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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...
"Heidi Graw" wrote in message news:WJOmf.83899$ki.63841@pd7tw2no... "DB" wrote in message news (snip) DB wrote: I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for another man's child? If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his own for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support. A BC court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of mine. The divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while this acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two divorced, he was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting from two men for that one child. If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is also considered. That is beyond disgusting!! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Heidi Graw" wrote in message news:WJOmf.83899$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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$9G.2080@dukeread10... teachrmama wrote: ....................................... If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted as a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily determine father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is also considered. That is beyond disgusting!! Ron wrote: Yes, and I find it hard to believe that it's even a by-the-letter application of the law. Guess I won't be babysitting anyone's kids -- ever. - Ron ^*^ The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was what was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that the step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then that's what will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child for a number of years and that child had benifitted not only from the bio-father's support, but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that child's quality of life despite another divorce may have been a factor in this decision. Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for. They *could* be hit up for support, too. === Sure. The clear message is "Stepdads, don't be nice to the kid, and make him/her pay you for room and board." Excellent social /family law policy "in the best interest of the child," of course. === Forget that, the message is "Men, never ever babysit a friend's kids, because YOU TOO could get hit up for CS for the next 18 years!" - Ron ^*^ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...
"Heidi Graw" wrote in message news:Hn0nf.94570$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 | |
|
|
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 |