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.
I think it would have played out something like this:
The Following User Says Thank You to Sidney Crosby's Hat For This Useful Post:
I think its more of being around when the "slut ring circus" comes to your town rather than hunting for the "slut farm."
There was a neat study I saw. An average looking guy and an average looking girl went around asking random people to have sex with them.
Not one girl said yes to the guy.
Maybe a couple guys said no to the girl because they were dating and hence, already getting some.
Point is, if a girl wants to get laid every night and doesn't really care about quality, they probably could. Thats why having 6 or more potential fathers within a month range of likely conception is not tough. Just cycle through them Maury "Not The Father" Videos.
Last edited by Thunderball; 01-08-2009 at 06:51 PM.
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but...
Quote:
Mr. Cornelio began making support payments soon after he separated from his wife in 1998. He had the DNA test after his former spouse recently sought an increase in the payments and a reduction in his time with the twins. Upon learning that he was not the biological father, Mr. Cornelio claimed to be a victim of misrepresentation or fraud.
They separated in 1998. That's 10 years ago, when the kids were 6 years old. It's not like he's been raising these kids in a big happy family all this time. She had the twins, they got divorced 6 years later, she put him on the hook for palimony and he's been paying it ever since. While she had full custody and all he had was visitation rights.
Now, all of a sudden, she wants to cut his visitation rights and increase the amount of money he's paying... so he got a DNA test to confirm the kids were his. They're not his kids, and they never were his kids. Since they were divorced 10 years ago, and now have evidence that they were never his kids to begin with... he should not be responsible for the payments.
What the court should do is order a search for the biological father and then order him to make the payments.
Not to mention, these kids are 16 years old. They can't get a job after school and help their single mother (who probably isn't even single - just "legally single") with the rent?
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but...
They separated in 1998. That's 10 years ago, when the kids were 6 years old. It's not like he's been raising these kids in a big happy family all this time. She had the twins, they got divorced 6 years later, she put him on the hook for palimony and he's been paying it ever since. While she had full custody and all he had was visitation rights.
Now, all of a sudden, she wants to cut his visitation rights and increase the amount of money he's paying... so he got a DNA test to confirm the kids were his. They're not his kids, and they never were his kids. Since they were divorced 10 years ago, and now have evidence that they were never his kids to begin with... he should not be responsible for the payments.
What the court should do is order a search for the biological father and then order him to make the payments.
Not to mention, these kids are 16 years old. They can't get a job after school and help their single mother (who probably isn't even single - just "legally single") with the rent?
Well, her actions are deplorable to be sure.
Still, he was their father in the house for 6 years. If they divorced and said F it, he isn't any better.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Still, he was their father in the house for 6 years. If they divorced and said F it, he isn't any better.
I'm certainly more sympathetic to the male in this case. He wasn't their father, he was more of an ATM for the mother.
He paid in good faith it sounds like, she tried to take advantage of the situation. As soon as the lack of paternity was establish especially after 10 years of divorce, his obligation should be over.
I agree that the courts should have the ability to impose penalties and restitution on the woman and the real father who should have been paying the whole time.
Sure its right for the children, but the situation is certainly not right for the victim.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but...
They separated in 1998. That's 10 years ago, when the kids were 6 years old. It's not like he's been raising these kids in a big happy family all this time. She had the twins, they got divorced 6 years later, she put him on the hook for palimony and he's been paying it ever since. While she had full custody and all he had was visitation rights.
Now, all of a sudden, she wants to cut his visitation rights and increase the amount of money he's paying... so he got a DNA test to confirm the kids were his. They're not his kids, and they never were his kids. Since they were divorced 10 years ago, and now have evidence that they were never his kids to begin with... he should not be responsible for the payments.
Exactly, she wants to cut him out of their life and get more money from him, but when he says you want me out of your life then fine I want completely out, the courts say no.
So it is OK for the mother to cut the father out but not OK for the father to leave? WTF?
In Alberta I think that you do sign something at the hospital to register the childs name at the hospital? I can't remember the details but it was something about signing as the father of the child? (Maybe someone can refresh my memory on that).
Anyway, in the unlikely event that my kids aren't mine (both spitting images of me, sucks for my daughter!), I would still look out for what is best for them. I'm pretty sure I would develop an immediate hatred for my wife in that case, but I would still love the kids unconditionally. How could you not?
In Alberta I think that you do sign something at the hospital to register the childs name at the hospital? I can't remember the details but it was something about signing as the father of the child? (Maybe someone can refresh my memory on that).
Yes, a registration of birth form.
It also says at the top.
"When registering a birth, any person who knowingly gives false information may be guilty of an offence and subject to a fine"
Good luck trying to prove the "knowingly" part though not to mention that the father signs the section acknowledging he is the natural father of the child.
Sounds like "dad" had his doubts about paternity from day one, but did not raise it for 16 years. I have to assume he loves these children, and they love him.
Mom alleges she can't remember another lover because she was "on medication" at the time (yeah right). She can't suspend his access because he is not paying support. It is the child's right to enjoy access.
In these situations, the man always seems to be guilty until proven innocent. And it seems the most atrocious decisions are made by female judges. I suppose perception becomes reality in the case of my argument.
I used to be in Family Chambers a few days every week. I never saw more bias from female judges compared to male judges. If anything, female judges were more skeptical of the claims made by women.
This case has nothing to do with the gender of the judge. The law is quite clear in this area, and this man's lawyer gave him bad advice if they thought they could win this argument.
Then mention that as why and not the fact that there was two victims. I understand the spirit of the judgement, but Captain's issue was going after the underlying moral question legal or not of whether the child's interests should trump another 'innocent' party?
No question IMO.
No doubt this man had to make many sacrifices - perhaps he has been unable to enjoy any luxuries or save for his retirement.
The cost to society on the other side of the coin is much worse - this family could have ended up on welfare without his support. The children could go without adequate health, medical and nutrition. The children would be far more likely to drop out of school, abuse substances, commit crimes, have illegitimate children of their own, etc.
Wow, what complete BS our legal system is. Couldnt they just go after the biological father, or was the woman such a whore she doesnt know for sure who fathered the children.
Just because we were born with the seed, and not the ground we continue to get screwed, thanks big guy.
EDIT - Medication, hahaha. I do admin having the "seed" is alot more fun.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Last edited by mykalberta; 01-09-2009 at 08:11 AM.
