with the express hope that the man will respond physically as that's more or less the "game ender" and they can thereafter adopt the "innocent victim" role and milk it to their advantage indefinitely.

Although, statistically, men suffer "domestic violence" at nearly the same rate as women do it's all but legislated as a "men against women" ONLY crime and the courts then view it that way and resources available for men are next to non-existent.

When's the last time you heard of a "battered men's shelter?"

Clever Neologism: The words "had it coming" are what are the problem there: that implies she deserves such a thing.

There's "had it coming" which is to say, "she talk mean to me, so I beat her". And there's "had it coming", as in "she ruined my life". For the latter, the only reason we protect the woman is because she's a pussy (not all women are pussies, but the term contains vaginal connotations for a reason). If a guy destroyed a some poor sap's life in the same way and the poor sap beat the dude to an inch of his life, we'd be cheering him on and you know it, even if the guy who got beat was a buck-five scrawny weakling.

Tentacle: Mandatory DNA testing at birth for everyone.

Problem solved.

I think that is the best solution. Publicly-funded birth control and DNA tests at birth would solve a lot of problems.

RockyMtnMan: so you're saying that after those kids can be abandoned by the man they've called father, that he called himself father to, after 16 years just based on the fact that it wasn't his sperm that hit the egg?

It would take some kind of man to do that, that's for sure.

little miss: $29.99 for the DNA at home kit and $119 for the lab work. Not a lot of money, considering what's at stake.

Whoa. Holy crap, we DO live in the future. The think-machine and magic glowing paper in front of me gave me an inkling, but that tears it.

Simple solution:

All births require DNA testing to see if the named male is the actual biological parent of the baby, BEFORE his name is placed on the birth certificate. If the male is actually the biological father - then there is no issue regarding parentage, and the male is legally responsible for the baby.

However, if the test results show that the male is not the biological father, he then has two choices: 1) He may legally request to adopt the baby. If the adoption is not contested, and approved by the court, his named is placed on the birth certificate as the baby's father. 2) If he chooses not to adopt the baby, a search for the actual biological father then ensues. The mother can then name names of those she believes are the actual biological father, or she can refuse. However, regadless of option 1 or 2, the mother may only get financial child support from the person listed as the father on the birth certificate.

This would put an end to all this crap.

Kelbesque: Wow, this is just made of fail.

If the only people telling you a drug is safe is the drug company, and nobody else has even looked at it, are you going to take their word for it?

Wow, how about attacking the data and not the messenger. If the data is sound, it doesn't matter how biased the researcher who collected and analyzed it. So, can I please see your review of the pertinent data with a full analysis of the research methods specifically looking for improprieties, errors, and false data manipulation? No? Well, then, I guess then if YOU say the data is biased, then it simply must be. Double standard much?

Kelbesque: Anecdotal evidence bears weight in people's minds. That doesn't form a basis of proof, though.

Again, anecdotal evidence forms a strong backbone of much of sociological research. It's more suspect than a more rigorous research method, but it is not invalid. Moreover, as more anecdotal proof is collected, like with any data, it increases in accuracy. Simply saying "Oh, thats anecdotal and doesn't count." is not a valid attack on the data.

Kelbesque: I have to rely on common sense measures in order to sift out whose interpretation should be trusted, and whose shouldn't.

Well, then, there's your problem. You talk about rejecting anything that isn't rigorous scientifically collected data, and then base your interpretation of that data on "common sense", or "pulling shiat out your ass" as it's known by people who actually work with data. Again, double standard much?

To be fair, I am a little shocked at the dearth of data on the subject. It seems like it would be a sociology grad students wet dream of a topic.

R.A.Danny: You figure out how to fix all that, I'm out of ideas.

Adoptive-dad gets custody, mom goes to jail. Sure, adoptive dad has to deal with parenting kids that aren't biologically his, but he was going to have to do that (financially) anyways, and as far as the kids are concerned they call him daddy.

And we don't know anything about dad to know that he's unfit to be a father, while mommy's staggering level of dishonesty makes her a pretty freaking bad role-model.

Mom being in jail deters any other ladies from trying this shiat.

Clever Neologism: This:
As horrifying as it is, I think he's serious. You've obviously never been a relationship bad enough to make you say "you know, I'm never gonna beat my wife, I don't want to be that guy... but if this is how some of them start, I'm finding it kinda hard to blame them."

Oh I get the Chris Rock statement: "I'm not saying it's right, but I *understand*." The words "had it coming" are what are the problem there: that implies she deserves such a thing. That smacks of blaming the victim, and very nearly excusing any violence ("dude had it coming, he flicked off that burly tattooed biker"... wrong).


He flicked off the burly biker?

Yeah, sure as hell he had it coming.

Bull/horns, etc.

Why is it only men are accountable for their actions or for bad shiat that happens to them as a direct result of their actions.

The entirely overblown and hysterically fictional "Date rape" myth is a perfect example of this.

A woman gets shiatfaced at a party, gives topless lap dances to three men and then goes upstairs with them for one reason or another and has sex.

She's now a rape "victim."

