LOL, no I think it would be the kids choice.
Canadian man forced to support kids that aren't his
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
LOL, no I think it would be the kids choice.
Because, you were trying to hurt him. As evidenced by your claim that he is not the father when he clearly is (as you say). He has the right to the test so you can't legally remove the child from his life just because of your wounded pride or because of your irrational emotion.
I understand that you don't see the logic there. But it's there, trust me.
Trying to hurt him? LOL. The man just accused me of fucking someone else and trying to pass of another man's bastard as his. So in affect he's called me a lying cheating whore.
He either accepts she is his or he doesn't. If doesn't want to claim her, fine. I don't need a test for that.
In which case you'd be wrong, she's not yours, she's a product of you and the father, if that's him then tough shit he has his rights too.
How does he know that? He either trusts what his partner says is true(as in this case), or asks for a test and she walks, regardless of whether or not it's his. At least if it is he has some rights.
Now I don't consider your response to be any different than most women, it's insulting to think your partner doesn't trust you. However here a guy is, trusting someone, and look where it gets him, he was fucked whatever he chose to do. Do you not think there has to be some compromise somewhere?
So we agree at least that it isn't the courts choice then?
With regards to the kids they're considered minors(hence why he's paying for them), given that, he has legal rights to see them as any parent would. As I say he should be able to stop paying and revert to friend of the family, in which case he doesn't have ANY legal rights to see them, it's down to the mother if he gets access. Now given that the kids are probably old enough to go see him if they want then the mother would need a restraining order to prevent THEM going off to see him. Which I believe requires just cause and unless he shows any reason to harm them I doubt she'd get it. If they don't want anything to do with him then all are happy.
Now we're branching into a subconversation as to whether kids should be made to see their seperated parents who have legal rights or go play with their friends which I'm sure they'd much prefer. Hell most would prefer to play with their friends than see the parent they live with.
Last edited:
LOL? Because trying to hurt a man is a laughing matter, right?
No he didn't. He wants to confirm that he is the biological parent. And if the mother has nothing to hide, then she'd be happy to allow for the paternity test (not that her consent is needed). You can cry and whine about trust issues, but at the end of the day you're not the one at risk of having to look after a child which you didn't know wasn't biologically unrelated.
Or, to adopt the retarded argumentation of the anti-abortion crowd: When women can father children which aren't theirs, then they can comment on paternity testing.
Nope, he's simply covering his bases, just like when couples ask for pre-nups. And when men can be forced to pay for children that aren't biologically theirs, I'd argue that such caution is understandable.
And a paternity test may be necessary for some fathers to decide whether they accept the child as theirs or not. With a woman it's a given that the child is biologically related (duh). Not so for the man.
Whether a father wants to claim a baby as theirs may be conditional. And that condition is usually 'biologically related'.
Bottom line is if you raise kids, they are your kids and you can't just drop your kids after 16 years because you don't like mom any more.
Their welfare comes before your other wishes for your money.
Don't like it? Stay away from kids or don't try to pull out before they are of age.
And yes, who sired them is not the deciding test so if it is going to make you cry to know the answer, don't ask the question.
And save your caterwailing about how its so unfair and violates your "rights."
Their welfare comes before your other wishes for your money.
Don't like it? Stay away from kids or don't try to pull out before they are of age.
And yes, who sired them is not the deciding test so if it is going to make you cry to know the answer, don't ask the question.
And save your caterwailing about how its so unfair and violates your "rights."
Nope. If you raise kids under the impression that they are yours, and later find out that they aren't, you shouldn't be obligated by the State to care for them. The mother can go and extract payments from the biological father. Can't find him? Tough shit, she should have thought twice before fucking around.
You forgot to mention the little bit where he discovered that they weren't biologically his. Oh wait, you don't care about such a 'minor' detail.
Their welfare comes before the biological father's wishes for money. Get it straight. Nobody except the biological parents are obligated to care for the children, unless someone else gives their *informed* consent to act as a guardian.
