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

Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 11th 05, 06:32 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...


"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:WJOmf.83899$ki.63841@pd7tw2no...

"DB" wrote in message
news
(snip)

DB wrote:
I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?


If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his
own for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support. A
BC court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of mine.
The divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while this
acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two divorced, he
was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting from two men for
that one child.

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may
indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted
as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily
determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is
also considered.


That is beyond disgusting!!


  #12  
Old December 11th 05, 08:24 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Heidi Graw" wrote in message

news:WJOmf.83899$ki.63841@pd7tw2no...

"DB" wrote in message
news
(snip)

DB wrote:
I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?


Heidi wrote:
If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his
own for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support.
A BC court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of
mine. The divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while
this acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two
divorced, he was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting
from two men for that one child.

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may
indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted
as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily
determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is
also considered.


teachrmama wrote:
That is beyond disgusting!!


The judge didn't think so. The stepfather thought it unfair. But he didn't
appeal the decision. Instead, he made his payments and spent time with his
stepson. The bio-father also paid and spent time with his own kid. The
mother collected the money and had every single weekend free to do whatever
she wanted. Bio-father and stepfather alternated the weekends. And during
the week, the child went to school. And because his mother worked, he also
spent time at an after-school program.

But get this: This will really annoy you: The mother also had a parttime
evening job! Her weekday routine consisted of rushing around hustling the
kid to school and getting herself ready for work. After that fulltime job
was done she rushed to pick up the kid from his after-school program, fed
him a quick supper before the babysitter would come to look after the kid
for the evening.

The mother made absolutely no time for the kid. The only consolation in all
of this is that the child had at least quality time on weekends alternating
between two Dads. The bio-father couldn't get full custody of the child.
The stepfather didn't feel that it was his place to go for full custody
either. So, the child was shuffled around here there and everywhere.

Last I heard that child has now finished school, has graduated and is in an
apprenticeship program. He made it into young adulthood. Though I'm sure
he must be feeling rather rootless and ungrounded...never feeling as though
he ever actually belonged anywhere! I hope he'll be o.k. He's on good
terms with his Dads. At the age he is at now he just comes and goes as he
pleases. He has been pulling away from his stepdad, not seeing him as often
as his bio-dad. The stepfather understands and is reconciling himself to
that fact.

In all the years I've known this stepfather, I really have to hand it to
him. He paid the support, he spent the time, he *really* cared about that
child even though that child was not biologically his own. He's the
stepdad. So, he played the stepfatherly role and did the best he could. I
applaud him for that. He did a good thing! ;-)

Heidi


  #13  
Old December 11th 05, 09:09 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...

What is really silly about all of this is it is based on old law before
DNA tests were available. The courts basically used to hold that even
if the child wasn't the fathers, (there was some obvious signs even
before DNA, different race, father was impotent, blood test excluded
all possibility of paternity), and the child was born within the
marriage, it was automatically the husband's child. This also did not
allow the other guy any access. The logic was that the child needed a
father, and any man would do, given the uncertain nature of the
situation at that time. This may still be the law in some states, allow
I doubt it is enforced (hopefully).

The courts also apply this logic to step-fathers who adopt. Same
reasoning. The obvious chance for fraud and unjust outcomes is simply
ignored, because the courts do not have discretion, the law on these
situations in encoded in statutes. So without some type of "judicial
activism," where a judge would find an implied exception or sorts to
the statute, or legislative action, this injustice continues.

I have heard a similar situation from an attorney friend. Biodad was in
jail. Mom is a stripper. Decent dude makes a mistake, marries stripper,
she stops stripping, and he adopts the kids. Decent dude makes good
money. Marriage does last a year. Biodad gets out of the can and
marries mom. The attorney I know represented the decent dude, CS till
the kids, two of them, turn 18. Sad, right? 25% of his income for
around 12 years to an excon and a ex-stripper.

Legislatures don't act because noone throws a big enough fit. The law
must change to meet

I have often wondered if a state constitutional challenge could be made
in the right state.

  #14  
Old December 11th 05, 10:40 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...


wrote in message
oups.com...

(snip)

Janderson wrote:
I have heard a similar situation from an attorney friend. Biodad was in
jail. Mom is a stripper. Decent dude makes a mistake, marries stripper,
she stops stripping, and he adopts the kids. Decent dude makes good
money. Marriage does last a year. Biodad gets out of the can and
marries mom. The attorney I know represented the decent dude, CS till
the kids, two of them, turn 18. Sad, right? 25% of his income for
around 12 years to an excon and a ex-stripper.