A man gets shiatfaced and wanders down the street in a bad neighborhood with too burlap sacks full of money - with dollar signs printed on the bags - and when he gets robbed he's a "dumbass."

By presuming that the smacked around woman (who is indeed a victim) did not victimise the person who slapped her FIRST through either word or deed and that ONLY women can be victims is an entirely misandrist position and part of what leads certain men to snap.

bluehubcap:
so you're saying that after those kids can be abandoned by the man they've called father, that he called himself father to, after 16 years just based on the fact that it wasn't his sperm that hit the egg?

It would take some kind of man to do that, that's for sure.



That is exactly, 100%, what I am saying to you.

You can call me President of the United States because I dress, act, and say I am the President of the United States. But that doesn't mean I am the President of the United States.

They aren't his children even though he acted like the father because he thought he was their father. He shouldn't be responsible for them.

Too many judges cite precedent instead of setting it.

R.A.Danny:
The guy got hosed, but he still had raised the kids as his.
The woman is w whore, and represents part of the reason women only get something like $0.76 for every dollar a man makes (I know it is wrong, but women like her have brought contempt upon a complete gender, if you have an issue with that, bring it up with the local whore).

Stop repeating this, please. When corrected for job, level of experience, and seniority, women make within a few cents of men (it's in the 90s). I can't find the study ATM, but do some more research. While still not absolutely equal, it's almost within the statistical error.

NightOwl2255: Total fail right there. The idea may be good, but there is no way in hell required DNA testing of newborns will ever fly.

It'll happen eventually, with or without pressure for MRAs. Genetic profiling is going to be more and more common in medicine, for a variety of reasons. For example, there are tons of highly effective drugs, vaccines, treatments etc that cannot be put on the market because of sensitivities in large chunks of the population - drug that cure's Bob's heart disease kills Juanita and Kim. The current bleeding-edge research in pharma is to develop tests for these sensitivities, so that these drugs can be safely put on the market. The idea is that a single genetic profile can reveal every drug you have available to you.

Does it not make a difference that this guy knew six years ago that his wife had an affair and that these children might not be his, yet requested joint custody anyway?

As a woman who was granted zero child support, I am getting a kick. To the teeth!

Justice Katherine van Rensburg, since she previously sucked his cock, she is morally oblidged and not permited to stop such cock sucking, as per your ruling.

Sympathises:



/Obscure?

But the judge pointed out that Mr. Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone named Tony, who may have fathered the twins -- but he sought joint custody regardless.


The guy's an idiot. He knew she was cheating and didn't have the kids tested. I agree justice was not done here, but let's not overlook the fact this guy had an out a loooong time ago and didn't take it.

NightOwl2255: Yeah_Right: Simple solution:

All births require DNA testing to see if the named male is the actual biological parent of the baby, BEFORE his name is placed on the birth certificate. If the male is actually the biological father - then there is no issue regarding parentage, and the male is legally responsible for the baby.

However, if the test results show that the male is not the biological father, he then has two choices: 1) He may legally request to adopt the baby. If the adoption is not contested, and approved by the court, his named is placed on the birth certificate as the baby's father. 2) If he chooses not to adopt the baby, a search for the actual biological father then ensues. The mother can then name names of those she believes are the actual biological father, or she can refuse. However, regadless of option 1 or 2, the mother may only get financial child support from the person listed as the father on the birth certificate.

This would put an end to all this crap.

Total fail right there. The idea may be good, but there is no way in hell required DNA testing of newborns will ever fly.

Perhaps. But as a society - we require all sorts of medical procedures be followed. Most children MUST have shots and medial exams before entering into public school. I don't see why DNA testing can't be just another requirement.

keiverarrow: Oh enough already sounds like a creep, but he's mostly right. Mostly. If he's a troll, it's a good one.

We've been conditioned to assume such sentiment is "creepy" due to the gynocracy that has wrested control of our culture.

I'm more than happy to be the "villain" who has the balls to say aloud (or whatever the digital equivalent is) what many are thinking but few have the courage to say.

I suppose 40/50 years ago someone who might have said "blacks have a RIGHT to be angry or hostile, look at how they're treated in society" could have been dismissed as a "creep" as well.

Is this struggle markedly different than theirs was?

Not much.

R.A.Danny: I've been spinning this around in my head for about an hour now, and I still can't figure out what "right" is in this situation.
The guy got hosed, but he still had raised the kids as his.
The woman is w whore, and represents part of the reason women only get something like $0.76 for every dollar a man makes (I know it is wrong, but women like her have brought contempt upon a complete gender, if you have an issue with that, bring it up with the local whore).
The kids need to be brought up in a decent environment, and their parents (all three in this case) have failed them.

You figure out how to fix all that, I'm out of ideas.

You've encompassed the issue correctly; however, there's one point absent that a lot of people missed [looking at you, Pxtl].

For 16 years, this man called himself father to these kids...that meant unconditional love given to him, holidays and special occasions shared with, hugs & kisses accepted, father's day gifts made for and received, by him. He didn't feel "hosed" until they were 16 years old and he had a DNA test done. At that point, he decided they weren't "his". Were they any less his the day before the DNA results were received?