Ergo: Don't trust a woman. Fantastic. And then women like Orleander act outraged at the very thought of men asking for a paternity test.
No, sorry, it is the deciding test. You make a baby, you look after it. Don't shoulder your responsibility onto some poor sap who had no clue his significant other was sleeping around.
Yes, only a woman's rights matter. Her rights to kill her unborn child, her rights to not be hit by a man, her rights to adopt out a child if she 'can't manage' (thus putting her own welfare before that of the child). It's a sad state of affairs when women's rights are taken seriously, whereas any men who ask "What about me?" are belittled.
Last edited:
And what about the children?
Those who would consider their love and affection to be so proprietary as we see in this discussion should probably never reproduce. In such a context—
—it is unsurprising that the children themselves are absent from this formulation.
What is the time limit? When does a child become so accustomed to familial structure that it becomes unfair to dismantle those connections for the sake of pride? A viable question, to be sure, but one which the masculinists in this discussion have thus far omitted entirely. Just because a mother is incompetent/crazy/a bitch (circle one) does not mean children should be denied the familial bonds to which they have become accustomed and on which they depend. Perhaps the most definitive conclusion to be drawn from the willingness of a father to abandon family because of the results of a blood test is that he never was much of a father, and, as any love, affection, and trust shown are merely illusory, there is little of pride to stand on.
If, to the other, sixteen years of family are so easily nullified, we ought then to hold the father duly accountable for his own actions. If these are not his children, than any physical discipline applied ought to be considered assault, and any grounding enforced should be regarded as unlawful imprisonment. Statutes of limitations apply, naturally, but if these aren't his children, he is nothing more than a serial thug.
It is easy to see the misogynistic bitterness with which some go about these considerations:
Such an argument presumes that the biological father is necessarily aware that he has sired children. This presumption cannot be demonstrated.
Were one to charge the mother in this case with fraud, her defense is legally tenable no matter what else we might think of it:
It is possible the mother is lying. It is also possible she was raped. Presuming the former simply because it is convenient for pride is problematic at least, and does at least as much to belittle the advocate of such an argument as it is intended to diminish the mother.
To the other, we might wonder which medication she was taking, and for how long. Considering myself for comparison: My former partner is a chronic liar, and I knew that for years before my daughter was conceived and born. It doesn't change the fact that I stayed in the relationship, and, to repeat what I said earlier, if tomorrow I found out my daughter wasn't my biological offspring, I would not give her up without a fight. And we're only six years—not sixteen—into this.
Parenthood is not about the parents. When you undertake this enterprise, you sacrifice at the altar of love and family a great deal of yourself. This is not a sacrifice to be lamented, begrudged, or celebrated as an expression of personal merit: You, the parent, do not come first in this arrangement.
Overlooking the wellbeing of the children in order to despise the mother simply highlights some people's erroneous thinking.
There is nothing about this outcome that is not tragic, and perhaps with age Mr. Cornelio might come to regret this demonstration of pride. Can he be proud when they graduate from high school? No. He has already rejected them. College? Marriage? Civic achievement? None of this; he has already disqualified himself. It is possible that, in years to come, he will choose to attempt to re-establish familial bonds with his children, but the message he has sent them is clear: his love is proprietary, and they are not entitled to it. Indeed, they are worth less to him than his pride.
Still, though, let us consider poor Mr. Cornelio. Even if one insists on concluding that the mother has willfully defrauded him, it's his own damn fault. People can lie to one another to get into bed, and custom holds that in these despicable cases it is still incumbent upon potential victims to avoid these traps. The same can be said of men who wait sixteen years before demanding a paternity test.
____________________
Notes:
Yutangco, Precious. "Man ordered to pay child support though kids not his". TheSpec.com. January 8, 2009. http://thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/492626
Those who would consider their love and affection to be so proprietary as we see in this discussion should probably never reproduce. In such a context—
Copernicus66 said:
—it is unsurprising that the children themselves are absent from this formulation.