I wonder how often the above happens to the good guys? A similar situation
as what you describe above happened to another guy I know. However, in this
case the attempt was thwarted. A married couple, on welfare, actually
colluded to entrap a naive and good natured young man who owns his own house
and has a good paying job.

This couple pretended they were seperated. She went about building a
relationship with this homeowner. She got pregnant by her husband and
claimed it was this homeowner's child. The homeowner, being in love,
believed her. This married couple in the meantime got a quickie uncontested
divorce. She moved in with this homeowner, bore the child. They lived
together for a year before getting married. Then just seven months after
that, she left this homeowner, moved back in with her husband. She was
awarded child support and was in the process of demanding a half share of
the house to be paid out in cash.

Fortunately, friends pressed this homeowner to get DNA testing done. He was
shocked to discover the child was not his. In his case, the Canadian judge
was wise to the game of this scheming couple. They both had a long rap
sheet. The homeowner no longer had to pay that child support. He has no
hope of getting any of it back. Fortunately, the amount wasn't a heck of a
lot because this information came to light rather quickly. Plus, the woman
was denied that share of the house.

However, this relationship cost this young man dearly...not only
emotionally, but financially considering the legal costs he incurred trying
to defend himself. It's money he'll never get back!

As for that scheming couple, one has to wonder...the husband seemed to have
no problem agreeing to or even sending his wife out to entrap this man for
their own financial gain. It's too weird. I doubt if this homeowner will
ever bother to date a divorcee ever again! He'd be forever wondering
whether or not the ex-husband is pimping out his ex-wife. The homeowner was
unable to tell me whether or not it was the husband encouraging the wife, or
vice versa, of if it was a joint effort. He's just happy he's out of it!
He still has his house, his job and isn't caught up in having to pay
child-support for the next 18 years. The kid is not his either. It's
patching up those emotional scars that will take some time to heal.

Heidi


  #15  
Old December 11th 05, 04:49 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...



teachrmama wrote:
"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:WJOmf.83899$ki.63841@pd7tw2no...

"DB" wrote in message
news

(snip)


DB wrote:
I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?


If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his
own for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support. A
BC court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of mine.
The divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while this
acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two divorced, he
was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting from two men for
that one child.

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may
indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted
as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily
determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is
also considered.



That is beyond disgusting!!


Yes, and I find it hard to believe that it's even a by-the-letter
application of the law. Guess I won't be babysitting anyone's kids -- ever.

- Ron ^*^

  #16  
Old December 11th 05, 09:56 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1UXmf.2907$9G.2080@dukeread10...


teachrmama wrote:
"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:WJOmf.83899$ki.63841@pd7tw2no...

"DB" wrote in message
news
(snip)


DB wrote:
I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?


Heidi wrote:
If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his
own for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support.
A BC court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of
mine. The divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while
this acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two
divorced, he was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting
from two men for that one child.

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may
indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted
as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily
determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is
also considered.



That is beyond disgusting!!


Ron wrote:
Yes, and I find it hard to believe that it's even a by-the-letter
application of the law. Guess I won't be babysitting anyone's kids --
ever.

- Ron ^*^


The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was what
was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that the
step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then that's what
will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child for a number of
years and that child had benifitted not only from the bio-father's support,
but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that child's quality of life
despite another divorce may have been a factor in this decision.

Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge may
rule to be "in the best interest of the child."

Heidi



  #17  
Old December 11th 05, 11:18 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...


"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:Hn0nf.94570$Gd6.10132@pd7tw3no...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1UXmf.2907$9G.2080@dukeread10...


teachrmama wrote:

........................................
If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there
may indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who
acted as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not
necessarily determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the
child* is also considered.


That is beyond disgusting!!


Ron wrote:
Yes, and I find it hard to believe that it's even a by-the-letter
application of the law. Guess I won't be babysitting anyone's kids --
ever.

- Ron ^*^


The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was what
was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that the
step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then that's
what will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child for a
number of years and that child had benifitted not only from the
bio-father's support, but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that
child's quality of life despite another divorce may have been a factor in
this decision.

Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too.

===
Sure. The clear message is "Stepdads, don't be nice to the kid, and make
him/her pay
you for room and board." Excellent social /family law policy "in the best
interest of the child," of course.
===


  #18  
Old December 11th 05, 11:52 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...



