Here is an issue that really bothers me.

I do not advocate men deserting their families or failing to pay child support. However I do not believe a man who has been proven not the biological child should have to foot the bill either.

Certainly if a parental relationship has developed the man in question owes some emotional support to the child but financial support? I think not. The bills should be paid by the man who donated the genetic material.

In these cases the law, which in past and rightfully so considering the technology of the time, presumes that the man who is married to the mother at the time of their probable conception and their birth is the father. The presumptive father.

We now have the ability to determine with a certainty of about 99.99% who the genetic father of a child is. It is time for the law to catch up with technology.

Of course...that would take an activist judge right? haha that's another thread...well sort of.

It's time to change these laws.

The state of course argues that it is the best interest of the child and of society for children to supported by the presumptive father. After all...we all know some women are either unable or unwilling to identify the biological father. White trash tv teems with those sorts of people and popular culture has embraced the term "baby's mama" and the phrase "you are the father"

Still...this should not be the burden of the poor guy who is found not to be the father. Hasn't he dealt with enough already?

Not to mention the fact that these women are committing fraud.

Read the story below then please consider sending a letter to your legislator urging a reexamination of these laws please.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'Dad' Ordered To Continue Paying Child Support After Finding Out Kids Aren't His
Thursday January 8, 2009
CityNews.ca Staff

Not long after Pasqualino Cornelio got married, he was thrilled to learn his wife was pregnant with twins. The two babies were born healthy and have since grown into 16-year-old teenagers who have suddenly found themselves at the centre of a bizarre court case that's sparked controversy across Ontario.

It started back in 1998 when the marriage of their parents unraveled and the couple separated in a bitter break-up. Cornelio has been making child support payments ever since. But when his estranged wife recently demanded more money for their upkeep and cut back on his visitation time with them, an angry Cornelio decided to take drastic measures.

He got a DNA test and discovered to his surprise that the twins weren't really his. Instead, they were the result of an affair his wife had while they were together, one he never knew about.

Those test results led Cornelio to get a lawyer and try to put an end to the payments and get his money back, arguing that he wasn't the biological father and therefore shouldn't be paying the freight for someone else's children.

But an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled that, despite his wife's infidelity, he still has a duty to support the kids because he's the only father they've ever known.

In effect, Justice Katherine van Rensburg is siding not with the parents, but the children, who would be victimized by a stoppage in payments from the man they consider to be their dad.

"The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent's own conduct." she stated. "(This man) was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."

Why can't the real father step up to the payment table? Cornelio's wife claims she has no memory of having any affair and has no idea who the actual dad might be.

The case has now led to a huge controversy across the province, with many wondering if a man should be forced to support someone else's offspring in the face of such deception.

"I think it's a good ruling," states family law specialist Brahm Siegel. "I think it's a clear recognition (that) the utmost importance in determining cases like this, is the relationship between the child and the non-biological father, not so much whose D.N.A. is lodged in a child's cells."

But the director of a father's rights group thinks the wife's deception should be penalized

"Any time that you have a fraud committed, there should be something to be done to correct it. You don't just say, 'Well that's fine you committed a fraud, congratulations,' there's no consequence," said Brian Jenkins of Fathers Are Capable Too.

at this point I would have to agree with the court system..for so many years the man acted as a father..if he loves those children it should never have been in question..what he did was out of spite for his ex...and will hurt the children more than her

while I believe she should be penalized if he cares for the welfare of the children and loves them why not even after take them on his own..this way she loses child support and her children...cruel, probably...but if she went to demand more money and restricted visitation, without due cause for their welfare...they would probably be better off with the man they thought was their father

unless the fact they are not his changes his affections toward them..which at this point(they are 16 you only have two years left...)

would make him just as much an a$$ as their mother is

Thats just it, at least here in Florida there is no way a man who is not the biological father would get custody of the children. Even if the mother could not take care of them the only way a man who is not the biological father would get the kids is if he adopted them, and this would be near impossible without the delinquent mother's permission.

So the law IS stacked against the man in almost every way regarding children. This is not to say that the law does not get it right sometimes.

well, thats just stupid, in some states biological or not, if he has acted as a father for two or more years(and the only one doing so) he is considered the legal father, having a paternity test done may have just screwed himself over..but I really can't say what the laws in Canada are...

Well knowing what I know, I can say safely that I will not allow a system to take a advantage of me, if I live with a woman and her children and love them, I will adopt them before **** like this can happen.

if a man breaks up with a single mother and he is not the biological father he does not owe her child any kind of "emotional support" too many women think that if a man dates her he is also dating her child i stay away from these kind of women...most of them dont want a boyfriend or husband just a replacement father for their child...be seeing you

when you adopt them make sure to do the name change....you would change their (the child(rens))last name right?

if its a sixteen year investment I would say you owe them something......

if it lasted all of a week or a few months even up to a few years..naw..but sixteen....from infancy onward....why should it even be questioned?

