If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Post)   Court orders man to continue paying child support to kids that DNA testing conclusively proved weren't his, because he started to do so on the assumption that they were   (nationalpost.com) divider line 489
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

17938 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2009 at 4:14 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



489 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-01-08 12:03:29 PM
R.A.Danny: Yep. Unfortunately everyone involved has rights, and those individual rights get in the way of each other.

This is where, imho, the more traditional way of doing things is correct: assume everybody's doing the right thing, and if you find out they're doing something wrong, punish the transgressor.

Now, can we all agree that a person has a right to know their biological relationship to their own children? Otherwise, accidental baby swaps at the hospital would be non-events, because no right would be violated and there would be no basis for legal action.

When a wife lies to her husband about this relationship (given that they are in a much, much better position to know about it) then they're violating that right.

No privacy violation because it's not about what mommy did, it's about who baby is related to - and mommy is in a better position to know about it.
 
2009-01-08 12:03:38 PM
Damnhippyfreak: 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:

Yes, it is a lie. She went all Bambi on us and said fathers in the wild take part in parenting other male's brood. They rarely take care of their own.

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

Yes, and he should be allowed to eat them now.

youdoknowi'mkiddingaboutthatright?
 
2009-01-08 12:03:49 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.


If the named father is not her husband, he can request a court to order a test. If he is her husband, as it stands now in the US, he is the father no matter want the DNA test shows. And that is an important and over looked point. If a dude knocks up a married chick he has NO legal rights to the child. None. Nada. Zip. No visitation. Nothing.
 
2009-01-08 12:03:55 PM
bluehubcap: 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?


Loving the children and acting like a father to them is completely irrelevant to the issue of financially supporting them. Even if the man or the court decided he should never see the children again, he is still being forced to pay to support them. These children are no more his than they are yours.
 
2009-01-08 12:04:41 PM
pendy575: 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.


So according to that a guy that knows his wife was unfaithful, and that her kids are probably not hers... his only option to avoid any legal responsibility to those kids in the future is to end the relationship immediately? What if he wants to work it out.. what if he is totally in love with his wife and doesnt want to end the relationship? that automatically makes him responsible for her kids?

Sorry sir, you're wife cheated on you.. you either have to end the relationship and go your separate ways, or you're gonna be paying out the ass in the future.shiatty.
 
2009-01-08 12:04:47 PM
bluehubcap

There is the way it is and the way it should be. Don't sacrifice the way it should be. Unless you are ok with the state being a party to fraud and extortion.
 
2009-01-08 12:05:03 PM
Kelbesque: This case is a man who doesn't want to support his children.

Really? To me it looks like the case of man that doesn't want his ex-wife, who is of questionable character by the sounds of things, determining how his money is spent on his children.

Not wanting to pay child support to his ex-wife is far from saying that he doesn't want to support his children financially. Nothing in the article suggests that the father wouldn't be buying the children clothes, school supplies, etc. if he wasn't required to pay child support to the mother.
 
2009-01-08 12:05:21 PM
bluehubcap:
I said some man, I didn't say what kind of man... Perhaps the distinction was too subtle.

Perhaps.

But I just want to make sure you're not confusing a gentleman for a regular, man. Life isn't the movies.

If I never impregnated a woman, why should I have to care for her children? I should be free to live my life and spend my time and money on my own children.
 
2009-01-08 12:05:30 PM
Damnhippyfreak: thank you. That was my point, exactly.
 
2009-01-08 12:06:00 PM
bluehubcap: All the US backseat lawyers just step back for a moment and assume that Canadian law deals with things differently, kay?

Yeah, but Newfoundland is way bigger than Florida and West Virginia combined...
 
2009-01-08 12:07:02 PM
R.A.Danny: Damnhippyfreak: 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:

Yes, it is a lie. She went all Bambi on us and said fathers in the wild take part in parenting other male's brood. They rarely take care of their own.

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

Yes, and he should be allowed to eat them now.

youdoknowi'mkiddingaboutthatright?


R.A.Danny: Gee, women will even lie in a Fark thread to get their way.


Ahem. Seriously. Take the hate down a notch.
 
2009-01-08 12:07:37 PM
Pxtl: 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.


- It is a formula, based on amount of visitation, salary, and tax status. It goes into a computer and poof! Basically, he does earn decent money, but I earn about 12k a year more, so I that means I am entitiled to support the child entirely on my own for the rest of her life. This is based on him getting visistion 4.5 days a month, and me providing the balance of her support.

The CA law is structured so that if you were a loser, you can continue to be, there is no fairness.