What is the time limit? When does a child become so accustomed to familial structure that it becomes unfair to dismantle those connections for the sake of pride? A viable question, to be sure, but one which the masculinists in this discussion have thus far omitted entirely. Just because a mother is incompetent/crazy/a bitch (circle one) does not mean children should be denied the familial bonds to which they have become accustomed and on which they depend. Perhaps the most definitive conclusion to be drawn from the willingness of a father to abandon family because of the results of a blood test is that he never was much of a father, and, as any love, affection, and trust shown are merely illusory, there is little of pride to stand on.
If, to the other, sixteen years of family are so easily nullified, we ought then to hold the father duly accountable for his own actions. If these are not his children, than any physical discipline applied ought to be considered assault, and any grounding enforced should be regarded as unlawful imprisonment. Statutes of limitations apply, naturally, but if these aren't his children, he is nothing more than a serial thug.
It is easy to see the misogynistic bitterness with which some go about these considerations:
Such an argument presumes that the biological father is necessarily aware that he has sired children. This presumption cannot be demonstrated.
Were one to charge the mother in this case with fraud, her defense is legally tenable no matter what else we might think of it:
"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said. "In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time" ....
.... Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is. The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.
(Yutangco)
.... Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is. The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.
(Yutangco)
It is possible the mother is lying. It is also possible she was raped. Presuming the former simply because it is convenient for pride is problematic at least, and does at least as much to belittle the advocate of such an argument as it is intended to diminish the mother.
To the other, we might wonder which medication she was taking, and for how long. Considering myself for comparison: My former partner is a chronic liar, and I knew that for years before my daughter was conceived and born. It doesn't change the fact that I stayed in the relationship, and, to repeat what I said earlier, if tomorrow I found out my daughter wasn't my biological offspring, I would not give her up without a fight. And we're only six years—not sixteen—into this.
Parenthood is not about the parents. When you undertake this enterprise, you sacrifice at the altar of love and family a great deal of yourself. This is not a sacrifice to be lamented, begrudged, or celebrated as an expression of personal merit: You, the parent, do not come first in this arrangement.
Overlooking the wellbeing of the children in order to despise the mother simply highlights some people's erroneous thinking.
There is nothing about this outcome that is not tragic, and perhaps with age Mr. Cornelio might come to regret this demonstration of pride. Can he be proud when they graduate from high school? No. He has already rejected them. College? Marriage? Civic achievement? None of this; he has already disqualified himself. It is possible that, in years to come, he will choose to attempt to re-establish familial bonds with his children, but the message he has sent them is clear: his love is proprietary, and they are not entitled to it. Indeed, they are worth less to him than his pride.
Still, though, let us consider poor Mr. Cornelio. Even if one insists on concluding that the mother has willfully defrauded him, it's his own damn fault. People can lie to one another to get into bed, and custom holds that in these despicable cases it is still incumbent upon potential victims to avoid these traps. The same can be said of men who wait sixteen years before demanding a paternity test.
____________________
Notes:
Yutangco, Precious. "Man ordered to pay child support though kids not his". TheSpec.com. January 8, 2009. http://thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/492626
The welfare of the child is sometimes placed second to the mother when it is either adopted out (eg. "I'm not ready for a child, hence I'll put it under State care."), and almost always when it is aborted.
There is no time limit. A non-biological father should not be obligated to raise a child without his *informed* consent.
Great. When will both parents be given joint custody? When do we outlaw divorce? Better yet, why not have a government body which only grants divorces when it can be conclusively demonstrated that the divorce will have a net positive effect on the children?
Correct, he never was a father. If one enters a contract without informed consent, then that contract can be contested and declared null and void.
Since he was acting under the false impression that he was the father, misinformation propogated by his ex-wife, then she would be held accountable for his actions.