It shouldn't.......He's their Dad......and it shouldn't have even become an issue that we now know about........some people.....

I would think this whole situation would be horribly traumtic for the kids at this point. Worse than divorce even.

Okay, that's part of my point. Now that the technology exists to prevent these sorts of situations it should be used.

The technology in THIS case should never have even been THOUGHT about!!!! That's what has caused the uproar.......

Just one more reason I am against gay marriage.Sperm donor paying child support to lesbian couple.

http://www.parentdish.com/2007/05/10/sperm-donor-ordered-to-pay-child-support-to-lesbian-couple-that/


Child support is tricky business. On the one hand, it's important that whoever is raising a child as the primary caregiver -- whether it's the mother or father -- be paid support by the parent who doesn't have full-time custody. That being said, what constitutes being a "parent," isn't always clear.

In this case, Carl Frampton acted as sperm donor for Jennifer Schultz-Jacob -- a longtime friend. Schultz-Jacob was essentially married to Jodilynn Jacob (a woman with whom she'd undergone a commitment ceremony), and wanted to have children. So Schultz-Jacob had two kids from Frampton's sperm, which gave her four kids overall -- as she and her partner had already been caring for two children (a pair of nieces the couple had adopted as their own).

With me so far?

Then the couple broke up, and Shultz-Jacob got custody of all four kids. Her ex, Jacob, the "non-custodial" parent, then asked a judge to make Frampton pay her child support for the two kids he fathered. The judge ruled that because Frampton had acted essentially like a step-parent -- being present at the birth of one of the children, buying them toys, etc -- his involvement went "beyond merely biological," and thus, he was responsible to pay child support.

If this confusing, it's because it is. But what gets me, is why isn't Jacob (the one who doesn't have custody of the kids) responsible for paying child support instead of receiving it? That's the way it works in male/female couples, so why shouldn't the same apply?

If you cannot financially afford to raise a child/children than you shouldn't have them - period. Regardless of your gender, it is your obligation as a parent to provide for that child - the focus should be on the child's welfare - emotionally, physically, spiritually.

If the children reside with the woman, she better do what it takes to adequately raise those children and not look to ANYONE else - with expectation. If it is the man, then he has the same obligation. If the parents cannot individually support the children, then they better come to some equitable financial agreement so that the children are cared for in a manner in which they DESERVE. Adults can be so selfish in this regard - the base issue here is that adults are too busy thinking about themselves and not spending enough time thinking about what is in the best interests of their children.

Laws are rarely applied with true equality.. why there are laws - so some people win, and others lose. A mature adult, when focused on someone other than themselves (IE the child) could work this out without having to involve the law.

IMHO :-)

I would have expected that coming from you, Thomas. Sperm donors are more often used with straight couples than gays. So you are against it because maybe a small amount of gay parents might be irresponsible.

Good try!!

having step/kids(hate that word)family is family
who's father has never been around,i don't believe a man should be forced to pay support but rather it's the right thing to do.
they call me daddy and always will,so why would i or anyone want to make them think they are not loved.paying money doesn't always mean you show them love but when you took their mom you accepted them also

i oppose gay marriages also(nasty)
if a woman can have an abortion why doesn't the man have a choice as to wheather he pays or not

I agree. However, there are biological fathers that care just as much, that is to say not at all.

you play you pay, end of story..but thats not what this case is about..for the love of god spite against his ex and two children lost a father..they only had two years left any way and now whats he going to do, say sorry kids I was there for sixteen years but I was only there because I felt obligated and now I know your not mine so who cares nobody wants you...thats crap..they still need someone to take care of them..its not their fault their mother was/is a tramp...

The laws on paternity are not as clean cut as people may think. It took me 11 years to get the paturnity established of my daughter. Unless a paturnity is established by either marriage, signing of the birth certificate, adoption or by the courts everything that man has done for those kids is considered a gift by the courts. You can love the child and support the child to the best of your abilities but "Legally" you have no rights. Thats "WHY" I pushed for the paternity of my child. It wasnt a question of me being her dad, the love I had for her, the support I gave her, it was about having the "Legal" right. No I wont go into all the reasons the "Legal" rights are important because Im sure you are all smart enough to know....

it has nothing to do with the best interest of the child

it has to do with receiving the reimbursement of the costs of collection

thus federal funds and money here money there -- it is about the money the money and yes the money