Heidi Graw wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1UXmf.2907$9G.2080@dukeread10...



teachrmama wrote:
"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:WJOmf.83899$ki.63841@pd7tw2no...


"DB" wrote in message
news
(snip)



DB wrote:
I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?



Heidi wrote:
If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his
own for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support.
A BC court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of
mine. The divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while
this acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two
divorced, he was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting

from two men for that one child.

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may
indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted
as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily
determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is
also considered.


That is beyond disgusting!!



Ron wrote:
Yes, and I find it hard to believe that it's even a by-the-letter
application of the law. Guess I won't be babysitting anyone's kids --
ever.

- Ron ^*^



The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was what
was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that the
step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then that's what
will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child for a number of
years and that child had benifitted not only from the bio-father's support,
but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that child's quality of life
despite another divorce may have been a factor in this decision.

Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge may
rule to be "in the best interest of the child."


OK...

I live with my girlfriend in her house, and have for the last 2-3 years.
My son from a previous marriage, who I have in my physical care 50% of
the time, lives with us said 50% of the time.

GF is a doctor and earns about three times my salary. Should we ever
split, should she be required to pay CS to me? What is the likelihood
that the same court that made the decision above would award me CS from
my GF?

Would it matter if we were married and then divorced?

Is there a greater likelihood that they would order my GF to pay my EX,
for some ungodly reason?

- Ron ^*^

  #19  
Old December 11th 05, 11:53 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...



Gini wrote:

"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:Hn0nf.94570$Gd6.10132@pd7tw3no...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1UXmf.2907$9G.2080@dukeread10...



teachrmama wrote:


.......................................

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there
may indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who
acted as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not
necessarily determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the
child* is also considered.


That is beyond disgusting!!


Ron wrote:
Yes, and I find it hard to believe that it's even a by-the-letter
application of the law. Guess I won't be babysitting anyone's kids --
ever.

- Ron ^*^


The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was what
was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that the
step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then that's
what will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child for a
number of years and that child had benifitted not only from the
bio-father's support, but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that
child's quality of life despite another divorce may have been a factor in
this decision.

Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too.


===
Sure. The clear message is "Stepdads, don't be nice to the kid, and make
him/her pay
you for room and board." Excellent social /family law policy "in the best
interest of the child," of course.
===


Forget that, the message is "Men, never ever babysit a friend's kids,
because YOU TOO could get hit up for CS for the next 18 years!"

- Ron ^*^

  #20  
Old December 12th 05, 01:56 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce,soc.men
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...


"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:Hn0nf.94570$Gd6.10132@pd7tw3no...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1UXmf.2907$9G.2080@dukeread10...


teachrmama wrote:
"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:WJOmf.83899$ki.63841@pd7tw2no...

"DB" wrote in message
news
(snip)


DB wrote:
I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay
for another man's child?


Heidi wrote:
If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his
own for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support.
A BC court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of
mine. The divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while
this acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two
divorced, he was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting
from two men for that one child.

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there
may indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who
acted as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not
necessarily determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the
child* is also considered.


That is beyond disgusting!!


Ron wrote:
Yes, and I find it hard to believe that it's even a by-the-letter
application of the law. Guess I won't be babysitting anyone's kids --
ever.

- Ron ^*^


The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was what
was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that the
step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then that's
what will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child for a
number of years and that child had benifitted not only from the
bio-father's support, but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that
child's quality of life despite another divorce may have been a factor in
this decision.

Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge may
rule to be "in the best interest of the child."


I don't buy it. Otherwise, I could sue my children's uncle for child
support because he is a so very kind to them and always has plenty of money.
It would certainly be in their best interests if he contributed a chunk of
change each month!


 




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
Babies and 'gutless' Royal Canadian Mounted Police Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 9 November 20th 05 11:22 PM
A 'shocking announcement' - Canadian chiros whining - babies be damned... Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 April 5th 05 09:03 PM
'COCOA'S' LIE; "THERE IS *NO* MERCURY IN CANADIAN VACCINES" Ilena Rose Kids Health 16 April 4th 05 10:48 PM
Canadian Court Rethinks Spanking Hammer Spanking 0 January 25th 04 08:54 PM
Babies likely don't care that Canada NewsWire is not 'Canadian press' Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 July 16th 03 01:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


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.