She doesn't remember? How convenient.
But I am contending that the 'father' is not the parent. He owes no more responsibility to those children than you or I.
Taking someone in good faith does not justify another party defrauding them.
Hahah, yeah, I thought of that episode while reading some of the later posts. It seems everyone must bend over backwards for 'the children', even when they didn't fuck and produce those children.
Maybe women (and gays) are physically incapable of understanding what it would be like to be in this man's shoes?
Realistically the dude should be compensated for any money, and also time, he spent on the children. Then also compensated for the emotional damage of being lead to believe children were yours when they weren't, and believing you had continued your genetic legacy when you in fact hadn't, etc etc. This guy got royally fucked over, and now he has to continue getting fucked over in accordance with a court order? Wow, clock tower time.
Realistically the dude should be compensated for any money, and also time, he spent on the children. Then also compensated for the emotional damage of being lead to believe children were yours when they weren't, and believing you had continued your genetic legacy when you in fact hadn't, etc etc. This guy got royally fucked over, and now he has to continue getting fucked over in accordance with a court order? Wow, clock tower time.
Well, yeah. With a woman, it's almost always a given that the child is biologically their's (unless there was some mix-up at the hospital, but that's very rare).
Perhaps it's time that men adopted the same attitude that many 'pro-choicers' take. "Women can have an opinion on paternity tests when they are at the very real risk of raising a child that biologically is not their's."
i still cant believe a case like this was not laughed out of court. a woman deceives a man for all these years, cheats on him and the man ends up paying for it. when the kids turn 18 they will almost certainly drop him like a bad habit once the money stops coming in. this is too much like the twilight zone.
By the way, why is it misogyny to not hold a man responsible for the children he did not conceive (double negative!)? I'm 100% in favour of the children receiving financial support from the man who brought them into existence.
Notes Around
Indeed. In those cases, respectively, parenthood is deferred to someone who is willing to undertake the role, or avoided entirely.
Look, man, don't have kids, don't attempt to raise anyone else's kids. In fact, stay the hell away from children. The role of parenthood is not about the parents. And if you can't understand that, then avoid anything that looks like, or involves the possibility of, parenthood.
When they're smart enough to not fight over it. My daughter's mother and I have a successful joint custody, and it works because we do everything we can to keep it out of the courts.
Like the other day, she tried to tell me that I had given her explicit permission to spank our daughter. I reminded her that the only thing I could do to stop her was get a lawyer, and I wasn't about to do that. But under no circumstances would I have given her explicit permission. I don't like the fact that she spanks our kid, but I make the point where it matters: to my daughter. And then, only when it comes up. I promised her a long time ago that I wouldn't use violence to compel her behavior, and this is something I believe in.
I have an even better idea: End state recognition of marriage.
You continue to miss the point: He was never a good father.
Parenthood itself is not an explicit contract. Declaring null and void the responsibilities one assumes as a parent requires more than simple appearances. For instance:
You're going to have to present some sort of evidence to support your statement before it has any weight. I understand that the easiest thing to do is presume she willfully defrauded him—after all, she is a woman, and we see what that's worth to you—but it's not so easy a question in terms of the law.
Convenient, indeed, but one of the first lessons we learn as children—at least in American culture—is that life isn't fair.
It is equally possible, at this point, that she was raped.
A story was related to me last year. A guy I know showed me a picture of his adult son, and then an old picture from his Navy years. The kid clearly looked more like the other guy in the picture. So one day, he called his old buddy:
But as far as Joe was concerned, there's no question about who the kid's father is in practice. And that's the thing: Sure, it stung, but those years of fatherhood count to him for much more than his pride. Life goes on.
He acted as father, therefore he is the parent.