I just get the satisfaction of being able to call him a deadbeat, and having it true. (Not in front of the kid!, just in my mind).
 
2009-01-08 12:08:22 PM
kiam

Nope. Not what I said at all. It all depends on what he knew and when he knew it my mind. If he knew the kids weren't his and accepted the role of father than he is the father. In for a nickel in for a pound.

If he was deceived I would side with him...beyond that he accepted responsibility and has an obligation to live up to it.
 
2009-01-08 12:09:37 PM
NightOwl2255: If the named father is not her husband, he can request a court to order a test. If he is her husband, as it stands now in the US, he is the father no matter want the DNA test shows. And that is an important and over looked point. If a dude knocks up a married chick he has NO legal rights to the child. None. Nada. Zip. No visitation. Nothing.

Interesting, I didn't know that. I can't wait to see how this plays out with the married couple being lesbians, and an affair with a man...
 
2009-01-08 12:09:59 PM
TheSlyOne: Kelbesque: This case is a man who doesn't want to support his children.

Really? To me it looks like the case of man that doesn't want his ex-wife, who is of questionable character by the sounds of things, determining how his money is spent on his children.

Not wanting to pay child support to his ex-wife is far from saying that he doesn't want to support his children financially. Nothing in the article suggests that the father wouldn't be buying the children clothes, school supplies, etc. if he wasn't required to pay child support to the mother.


Actually, there are several outs the father could have taken on this:
a) requested that a portion of the child support go to an RRSP or a trust fund;
b) made a motion to pay certain expenses directly.

Either would have solved the issues of the mom not getting the money, and still be supporting the children.

There are always ways. Family law is not THAT inflexible.
 
2009-01-08 12:09:59 PM
R.A.Danny: geniusiknowit: The state gets a cut of what the man pays in for child support.

Where is this? I give a check directly to my ex every month.


Several states.
I'm in Ohio, and pay child support. Every month, about 10% of what I pay is kept by the state. The mother and I are upset about this, but we were told the payments must go through the state's little office, and the state takes a percentage cut each time. We were told I could not pay her directly, even though we both wanted that. That's a substantial chunk of money that should be spent on the child, not on the salaries of bureaucrats.
 
2009-01-08 12:10:44 PM
No Such Agency: Sometimes I think we should all just go back to the men's longhouse/women's longhouse model that some stone age tribes use.

I've been advocating this for years!
 
2009-01-08 12:11:07 PM
bluehubcap: 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.

What drugs are you on? They seem like they're really good.

He should have worn a condom? Perhaps he wanted children with his wife... and was trying to have them. Unfortunately, someone else should have been wearing the condom [or not up in her snatch in the first place] -- the twins' real, biological father.

He sounds a wee bit vindictive? Let's see... not only did his wife cheat on him, but she led him to believe the two kids were his, and he's paid for them his entire life... only to find out there are, in fact, not his kids... and doesn't wish to pay the woman who has lied to him and her kids for 16 years now more money than was already agreed upon. Who wouldn't be a bit angry or even vindictive, finding out their whole life was a lie? Realizing all the money they spent on children -- as other people have pointed out -- a court would be unlikely to give him legal custody of, due to him NOT being the father.

The court doesn't see him as a father, they see him as a financial resource for this woman, and "the interests of the children."
 
2009-01-08 12:12:15 PM
homosexual man: I've been advocating this for years!

I see what you did there.
 
2009-01-08 12:13:33 PM
Damnhippyfreak: Ahem. Seriously. Take the hate down a notch.

There's no hate, just calling it like I see it.
 
2009-01-08 12:16:12 PM
pendy575: kiam

Nope. Not what I said at all. It all depends on what he knew and when he knew it my mind. If he knew the kids weren't his and accepted the role of father than he is the father. In for a nickel in for a pound.

If he was deceived I would side with him...beyond that he accepted responsibility and has an obligation to live up to it.



So upon learning that the kids weren't his he should have just divorced and walked away, I mean, yea I would have walked the second i found out. But if the guy chooses to stay, he becomes responsible for the kids? So basically his only option is to 1) leave his wife (whether or not we think he should), or 2) gain legal responsibility for kids that aren't his.

right?
 
2009-01-08 12:17:08 PM
R.A.Danny: Oh, and lions eat the offspring of other lions in an attempt to get the females to go into heat sooner.

To be fair, lion cubs *are* delicious.
 
2009-01-08 12:19:01 PM
geniusiknowit

The reason they do that is intimidation. Unfortunately it would be very easy for a certain type of person to intimidate the mother into stating that she had received her money from the father directly. On the other side it also solves the problem of the mother claiming she hadn't been paid. Paying through the state solves the he said she said battler on payment.
 
