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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High Court Rejects Florida Gay Adoption Appeal | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | January 2nd 06 02:54 PM |
Canada: Supreme Court upholds child-support appeal | Henry | Child Support | 2 | November 12th 05 04:07 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 1st 04 11:30 PM |