A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 14th 07, 05:13 AM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal

If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!


"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-
custodial parent. ...."

http://www.thestar.com/article/235381

  #2  
Old July 14th 07, 04:00 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
Hyerdahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal

On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:

If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!

"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things, even when they are social contracts that are
unwritten. When two people agree to share their lives, and children
are third parties to their choices, those children can be effected by
those choices. IOW, if a person marries a parent with children, bonds
are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.





http://www.thestar.com/article/235381



  #3  
Old July 14th 07, 06:13 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 712
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal


"Hyerdahl" wrote in

are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.



I agree, don't ever marry a woman with children!


  #4  
Old July 14th 07, 07:16 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal


"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:

If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!

"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things, even when they are social contracts that are
unwritten. When two people agree to share their lives, and children
are third parties to their choices, those children can be effected by
those choices. IOW, if a person marries a parent with children, bonds
are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.


Would you argue just as vehemently that the non-bio father should have a
contractual right to custody of the non-bio child? Why would a non-bio
father's rights supersede the parental rights of a bio-father?

Oh, I forgot. It's only about getting some guy, any guy, to pay CS whether
the kid is his or not.

  #5  
Old July 14th 07, 07:24 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
Avenger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal


"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:

If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!

"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things,


The only contract a female has to understand is the one about love, honour
and OBEY


  #6  
Old July 15th 07, 02:19 AM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal


"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:

If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!

"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things, even when they are social contracts that are
unwritten. When two people agree to share their lives, and children
are third parties to their choices, those children can be effected by
those choices. IOW, if a person marries a parent with children, bonds
are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.


And if mom should leave non-bio dad and marry bio dad, should non-bio dad
continue to pay child support?


  #7  
Old July 18th 07, 03:15 AM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
Andre Lieven[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal

On Jul 14, 9:19 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:


If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!


"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things, even when they are social contracts that are
unwritten. When two people agree to share their lives, and children
are third parties to their choices, those children can be effected by
those choices. IOW, if a person marries a parent with children, bonds
are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.


And if mom should leave non-bio dad and marry bio dad, should non-bio dad
continue to pay child support?


With a female chief "justice", to ask that question is to answer it.

The r4eal point is to Hell with the law and any precedents, its all
about giving women, only, the legal "right" to Free Money under any
circumstances.

No women a fifth of men have already decided that they have AbZero
desire to ever marry.

Andre

  #8  
Old July 28th 07, 06:39 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal

On Jul 14, 2:16 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:


If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!


"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things, even when they are social contracts that are
unwritten. When two people agree to share their lives, and children
are third parties to their choices, those children can be effected by
those choices. IOW, if a person marries a parent with children, bonds
are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.


Would you argue just as vehemently that the non-bio father should have a
contractual right to custody of the non-bio child? Why would a non-bio
father's rights supersede the parental rights of a bio-father?

Oh, I forgot. It's only about getting some guy, any guy, to pay CS whether
the kid is his or not.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I might point out that the ruling implies a non-biological, live-in is
considered to be a parent and provides financially for those children.
Why then is the biological father paying child support if his child is
being supported by the non-biological, live-in parent?


  #9  
Old July 28th 07, 06:53 PM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal


" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 14, 2:16 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:


If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!


"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the
non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things, even when they are social contracts that are
unwritten. When two people agree to share their lives, and children
are third parties to their choices, those children can be effected by
those choices. IOW, if a person marries a parent with children, bonds
are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.


Would you argue just as vehemently that the non-bio father should have a
contractual right to custody of the non-bio child? Why would a non-bio
father's rights supersede the parental rights of a bio-father?

Oh, I forgot. It's only about getting some guy, any guy, to pay CS
whether
the kid is his or not.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I might point out that the ruling implies a non-biological, live-in is
considered to be a parent and provides financially for those children.
Why then is the biological father paying child support if his child is
being supported by the non-biological, live-in parent?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*Is* there any other reason?


  #10  
Old July 29th 07, 05:10 AM posted to soc.men,alt.child-support,can.legal
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Appeal


" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 14, 2:16 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 13, 9:13 pm, "
wrote:


If a non-biological "parent" living with a biological parent and

child
and they decide to split, the biological parent can seek child

support
despite a pre-existing agreement. Ha! What a laugh!


"...As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane

Doe
would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support,
while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child.
And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the

non-
custodial parent. ...."


Contracts mean things, even when they are social contracts that are
unwritten. When two people agree to share their lives, and children
are third parties to their choices, those children can be effected by
those choices. IOW, if a person marries a parent with children, bonds
are established. Say a parent marries "X" rather than the father of
her child and the two of them decide to raise that child together.
This smacks of a social contract.


Would you argue just as vehemently that the non-bio father should have a
contractual right to custody of the non-bio child? Why would a non-bio
father's rights supersede the parental rights of a bio-father?

Oh, I forgot. It's only about getting some guy, any guy, to pay CS

whether
the kid is his or not.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I might point out that the ruling implies a non-biological, live-in is
considered to be a parent and provides financially for those children.
Why then is the biological father paying child support if his child is
being supported by the non-biological, live-in parent?


BINGO! The TRUE purpose of "child support".





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High Court Rejects Florida Gay Adoption Appeal wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 January 2nd 06 03:54 PM
Canada: Supreme Court upholds child-support appeal Henry Child Support 2 November 12th 05 05:07 PM
US Supreme Court noabogado Single Parents 0 May 24th 05 11:56 PM
Supreme Court says no! frankjones Child Support 0 May 7th 04 01:04 PM
Supreme Court of Canada made their ruling Lisa aka Surfer Single Parents 7 February 2nd 04 12:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.