2009-01-08 12:20:05 PM
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.

Because the money is for your kids, not you, and the judge wanted to establish their legal right to have it. Even if you wanted to make some kind of statement by raising your kids without access to any of his resources. Sometimes, it ain't about you.
 
2009-01-08 12:20:47 PM
Before you "accept making any payments"?
If your name is on the birth certificate, you don't get to make a choice. At least that's the way it is in the US. And they put that name on the birth certificate based on the mother's word alone.


That is not true here in Arkansas. They father must sign an affadavit of paternity in order to be placed on the birth certificate. I am sure there is something similar in most states. The woman can't just give any name she wishes. There must be some form of acknowledgement from the assumed father of said child.
 
2009-01-08 12:21:07 PM
ciocia: Because the money is for your kids, not you, and the judge wanted to establish their legal right to have it. Even if you wanted to make some kind of statement by raising your kids without access to any of his resources. Sometimes, it ain't about you.

It's actually to protect the state from having to pay welfare.
 
2009-01-08 12:21:21 PM
pendy575: Paying through the state solves the he said she said battler on payment.

Still, 10% for handing off a checque and adding a line to a ledger is obscene.
 
2009-01-08 12:22:36 PM
I'm really surprised what she has done isn't considered fraud.
 
2009-01-08 12:23:50 PM
kiam

Yes. He is an adult. If decided to stay and be the father then he has accepted reponsibility to be the father. Kids are not fashion accesories. If he knew they weren't his and he decided to be their father he doesn't get to just walk away later. That is called being a responsible adult. In any case it isn't a one size fits all type of problem. The courts have simply stated that kids are not fashion accessories to be used untill it is inconvenient. If you take them on you are responsible. He did...he is.

I would say that if he can prove he truly didn't know I would be with him all the way. You can't make a decision if you don't know there is a decision to make.
 
2009-01-08 12:25:00 PM
Grackel: I'm really surprised what she has done isn't considered fraud.

I'm actually surprised too. I mean, how many politicians have been divorced many, many times? Where the hell is this "patriarchy" I keep hearing feminists complain about?
 
2009-01-08 12:25:01 PM
bunner: Do

not

get

married.


Your newsletter, I wish to subscribe.

/41, never married and never plan to
//figured this out years ago ...
 
2009-01-08 12:26:07 PM
Pxtl

Wait until they get control of healthcare
 
2009-01-08 12:28:09 PM
Yeah_Right: 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.


Yeah... wouldn't it be in the "best interest of the child" (there's that phrase again) for the parents to know who are and who are not really the parents? We could save the little snowflakes from a lot of grief later. It remove all doubt from both parties and enhance the joyous occasion if true. We could keep marriages from continuing because of lies and deception. OK, at least lies and deception involving the child. Once the parties know the truth, they can continue as they wish.
 
2009-01-08 12:34:26 PM
My ex and I were separated for four years before she finally filed for divorce (it was her idea, so I let her go through the hassle of filing). We weren't together anymore, we had a child together which I was already supporting. The marriage at that point was a mere legal technicality. She filed because she got pregnant by the man she's living with. Because she decided to try to be a biatch about certain things, the divorce ended up taking longer than it should have, costing more than it should have (for me, that is - she had some flat-fee neighborhood lawyer, I hired an expensive attorney to make sure I didn't get screwed too badly), and her runt ended up being born before the divorce was final. The father of the runt couldn't sign the birth certificate because the mother and I were still married. When she applied for welfare (WIC or some shiat), she was told she was not eligible unless I was paying support, or determined by the court to not be the father (of course, if she were unmarried, she could have claimed to not know who the father was, and received benefits without anyone paying support). What my ex told me was that I needed to take a paternity test to prove to the hospital I was not the father so she could get the birth certificate without my signature, or that I needed to be declared not the father as part of the divorce.
Well, I told her I wasn't going to go through the inconvenience of doing a paternity test just because she decided to get pregnant before getting divorced. As the divorce dragged on (because of her), she quickly got impatient, said she was going to tell the state I was the father unless I took the paternity test. I told her if she did that, I'd sue for custody of that child, and raise it however I wanted. I guess she didn't like that idea, because she immediately dropped the issue. Eventually, as part of the divorce, that child was declared "not of issue of this marriage," and I was officially off the hook.

In Ohio (and other states), I would otherwise be presumed the father because I was married to the mother. But it made me wonder... if, while her and I were still married, I knocked-up some other chick, would my wife have been presumed to legally be the mother of that child because we were married? Probably not.
 
