Father:
1. A male person whose sperm unites with an egg, resulting in the conception of a child.
2. A man who adopts a child.
3. A man who raises a child.
Note that regardless of whether an individuals penis was involved the act of raising a child and acting in a “parental” capacity bestows fatherhood. Within a marriage any offspring is automatically considered to be the child of the husband regardless of actual paternity.
My mother told me the story of a woman in their town who had an affair while her husband was off in the war. She became pregnant as a result. When he returned there was no drama and he loved and raised the child as his own. His explanation was that everyone was in crisis and if his wife needed comfort she had a right to it. And because this child issued from the woman he loved it was every bit as much his child. If only such a sensible man could be cloned.
Turning from that to the exact opposite. A post at thescottross wherein he bemoans a man having to continue to make child support payments for what as it turns out are not his biological children. He titles the post this way;
Man Has To Pay Child Support For Someone Else’s Kids
the Globe & Mail leads with
Man who didn’t father twins must pay child support
both are incorrect.
They are not someone else’s kids. He parented them and had a relationship with them he was the only father the now teens have ever known. They are in fact, in deed, and in law his children.
The G&M is also wrong. He did father the children. The only thing he didn’t do is donate the sperm.
Certainly marital infidelity (something far more men engage in) is a serious blow to a relationship, however for this man to turn his back on these girls who did nothing to him is beyond shameful. For others to back him in his abuse of these children is contemptible.
and this bit of drivel is beyond the pale, one only hopes the young women in question do not ever see such putrid scrawlings;
The Grumpy Voter said…
This is just one more in a string of rulings over the past ten years that ensure children receive child support, regardless of the circumstances. While I disagree with the ruling, it’s important to remember the courts look at these issues with priority on “the best interests of the child” as well as the status quo: in short, while what mom did was probably despicable, the status quo is that this man has been paying support for a number of years so to have him suddenly stop paying support would upset the status quo thereby having a negative impact on the best interests of the children. Very simply: courts in Canada RARELY upset the status quo regardless of whether it is child support or custody and access… the status-quo is presumed to be in the best interest of the children and that’s that.
My advice to young men: wrap it up. Wrap it up twice. Don’t shack up with a woman who has kids from a previous relationship because if you act in the place of a parent, you’re liable for child support. Don’t enter into a commonlaw relationship and have kids… ever. You will have no rights as a father. Finally, if you want to get married, do not marry her if she refuses to sign a prenuptial agreement… it’s just not worth the risk.
the Judge’s words
The judge noted that Mr. Cornelio wondered at the time of his separation whether a man named Tony with whom his wife had had an affair might be the father of the children.
“It was not until access was interrupted and Ms. Cornelio commenced proceedings seeking increased child support that the respondent began pursuing this issue,” the judge remarked.
In any event, she said that it would be wrong for the children to suffer for events over which they had no control.
“Mr. Cornelio was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage,” Judge van Rensburg said. “The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children.
“The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children’s material needs.”
Child support, Judge van Rensburg said, is the right of a child even if a parent behaves poorly, “whether it be delay in pursuing support, an attempt to contract out of support, or the failure to disclose an extramarital affair that may have led to the conception of the child.”
The Grumpy Voter says
>>Note that regardless of whether an individuals penis was involved the act of raising a child and acting in a “parental” capacity bestows fatherhood. Within a marriage any offspring is automatically considered to be the child of the husband regardless of actual paternity.<<
Which surely explains the many women in Canada receiving support from a bio-dad and a man who acted in the place of a parent for the same child.
The mind truly does boggle at your lack of knowledge about the family law system.
April Reign says
Judging from what you wrote–quoted in the post–your mind was boggled long ago.
Mark Francis says
Well, the ruling is correct in that it places the children first, but will someone at least acknowledge that the biological father owes something anyway? Will someone at least recognize that the lesson here for others in this position is that showing compasion has a permanent cost? This looks like a possible disencentive to accepting another’s child.
Does this mean that a biological parent can shirk their responsbilities when there’s evidence another has taken up the responsibility alongside the former spouse? The courts haven’t seen it that way.
If he didn’t, perhaps the man in this case should have torted the biological father — though a limitations statute may have prevented that.
This rulling does, though, follow standard reasoning used in torts: that the proven ‘victims’ should be the primary recipients of justice, not the defendants.
April Reign says
Will someone at least recognize that the lesson here for others in this position is that showing compasion has a permanent cost? This looks like a possible disencentive to accepting another’s child.
More to the point will someone please recognize that we are talking about two human beings? Not some piece of furniture that turned out to be used. Does a man’s love extend only to that which has his sperm print tattooed permanently to their forehead?