Paternity issues have existed for at least as long as men knew how to say, "It isn't my kid." I know a guy—one, mind you—who refuses his kid despite the fact that he's a confirmed father. And it has nothing to do with the mother, at least as far as the expressed reasoning goes. His ambitions for the future seemed to collapse before his eyes when he found out he knocked up his girlfriend. Denial was his response. Having chosen that route, he's stuck to it. Not the best outcome, but in writing the checks and staying away, he's actually doing the better thing for the child he refuses to love.
It's hard to believe, though, that it was only the custody and support request that compelled Mr. Cornelio's demand for a paternity test. I think he suspected long before this, and for whatever reasons, never did anything about it. If so, that's his own fault. Needless to say, he's had sixteen years to demand the test, and only got around to it as a desperate measure in a custody argument. And that is his own damn fault.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to confirm that she willfully defrauded him. Part of the problem of your perspective is that you refuse this point.
It might be a good thing if paternity tests were a routine part of childbearing.
On another note, C66, it would serve your argument well if you remained aware of the relationship between its implications and what is already involved in the discussion. There are a few points in your post at which you made arguments resulting in implications that were addressed by points you addressed later in sequence. Comprehension of the larger argument—or, at least, the appearance of comprehension—would give your outlook greater credibility.
And what of gay men who actually have children of their own in the world?
Well, if he chooses to sue her on those grounds, he'll have to demonstrate the willful fraud. It will be interesting to see if he does, and what evidence he comes up with. And, if the woman was being medicated for a psychiatric issue, well, it will be interesting to see how his argument accounts for that.
Children have greater value than a man's pride.
Children are human beings too, no matter how much you might wish to pretend otherwise. Again, though, it is not surprising that they are absent from your formulation.
Willful fraud, while certainly a likely possibility, is not in evidence. Should I be surprised that those adopting the masculinist argument that makes parenthood about the parents seem to have some problem coping with this point?
Lots of kids stop getting money from their parents at 18, and either drop their parents or don't. However, with his effective demonstration that his love and concern is proprietary, the kids will be better off to drop him now and simply accept the checks.
Don't further diminish nice guys by including this poor sap among their number. If he was genuinely a nice guy, he'd deal with the fact that his bond of parenthood extends beyond proprietary genetic claims. But he won't. Or he can't. Pride, at the very least, is more important to him.
Copernicus66 said:
Indeed. In those cases, respectively, parenthood is deferred to someone who is willing to undertake the role, or avoided entirely.
Look, man, don't have kids, don't attempt to raise anyone else's kids. In fact, stay the hell away from children. The role of parenthood is not about the parents. And if you can't understand that, then avoid anything that looks like, or involves the possibility of, parenthood.
When they're smart enough to not fight over it. My daughter's mother and I have a successful joint custody, and it works because we do everything we can to keep it out of the courts.
Like the other day, she tried to tell me that I had given her explicit permission to spank our daughter. I reminded her that the only thing I could do to stop her was get a lawyer, and I wasn't about to do that. But under no circumstances would I have given her explicit permission. I don't like the fact that she spanks our kid, but I make the point where it matters: to my daughter. And then, only when it comes up. I promised her a long time ago that I wouldn't use violence to compel her behavior, and this is something I believe in.
I have an even better idea: End state recognition of marriage.
You continue to miss the point: He was never a good father.
Parenthood itself is not an explicit contract. Declaring null and void the responsibilities one assumes as a parent requires more than simple appearances. For instance:
You're going to have to present some sort of evidence to support your statement before it has any weight. I understand that the easiest thing to do is presume she willfully defrauded him—after all, she is a woman, and we see what that's worth to you—but it's not so easy a question in terms of the law.
She doesn't remember? How convenient.
Convenient, indeed, but one of the first lessons we learn as children—at least in American culture—is that life isn't fair.
It is equally possible, at this point, that she was raped.
A story was related to me last year. A guy I know showed me a picture of his adult son, and then an old picture from his Navy years. The kid clearly looked more like the other guy in the picture. So one day, he called his old buddy:
Bill: Joe! Good to hear from you, man. How—
Joe: I just need to ask you a question, Bill.