2009-01-08 12:39:04 PM
pendy575: Yes. He is an adult. If decided to stay and be the father then he has accepted reponsibility to be the father. Kids are not fashion accesories. If he knew they weren't his and he decided to be their father he doesn't get to just walk away later.

Bullshiat.

If a man moves in with a woman who has children that aren't his, and he supports them and acts like a father for years, but one day decides he's done with it, does he have any responsibility to continue supporting and being a father to those children?

No. This is what boyfriends and stepfathers do all the time, but no one demands that once they start acting like a parent that they must continue to do so.
 
2009-01-08 12:39:47 PM
pendy575: kiam

Yes. He is an adult. If decided to stay and be the father then he has accepted reponsibility to be the father. Kids are not fashion accesories. If he knew they weren't his and he decided to be their father he doesn't get to just walk away later. That is called being a responsible adult. In any case it isn't a one size fits all type of problem. The courts have simply stated that kids are not fashion accessories to be used untill it is inconvenient. If you take them on you are responsible. He did...he is.

I would say that if he can prove he truly didn't know I would be with him all the way. You can't make a decision if you don't know there is a decision to make.


So how is this different than a man that marries a woman that has two kids from a previous marriage or from another guy? If the man doesnt adopt the kids, even tho he lives with them and may provide himself as a father figure, he is not finacially responsible for the kids in the case of a divorce. Unless he adopts them. (I know this can be different if in california)

I remember reading several court case dicisions about this and will research.. i'll try and provide data. But please be aware, i know little to nothing about this so if I am complete wrong, please let me know with references
 
2009-01-08 12:40:11 PM
geniusiknowit: In Ohio (and other states), I would otherwise be presumed the father because I was married to the mother. But it made me wonder... if, while her and I were still married, I knocked-up some other chick, would my wife have been presumed to legally be the mother of that child because we were married? Probably not.

Actually, she would if she coabitated with that child and assumed the role as "mother". If she raised that child as her own, then yes, technically, she'd be on the hook for child support....in a Canadian family law court in Ontario. I wouldn't presume to know what they do in the US....could be different.
 
2009-01-08 12:40:20 PM
If the children's welfare is all that's important, and as long as the kids are getting money it doesn't matter whether it comes from the real father, why not make Bill Gates pay the child support? He can afford it!

/wisdom of Solomon
//Dick Solomon
 
2009-01-08 12:40:30 PM
For those who say, "But if he loves the kids and raised them as a father, paying child support shouldn't bother him." Well, that may be true but there's "paying child support" and "supporting your children". My dad had 2 ex-wives and a kid with each. He never once complained about paying support to my mom because he knew she used the money to buy me clothes, buy food, etc. The money he gave my mom always went to me first. The money that went to his other ex, however, went to buying a sweet little sports car while she lived in a single-wide trailer and my brother wore 3rd-string handmedowns.

A lot of the trouble with child support is a parent who treats it like alimony. I wonder if the guy would have been content to get credit towards child support for paying tuition, receipts for clothing, etc.
 
2009-01-08 12:41:55 PM
DO NOT WANT Poster Girl
Wish it were that easy financially.

In my case, *I* am the major breadwinner by an order of magnitude, and boyfriend lacks health insurance, not his fault (he works hard, but just doesn't have coverage).

Since NJ doesn't have domestic partner laws to cover health insurance, the only option we're looking at (besides having him go on welfare) would be marriage.

In the unlikely case of divorce, *I* would get screwed over, given the vast disparities in our incomes.


Why? Do you have a penis between your legs? You are fooling yourself if you think the courts would side with him in a divorce. It has been show time and time and time again that the courts rule in favour of the woman and never the man. You have nothing to worry about...in marriage what's yours is yours and what's his is yours. Same in divorce.
 
2009-01-08 12:43:42 PM
pendy575: kiam

Nope. Not what I said at all. It all depends on what he knew and when he knew it my mind. If he knew the kids weren't his and accepted the role of father than he is the father. In for a nickel in for a pound.

If he was deceived I would side with him...beyond that he accepted responsibility and has an obligation to live up to it.


He accepted that responsibility under false pretenses.

It's one thing to *KNOW* the child isn't yours biologically, and still accept responsibility. I know, I've done it: My wife and I adopted a foster child. I walked into that courtroom on adoption day with my (happily teary) eyes wide open.

It's quite another to accept responsibility when you are being lied to, or not being told the truth. It is reprehensible, and the fact that he has to continue to pay for kids that he has proved aren't his is completely unacceptable.