Fortunately I know this not to be true for many men, sadly it seems for others children are a mere financial asset or deficit.
scott ross says
“They are not someone else’s kids. He parented them and had a relationship with them he was the only father the now teens have ever known. They are in fact, in deed, and in law his children.”
No in fact Canadian law differentiates different types of children. The judge in her very ruling cites the children are not his biological children, therefore that is at odds with your very statement that they are “in law his children.” The law does recognize he has a social relationship with the twins and in that role he is a father, but only socially so and not biologically. I find your presumption that only one type
of child exists (social) to be contrary to the judges very own ruling and contrary to Canadian law which acknowledges different child/parent relationships be they based on biological, social, or surrogate.
I also find it perplexing your complete disregard for the woman’s responsibility in the matter. Does she not have a responsibility for creating this very situation?
You give some analogy that offers no argumentative authority and is literally baseless. Anyone can make up stories, that doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
Paul Clements says
If the biological input of the father doesn’t matter in determining parentage, then neither should the mothers’. Therefore, a hospital should match babies with mothers randomly, perhaps sending the child of poor parents home with the wealthier mothers, to give them a better chance at the good life.
Let’s support the feminist ideal of “diversity”, and send black children home with white parents, white children with black, jewish children to christian families, christian kids to Jewish parents. After all, biology doesn’t make the father. Why should it matter in race or religion?
Better yet, the federal gov’t. should stop paying judges for separating fathers from their children in order to separate them from their money. A father risks jail for not paying support, why not force the mothers to work so as to insure that THEY are paying an equal amount. Instead of basing support on the fathers’ income, base it on actual COSTS of raising a child. The father pays half, the mother pays half. If she cannot, take the money from the court budget. They caused the problem in the first place.
The Grumpy Voter says
>>More to the point will someone please recognize that we are talking about two human beings? Not some piece of furniture that turned out to be used. Does a man’s love extend only to that which has his sperm print tattooed permanently to their forehead?
Fortunately I know this not to be true for many men, sadly it seems for others children are a mere financial asset or deficit.<<
What about bio-dad? Where does he fall into this? Why isn’t he paying? Why can’t the courts offer the best of both worlds and force the financial commitment onto the guy whose sperm doesn’t belong to the guy who is paying? Why should he get off with no penalty? What about the mom? Your laborious agendized bafflegab makes no mention of her role in all of this… oh, don’t tell me, she’s a *victim* right? (That’s the word your agendized kind have claimed for their own.)
As always with feminist reasoning, it’s “man bad-woman good”. Thankfully your movement jumped the shark about ten years ago and most Canadian women have sense enough to subscribe to a realistic view of the world.
Which oppression category should these children fall under, incidentally?
Mark Francis says
I agree with the decision… barely. The judge seems to have come up with the best fit solution which sees to the welfare of the children, which is the primary issue. It is not unusual in tort law in Canada (and elsewhere), for those of lesser responsibility (sometimes quite remote) to foot the bill. The principle in use here is that the plaintiff rights are often primary when a ruling favours them.
Understand the implications though: Any person taking in another’s children is now taking upon themselves the risk — yes, risk — that they could be found at some time responsible for the welfare of those children through financial support even after the new relationship is over and the children gone.
This is also a penalty applied against compassion. A man in the position of living with a wife who has children he did not father now must additionally weigh the legal reality that he will be _legally_ responsible for the welfare of those children even if the relationship ends. This creates an impetus against exercising compassion. I think that a man exercising such compassion is using some of that ‘good Samaritan’ thinking we like to see in our society, and we should be hesitant to penalize him for it.
It has been the accepted law that a non-biological parent who has not specifically accepted responsibility for a child in a relationship is not legally responsible for support when that relationship ends. This has now gotten fuzzy. Many fathers have objected without legal success to providing support for children when their ex-wife has moved in with another man. Specific situations will very much affect what I have to say here, but, in general, can the argument not be at times made that at some point the biological father should pay less support (if any) because of the new relationship? If the biological father has little to no contact with the children, and if the children are provided a comparable standard of living regardless of the level of support paid (the new man provides food, housing and clothing, say), then isn’t the biological husband able to now argue that he’s off the hook in part or in full?
Is this not, then, also an impetus against a relationship forming when at least one of the adults has children?
This all, of course, applies regardless of sex.
Law often cuts more than one way. Be careful out there.
Jack Miller says
I agree with the decision. The ruling recognizes what is right for the children, which is the right thing and what this should be about. He is the only father these children have ever known. What kind of relationship does he have with the twins if he is willing to abandon them after sixteen years. I married a woman with young children more than twenty years ago, The biological father was not around and did not pay child support support. When we had children of our own, I never treated the children differently. They were all our children whether I was the biological father or not. When I entered into this relationship and accepted the responsibility of raising my wife’s children I also accepted that I would be responsible whether the marriage continued or not. If after sixteen years I found out my biological children were not my biological children I would be upset but it would not change my relationship with them or my responsibility to them. Morally, ethically, and legally it is the right thing to do. I also cannot imagine denying my relationship as the father of the children whether i am their biological father or not. I believe that whatever issue or dispute a man has with a woman the children should not be punished for it and we should be mature enough to separate these relationships.
