Man who didn't father twins must pay child support

[Cowboy89]

I seem to recall a lot of previous threads dealing with issues such as these. Interesting decision made by the judge:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

A Toronto man is on the hook to pay child support, notwithstanding a DNA test that proved he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.
Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg ordered Pasqualino Cornelio to continue paying child support to the 16-year-old twins – regardless of whether he was bamboozled by a philandering wife.
“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 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,” Judge van Rensburg said.

Seems to me that the gender of the judge might have something to do with the decision on something that seems grossly unfair.

New definition of father in the eyes of the courts:

She pointed to an expansive definition of “parent” under the Family Law Act under which Mr. Cornelio can be seen as “a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family.”

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess from now on whenever a couple has a baby they should do paternity tests on the spot, and the husband should have to sign off on whether they're his kids or not.

Somewhat like a UPS delivery, "Yup those are my packages, now I'll pay for the delivery"

Terrible judgement.

[troutman]

If this man acted as father to these children for 16 years, I see nothing unusual about this decision. The children must consider him "father". Gender of the judge has nothing to do with this.

in loco parentis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

This doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent

This man would have a right to bring in the natural father (if he can be found) to off-set what he is paying.

[rubecube]

Dads getting screwed in divorce proceedings? Say it ain't so!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

If this man acted as father to these children for 16 years, I see nothing unusual about this decision. The children must consider him "father". Gender of the judge has nothing to do with this.

in loco parentis

I think the law is wrong in this case. He didn't suspect his wife was a dirty ho, and had no reason to question their paternity.

Why should he be responsible for 16 years of child care even if he raised kids and paid for kids that weren't his.

In a logical world, she'd have to pay him back for supporting kids that she lied about.

I could see validity if he knew the kids weren't his and he accepted responsibility anyways.

[DFO]

Isn't this fraud plain and simple? The dude likely would have walked away right at the start if he had known. I'd be interested how this would have played out in the US as opposed to our kangaroo courts.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I could see validity if he knew the kids weren't his and he accepted responsibility anyways.

Same. The ruling IMO basically suports dishonest behaviour.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think the law is wrong in this case. He didn't suspect his wife was a dirty ho, and had no reason to question their paternity.

Why should he be responsible for 16 years of child care even if he raised kids and paid for kids that weren't his.

In a logical world, she'd have to pay him back for supporting kids that she lied about.

I could see validity if he knew the kids weren't his and he accepted responsibility anyways.

Why penalize the children? Sucks for the "dad", but the rights of the children are more important. Two wrongs don't make a right. The support is for the children - not the ex.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Dads getting screwed in divorce proceedings? Say it ain't so!

While the wife got her screwing before.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why penalize the children? Sucks for the "dad", but the rights of the children are more important.

I don't know about that. I'm sure the mom at least has a foggy idea who the biological father is. It should be her responsibility to track him down and make him pay.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by troutman

If this man acted as father to these children for 16 years, I see nothing unusual about this decision. The children must consider him "father". Gender of the judge has nothing to do with this.

in loco parentis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

Thanks for reminding me of this. I'm starting to recall the Family Law sections of a couple personal Financial Planning courses I took back in Uni that mentioned this. If I recall it was right then and there that my opinion of love, marriage, and common law took a significant nosedive.

[Displaced Flames fan]

He was their father for 16 years?

DNA is irrelevant IMO.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't know about that. I'm sure the mom at least has a foggy idea who the biological father is. It should be her responsibility to track him down and make him pay.

The man in this case has a right to bring in the natural dad, and can examine his wife for information about his identity. If he can be found, and has an income, there would be an off-set.

[flylock shox]

Interesting decision - probably good appeal fodder. There's a basis for the judge's decision in law in the sense that the man acted as the twins' father for years and was, in all senses other than biology, their father. But it seems another civil law principle should be relevant too: that a person cannot be accountable for a failure to enforce their rights unless they could have known their rights were infringed, or that they suffered damaged. Unless a reasonable man would have had a paternity test done earlier, it doesn't seem fair that he should be held responsible for caring for children he has now discovered aren't his.

[burn_this_city]

What a joke.. Naturally the female judge assumes the guy woulda stuck around and played the sucker..

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think the law is wrong in this case. He didn't suspect his wife was a dirty ho, and had no reason to question their paternity.

In the judgment it said that the "dad" had in fact suspected his wife of infidelity. He didn't make an issue of support payments and the paternity of the twins until there was an application to restrict his access to them.

Other than the facts (which aren't that shocking or outrageous as far as Family Law goes), there isn't a lot to set this apart from other decisions. Best interests of the child FTW.

Full decision here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...nlii68884.html

[troutman]

IIRC, some estimates have it that 10% of fathers are unknowingly not the biological father.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...logical+father

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ight=paternity


http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/c...1239571&ss=exc

Female infidelity is common in the animal kingdom as well as among humans. According to an analysis of 280 000 paternity tests conducted in 1999 by the American Association of Blood Banks, approximately 30% of children are fathered by extra-pair copulations; that is, 30% of children in this sample were fathered by someone other than the woman’s long-term romantic partner.

Because of concealed ovulation, internal fertilization, and female infidelity, human parental certainty is asymmetrical: unlike females, who are always 100% certain of maternity, males can never be certain of paternity. Current estimates of extra-pair paternity (paternity by someone other than the putative and domestic father, or ####oldry) are between 1 and 30%, with the best estimate at about 10%

[blankall]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

What a joke.. Naturally the female judge assumes the guy woulda stuck around and played the sucker..

Honestly, the gender of the judge has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is well settled law that when you stand in the place of a parent you become financially responsble for the children.

The child's interests always come first.

Now if the dad has a seperate cause of action against either the paternal father or the mother that is a different issue entirely. It, however, has little effect on his duties to his children.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

IIRC, some estimates have it that 10% of fathers are unknowingly not the biological father.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...logical+father

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ight=paternity


http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/c...1239571&ss=exc

Female infidelity is common in the animal kingdom as well as among humans. According to an analysis of 280 000 paternity tests conducted in 1999 by the American Association of Blood Banks, approximately 30% of children are fathered by extra-pair copulations; that is, 30% of children in this sample were fathered by someone other than the woman’s long-term romantic partner.

Because of concealed ovulation, internal fertilization, and female infidelity, human parental certainty is asymmetrical: unlike females, who are always 100% certain of maternity, males can never be certain of paternity. Current estimates of extra-pair paternity (paternity by someone other than the putative and domestic father, or ####oldry) are between 1 and 30%, with the best estimate at about 10%

What she tripped and fell in a vat of seman?

[rubecube]

^^Christ! I'm getting a vasectomy.