There is a way to circumvent the courts and not pay child support for children that aren't yours*, but it requires quite a lifestyle change: Quit your job and become homeless. They can't take what you don't have.


*It would also work with children that are yours, but that would be as unethical as being required to pay for kids that aren't yours, thus I don't recommend it for that purpose.
 
2009-01-08 12:46:18 PM
geniusiknowit: if a guy doesn't want the responsibility of fatherhood, he shouldn't start down that road. There's a difference between a guy who dates mommy for awhile and takes the kids to the ballpark occasionally, and the guy who marries mommy, moves in and starts providing substantial support for the kids. If he doesn't want the responsibility, he should stay away, or at least arrange a pre-nup (I do make the exception for the guy who was deceived into it.)
 
2009-01-08 12:46:42 PM
pendy575: geniusiknowit

The reason they do that is intimidation. Unfortunately it would be very easy for a certain type of person to intimidate the mother into stating that she had received her money from the father directly. On the other side it also solves the problem of the mother claiming she hadn't been paid. Paying through the state solves the he said she said battler on payment.


The state has sole determination of the amount, AND it gets to keep a portion of the payments. Proof of payment could be a check stub, but then the state wouldn't get it's share of the child's money.
 
2009-01-08 12:46:57 PM
DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: bunner: Do

not

get

married.


Wish it were that easy financially.

In my case, *I* am the major breadwinner by an order of magnitude, and boyfriend lacks health insurance, not his fault (he works hard, but just doesn't have coverage).

Since NJ doesn't have domestic partner laws to cover health insurance, the only option we're looking at (besides having him go on welfare) would be marriage.

In the unlikely case of divorce, *I* would get screwed over, given the vast disparities in our incomes.

We're both easy-going commited types, though, so here's hoping.



Force him to sign a prenuptial stating what happens if there is a divorce. It would make the divorce a lot more pleasant.
 
2009-01-08 12:50:40 PM
APPROVES (new window)
 
2009-01-08 12:52:21 PM
PerfectHotSauce: geniusiknowit: if a guy doesn't want the responsibility of fatherhood, he shouldn't start down that road. There's a difference between a guy who dates mommy for awhile and takes the kids to the ballpark occasionally, and the guy who marries mommy, moves in and starts providing substantial support for the kids. If he doesn't want the responsibility, he should stay away, or at least arrange a pre-nup (I do make the exception for the guy who was deceived into it.)

The point is, if a man marries and moves in with woman who has a child from a previous relationship, then acts like a father to and supports that child for many years, that man may then leave the relationship with no legal obligation to the child. Hell, he has no obligation to the child while he is still with the mother.

That is essentially what happened in this case. This man has been a stepfather to these twins, and should have no more legal obligation to them than stepfathers usually have.
 
2009-01-08 12:59:42 PM
mandingueiro: not my kids. thats why we have a social welfare system, an inadequate one at that.

Not his either.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Half of the male problem in all of this is that guys don't take responsibility to cover their butts, and then get screwed over.

Our legal system wasn't designed to work on the premise that if you don't want something bad to happen to you that you have to go through a series of (questionably effective) hurdles otherwise its all your fault.

Not having a prenup should not be considered an invitation to eviscerate a guy in the court.
 
2009-01-08 01:01:50 PM
OniNeko: I thought backwards judicial systems only existed in America. Did Canada model after us, or vice-versa? Who did THEY model?

Was this a joke I didn't get?

Why would Canada model it's laws after the US? It's not like we were ever a colony of the US.

What kind of school did you go to? I guess history is not mandatory...

Canadian law is based on British law...same as the US.
 
2009-01-08 01:03:45 PM
R.A.Danny: ciocia: Because the money is for your kids, not you, and the judge wanted to establish their legal right to have it. Even if you wanted to make some kind of statement by raising your kids without access to any of his resources. Sometimes, it ain't about you.

It's actually to protect the state from having to pay welfare.


If the judge was worried about my kids leagal right to her fathers money, shouldn't it have gone both ways. What is my daughters legal right to my money? I know, and my ex knows that we will take care of her, physically, emotionally and financially. We agreed to what we both thought was fair, but it wasn't enough for the court.

I'll ignore the welfare comment because I don't belive in that system either.
 
2009-01-08 01:04:33 PM
DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: In the unlikely case of divorce, *I* would get screwed over, given the vast disparities in our incomes.

Not as likely. When you do a paired test of similar cases for alimony, or for child support, women pay less and are required to pay less often. So you might have to pay alimony, but you would not have to pay as much were you a man with the same income situation, and you are less likely to be forced to pay anything.
 
Displayed 50 of 489 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report