Lilian Nattel says
Well the upside to this story is that if the man wants to abandon the kids because they aren’t genetically is, then at least they have the comfort of not sharing his genes. As far as the bio-dad’s responsibility, that was not a part of the case as far as I know. Perhaps he should contribute to the children’s welfare. But that doesn’t eliminate the fact that their father for 16 years is their father. Far too much emphasis is placed on sperm & egg in our society. I don’t know if that’s because we can test dna or because of talk shows based on testing (via dna) to determine the “real” father in all kinds of sordid situations. But parenthood is a lot more than sperm and egg. And I personally wouldn’t figure that for even the most important thing, not by a long shot. As for the advice to guys to wrap it twice–that’s good advice. Then there will be fewer unwanted offspring.
Brad Charlton says
The judge stated:
“In any event, she said that it would be wrong for the children to suffer for events over which they had no control.”
Oh the irony…
Yet, a father has no right whatsoever to convince a court that his as-of-yet unborn child be brought into the world, even if he is willing to parent the child on his own. A child should not be deprived support, however, taking that child’s life is appropriate.
DTK Greg says
I can see your point about the guy taking on the responsibilities of the father is therefore bound to continue taking on those responsibilities.
But there’s this bit from the “Family Law” that the judge quotes: “a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family.” This is a sort of agreement by “consent”. In this case, somewhat uninformed consent, so I can see the guy’s point too.
If we accept his claim of having been duped and consequently cancel the child care payments, it is the children (and further along the line, indirectly, the taxpayers) who will suffer.
The sad bit, to me, is that there will really be no punishment for the adultery of which his wife claims to have no memory (we would not accept this claim from a man, so I see no reason to accept it from a woman) but of which she is clearly guilty. Unless … um … have we done a test on *her* to make sure this isn’t a hospital mix-up? Someone should look in to that.
But that would just illustrate the point. If we found that the hospital had given her the wrong twins, would we tolerate her dumping her teenage children off at the curb? Of course not. Had such a thing been discovered very early on, we could go back to hospital and straighten it out. But at this late date, guess what, you’re the mom even if you were lied to.
So we don’t tolerate it from the de facto father either, no matter what sort of horrid, unfaithful woman his wife might have been.
Paul Clements says
Imagine the consternation if a single, custodial father sued a woman who was not the mother for child support. If biology does not determing fatherhood, then neither does it determine motherhood.
(ANOTHER MIRACULOUS, VIRGIN BIRTH!) Using the judges logic, anyone who stands in for the parent can be sued for child support. So, Dads girlfriend, who baby sat the kids while Dad went to get the car fixed, is therefore liable for child support. Did girlfriend cook a meal for the kids? Then she’s liable for child support. Did she tuck them into bed one night? Then she’s liable for child support. Was she a “live-in” for several months? Then she’s liable for child support.
You see how ridiculous this judge and the feminazi agency worker are now? Reverse the genders, and listen to the outcry. Let one father seek child support from an unrelated woman, and the feminazis will quickly adopt the father”s position. Child support is an entitlement for the women. It’s a Communistic “TRANSFER OF WEALTH” scheme, intended to enrich the woman at the man’s expense. It also make a ton of money for the province/state and it’s courts, in the form of federal incentive payments. Take the profits out of this equation, and see if the decision might change.
Charles the anti-feminazi says
Feminists love to ruin men’s lives for the so-called ” oppresion of women’s past”
You see feminists are cowards and love to make the good men of the world pay for all the thugs, druggies, and bad boys they praised and opened there legs for. Instead of being held accountable by society they punish a man who is NOT BIOLOGY there father
Feminists want no equality and rather have men suffer because they CHOOSE to fuck low life pieces of filth
DTK Greg says
Argument from ALL-CAPS, bad grammar and insults (especially “feminazi”) are not going to help any argument you’re trying to make. I would almost accuse you two of being fake but I know better.
You probably really believe that women have taken over the world, they all hate men and that they’re all out to get you. If you took an honest look at the world, you’d realize how ridiculous this is.
Yes, it is unfair to have a man take care of children that are the result of his wife’s infidelity. But it would be much more unfair to leave those two children without any financial support at all. He has served as their father for a long time and he will have to continue serving in that capacity until they are adults.
Holly Stick says
So the guy loves those children as his own for 16 years. Then as soon as he learns they don’t carry his DNA he stops loving them or even caring about them as human beings. Not much love there to begin with, I’d say.