Animals even shoulder responsibility for offspring that doesn't share their DNA, or sometimes even their species. Why is it so different for men?

sandi_fish: As a woman who was granted zero child support, I am getting a kick. To the teeth!

They do that? Seriously? I thought that they did at least a token amount (like $25/mo) even if the guy was a homeless bum with a substance-abuse problem.

If he knew they weren't his kids and still accepted responsibility as a parent then I guess I can see the point of having him continue to pay child support.

For example, if I marry a single mom (kids not mine) and then we divorce ten years later I should have responsibility for the kids. Assuming I actually take on the father role in the household and the bio father isn't in the picture.

If however I find out that the kids aren't mine after the fact as this guy has done there is a problem with the courts rewarding infidelity. This is like keeping a person in prison even though the DNA evidence proves innocence. Sure we have a guy behind bars but it isn't the right guy.

What if the guy found out about the affair and knew the kids weren't his but remained married and played the dad role for an additional five years or so before divorcing? I would say he owes the support due to his acknowledgement of being a father in name.

In this case it sounds like they should find the bio father and demand restitution.

bluehubcap: You've encompassed the issue correctly; however, there's one point absent that a lot of people missed [looking at you, Pxtl].

Either you're getting the names wrong, or you're not reading my posts, or you're just being a twat.

Never said the guy wasn't effectively the father - quite the opposite, I think the guy should get full custody. I just think the mother should get punished for what she did (not the infidelity, not getting knocked up, but for lying to her husband about the chances it wasn't his).

NightOwl2255: Total fail right there. The idea may be good, but there is no way in hell required DNA testing of newborns will ever fly.

What if it's phrased this way instead.. "If a mother chooses to name a father on the birth certificate, the father may request a dna test to assure the child is his."

It seems very reasonable, and testing isn't required unless the mother would like to make a claim, and the father would like to challenge the claim.

RockyMtnMan: bluehubcap:
so you're saying that after those kids can be abandoned by the man they've called father, that he called himself father to, after 16 years just based on the fact that it wasn't his sperm that hit the egg?

It would take some kind of man to do that, that's for sure.



That is exactly, 100%, what I am saying to you.

You can call me President of the United States because I dress, act, and say I am the President of the United States. But that doesn't mean I am the President of the United States.

They aren't his children even though he acted like the father because he thought he was their father. He shouldn't be responsible for them.

I said some man, I didn't say what kind of man... Perhaps the distinction was too subtle.

pendy575 - this guy did find out that these kids might not be his in 2002, yet still sought joint custody. He still wanted to be their father despite not knowing if he was their biological father. That's the difference in this case. That being said, I do agree that they should find the biological father (if possible) and make him share in the responsibility.

If that is the case then he should pay for them. That being said I would argue that knowledge of an affair shouldn't automatically require action on the mans part to prove his kids are his own. To me that is a very slippery slope.

notdorothy: I tried to opt out of child support from my ex. I didn't think I would need it and he is a responsible parent even if I can't live with him. The court said it didn't matter that we both agreed to no child support, he still had to pay. Why? It's not neccisary.

Why? Because the state really doesn't care about making sure the child is supported. The state gets a cut of what the man pays in for child support. If a man pays $500/mo in support, the mother may receive as little as $400-450 of it. In some cases, it may be an even lower percentage. And usually, their is no option to pay the amount directly to the mother, even if both parties agree to this. The state demands it be paid through their system, and it determines the amount as a fixed percentage, because the state gets to keep a chunk of it. The more money earned by the payer, the more money the state gets. It is a tax, plain and simple.

R.A.Danny: bluehubcap: Animals even shoulder responsibility for offspring that doesn't share their DNA, or sometimes even their species. Why is it so different for men?

Oh, and lions eat the offspring of other lions in an attempt to get the females to go into heat sooner. Gee, women will even lie in a Fark thread to get their way.


Calm down buddy. Where's all this hostility coming from? Get a grip on yourself. First, it's not a lie. And second, you missed the important part of the post:

bluehubcap: Were they any less his the day before the DNA results were received?

R.A.Danny: bluehubcap: For 16 years, this man called himself father to these kids.

Based on a crushing lie.

Perhaps, but it wasn't the kids who lied. Did anyone read the ruling? OMG, it was in favour of the kids, not the parents.

Child support is above and beyond any spousal support. "Mom" doesn't get it all, it goes towards the care and maintenance of the kids.

The father pushed the argument, even though the Supreme Court had ruled 10 years ago, that he shouldn't have responsibility for these kids. Then the story made the paper (I'm guessing dad fed it since it's purely a sympathy plea). Sounds like dad's just a wee bit vindictive. He didn't get an answer he liked, but the law was set some time ago. If he didn't understand the nature of the term "parent", perhaps he should have worn a condom 16 years ago.

All the US backseat lawyers just step back for a moment and assume that Canadian law deals with things differently, kay?

This is not unusual, actually it is common practice.

The thinking is what is the best option for the welfare of the child. You only have one chance to get out of child support for a kid that isn't yours, and that is before it starts.