Bill: Oh. Okay, shoot.
Joe: Did you ever sleep with my wife?
Bill: (pauses uncomfortably) Well, you see, it was just—
Joe: Thank you. (hangs up)
Joe: I just need to ask you a question, Bill.
Bill: Oh. Okay, shoot.
Joe: Did you ever sleep with my wife?
Bill: (pauses uncomfortably) Well, you see, it was just—
Joe: Thank you. (hangs up)
But as far as Joe was concerned, there's no question about who the kid's father is in practice. And that's the thing: Sure, it stung, but those years of fatherhood count to him for much more than his pride. Life goes on.
He acted as father, therefore he is the parent.
Paternity issues have existed for at least as long as men knew how to say, "It isn't my kid." I know a guy—one, mind you—who refuses his kid despite the fact that he's a confirmed father. And it has nothing to do with the mother, at least as far as the expressed reasoning goes. His ambitions for the future seemed to collapse before his eyes when he found out he knocked up his girlfriend. Denial was his response. Having chosen that route, he's stuck to it. Not the best outcome, but in writing the checks and staying away, he's actually doing the better thing for the child he refuses to love.
It's hard to believe, though, that it was only the custody and support request that compelled Mr. Cornelio's demand for a paternity test. I think he suspected long before this, and for whatever reasons, never did anything about it. If so, that's his own fault. Needless to say, he's had sixteen years to demand the test, and only got around to it as a desperate measure in a custody argument. And that is his own damn fault.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to confirm that she willfully defrauded him. Part of the problem of your perspective is that you refuse this point.
It might be a good thing if paternity tests were a routine part of childbearing.
On another note, C66, it would serve your argument well if you remained aware of the relationship between its implications and what is already involved in the discussion. There are a few points in your post at which you made arguments resulting in implications that were addressed by points you addressed later in sequence. Comprehension of the larger argument—or, at least, the appearance of comprehension—would give your outlook greater credibility.
• • •
Dr Lou Natic said:
And what of gay men who actually have children of their own in the world?
Well, if he chooses to sue her on those grounds, he'll have to demonstrate the willful fraud. It will be interesting to see if he does, and what evidence he comes up with. And, if the woman was being medicated for a psychiatric issue, well, it will be interesting to see how his argument accounts for that.
Children have greater value than a man's pride.
Children are human beings too, no matter how much you might wish to pretend otherwise. Again, though, it is not surprising that they are absent from your formulation.
• • •
John99 said:
Willful fraud, while certainly a likely possibility, is not in evidence. Should I be surprised that those adopting the masculinist argument that makes parenthood about the parents seem to have some problem coping with this point?
Lots of kids stop getting money from their parents at 18, and either drop their parents or don't. However, with his effective demonstration that his love and concern is proprietary, the kids will be better off to drop him now and simply accept the checks.
Don't further diminish nice guys by including this poor sap among their number. If he was genuinely a nice guy, he'd deal with the fact that his bond of parenthood extends beyond proprietary genetic claims. But he won't. Or he can't. Pride, at the very least, is more important to him.
You seem to have a weird theory that kids are about pride, Tiassa.
Explain to me how any of the following:
# a feeling of self-respect and personal worth
# satisfaction with your (or another's) achievements; "he takes pride in his son's success"
# the trait of being spurred on by a dislike of falling below your standards
# a group of lions
# be proud of; "He prides himself on making it into law school"
# unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem (personified as one of the deadly sins)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
has to do with being responsible for someone else's children?
Explain to me how any of the following:
# a feeling of self-respect and personal worth
# satisfaction with your (or another's) achievements; "he takes pride in his son's success"
# the trait of being spurred on by a dislike of falling below your standards
# a group of lions
# be proud of; "He prides himself on making it into law school"
# unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem (personified as one of the deadly sins)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
has to do with being responsible for someone else's children?