Man who didn't father twins must pay child support - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Cowboy89 · 01-08-2009, 04:46 PM

Another thing to note would be that this only came up when she seeked MORE in terms of monthly payments for the kids. That's a terribly sleazy thing to do when she knew the kids were not his. My opinion of humanity drops every day. What's not mentioned is whether or not this guy has to pay the increase in support.

habernac · 01-08-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

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.

sometimes it's a little more difficult than that. An aquaintance of mine has no idea who his biological father is. His Mom guessed it could have been any one of half a dozen people. Yikes.

GGG · 01-08-2009, 04:47 PM

I wonder what the father's relationship is like with his kids. If he his continuing spend time with his kids after the divorce happened I don't understand why he wouldn't want to continue this relationship even if he found out he wasn't the biological father.

I understand being pissed off at your wife and angry right away but you have cared for the kids for 16 years I would think he would want to continue the relationship with them. If he continues the relationship he should be paying child support. If he ends the relationship with his kids because they aren't biologically his he is real jerk although then he should be able to get his money back.

But on the other hand if he was a dead beat dad who was just paying the bill because he had to and had nothing to do with the kids then I think he would have an arguement to not pay.

burn_this_city · 01-08-2009, 04:47 PM

At 16 is he even legally responsible for them anymore??

Bagor · 01-08-2009, 04:47 PM

How would this affect something like RESPs?

Would he be entitled to withdraw his half (or all) of that?

CaptainCrunch · 01-08-2009, 04:49 PM

She tried to limit access, and she tried to increase payments. This guy had paid for these kids for long enough. He did his bit for the children.

The court should bring this wench in and interrogate her find out who the real dad is and make him not only support the kids but pay back the original dad with interest.

This to me sets a dangerous precident in the law where your suddenly responsible for actions that aren't your own.

Yes we have to worry about the kids, but your penalizing an innocent person and thats not what the law is suppossed to be about.

troutman · 01-08-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

At 16 is he even legally responsible for them anymore??

Child support continues to age of majority (18 in Alberta) and can continue if the child is attending university and still dependent.

Cowboy89 · 01-08-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

At 16 is he even legally responsible for them anymore??

I think he's respionsible for them as long as they attend post-secondary education as well if I recall from some of my planning courses. Trout would know for certain as he's most likely one of very few people reading this thread who have experience with this type of law.

EDIT: Trout beat me too it!

burn_this_city · 01-08-2009, 04:51 PM

Rediculous.. I think it reaks of female favoritism veiled as "think about the children". We should take back their right to vote, if women don't want to be held responsible for their actions..

Resolute 14 · 01-08-2009, 04:51 PM

Pay for two more years, then sue the bitch into bankruptcy.

The first part of the ruling where he isn't entitled to go after the scamming woman who led him to believe the kids were his is the ridiculous part of this decision.

And, with due respect to Troutman, it is no secret that female judges virtually always side with the woman in these cases.

troutman · 01-08-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yes we have to worry about the kids, but your penalizing an innocent person and thats not what the law is suppossed to be about.

Why penalize two innocent people instead?

troutman · 01-08-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And, with due respect to Troutman, it is no secret that female judges virtually always side with the woman in these cases.

Prove it. I don't buy that at all.

You might find some evidence that male and female judges side with women litigants.

Cowboy89 · 01-08-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Why penalize two innocent people instead?

What if they weren't twins, and only just one child?

troutman · 01-08-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What if they weren't twins, and only just one child?

Interests of the child trumps everything.

CaptainCrunch · 01-08-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Why penalize two innocent people instead?

I know that I'm not going to win this argument with you my friend. However they were created by the actions of the mother, she's responsible for them.

The ex is not.

stang · 01-08-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I would LOVE to see him charge her with fraud

Quote:

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

He was their father for 16 years?

DNA is irrelevant IMO.

Would he have stayed for 16 years if he would have known from the begining that she was a filthy cheating dirty whore?

troutman · 01-08-2009, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I know that I'm not going to win this argument with you my friend. However they were created by the actions of the mother, she's responsible for them.

The ex is not.

This is a difficult case and an interesting debate. I understand the outrage.

Cowboy89 · 01-08-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Interests of the child trumps everything.

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?

I'm sure I know where you'll justify that arguement on moral grounds. . . but I'd like to hear it anyway.

Superflyer · 01-08-2009, 05:02 PM

I think that if he knew she was unfaithful and still raised the kids as his then he is responsible, but if he had no idea and raised them as his own then he should be free to go. I know that this may harm the kids more but he is not at fault here, he was tricked into raising kids that were not his and she led him along taking money from him the whole time.

Also how much you wanna bet as soon as the kids hit 18 she will magically remember who the really daddy is?

stang · 01-08-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

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 rights should another 'innocent' party?

I'm sure I know where you'll justify that arguement on moral grounds. . . but I'd like to hear it anyway.

What about a woman with kids whose husband dies? Can the courts make a stranger pay some expenses? That would be in the best intrests of the kids?

Ok that may be a little extreme, but how about saddling a close family friend with child support? What if he is really close to the kids? You hear people saying all the time..." Mr. Johnson was like a father to me when I was growing up" Legally it seems if its in the best interest of the kids, he could be paying child support?

Bullspit