This article is interesting in that it asks where & when a second spouse becomes fiscally responsible for a child brought into a relationship from a previous one. And where & when does that responsibility end. We are not given a number of significant details, like the financial situations of the original parents (biological) and the legal one(s) (my guess, call me cynical, is “better” if not “significantly better”).
People bring children into the world for a variety of reasons – by accident (the only birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence – somebody has to make up the 4% that make condoms 96% effective, after all), by sort-of accident (lack of birth control, or control in general if you’re in the abstinence camp), by choice (either natural birth or adoption), and then poop happens and it (the original family’s existence) becomes a bit of a crap shoot.
So… I’m curious. What are your thoughts?
I have my own thoughts on that, but am curious what others think, so won’t bother with a link. If you’re interested, you’ll find it; if you’re not, you won’t.
This, I have just discovered, is the beauty of guest-blogging.
I’m a divorced Dad. I pay child support for my two kids and my opinion is this: if a man “claims” parental rights, as was done in this case, to children not his own, then he is on the hook to support them, and support of children biological or claimed is between father and child regardless of the mother’s status.
Call it Womb with a View – to screwing guys for child support even if they have been duped by women who profess to be on the pill but aren’t; or reach a certain age, ask a guy for his sperm ’cause he’s a friend – no strings attached – then recant, deciding they need the money after all. It remains the oldest trick in the books. My fave is the women who get pregnant by atheletes, by accident of course. Their kids become cash cows, allowing the mom to stay home, guaranteed a nice income, which allows them a lifestyle they wouldn’t have unless they win a lottery. And of course, there are the teen moms who see mother’s allowance as a way out of school, encouraged by governments who set up a welfare system conducive to abuse. I do believe that legitimate fathers – those who have created families for traditional reasons – ought to pay their share if there is a divorce. But I think once the kids are in school, a more rational, fair approach – shared equally – should be implemented. The angry feminist judges of the family courts will never allow that to happen. And IMHO, the social problems we’re seeing on the streets of TO, for example, have more to do with lousy mothering and dumb choices in mating material than anything else. Kids have become meal tickets for a lot of women, who forget that attached to that welby cheque there is some sort of responsibility that goes beyond just breeding them.
One question only � Are you sure that those judges are not from Zimbabwe or maybe they are terorists?
Would we have seen this if it was the father that went back to the biological mother? Probably not. The Family Law system is so one sided. While I fully believe that a parent (mother or father) has obligations flowing from the responsibilities of standing in as the parent, the courts need to look at all cases in their context and on their own facts. Even the Supreme Court decision (Chartier v. Chartier – for those interested) said that all cases must be looked at on a case by case basis. The Court also noted the relationship of the original biological parent as a factor to be considered. Apparently the Court of Appeal skipped over that part when reading the decision.
Back to my point about the one sided system: I come from a divorced family. My biological mother walked out on my father, myself and my brother. For five years she received spousal support without having to pay child support. Apparently that was figured into the amount she was getting. Well, when the court finally realized that they were being duped (she was making 50 000 more than she claimed in court) they finally awarded child support – to the tune of 600 per month for two children. It took two more years before my dad got in front of a judge that seemed to actually read the full file and we got support bumped up to 900/month and her wages were ordered to be garnished because she hadn’t been paying the original order all the time. When we tried to recover the back amounts that were owed, we were told the family court system doesn’t do that so go to small claims. Needless to say, the matter finally ended 6 months ago. My parents first separated 9 years ago! If we had been with her and not our father, you can believe that we would not have experienced such obstructions in the system.
I know that the majority of children stay with their mothers, but the fact is that the system has become one sided in order to redress the past wrongs suffered by many women in divorce proceedings. Well, I’m sorry but the failures of the system in the 60s and 70s do not mean that all fathers should be automatic financial targets now. All I have to say in closing, is Petkus v. Becker is still haunting all husbands and fathers of this country.
When the child support laws were changed some time back, I, at the time, a single parent of two children, paying child support to another person from a previous relationship found myself at the short end of the stick. Couldn’t claim the child support on income tax any more, wasn’t getting child support from the ex because she disappeared and the cost of the lawyer did not make it financially worthwhile. The only satisfaction out of the whole ordeal was that I was one of the rare cases of a male single parent that could look a divorced single mom in the eye and say “Been there, done that.” (Plus not bailing the wife out of jail for impaired driving with the kids in the car was another plus, single moms hated that, divorced men thought that was great).
As the years came and went I noticed at daycares a lot of single moms with children, some of obvious different fathers from the same mother and got me to think.
Since child support is not taxable, how much does a mother get per child from each father, providing the fathers work. With the child support guidelines on the amount a father should pay depending on gross income, not factoring in deductions such as income taxes,CPP, EI, debt load etc, a single mommy can rake in a fair tax free income, while the supporting father had to live a basic exsistance. And the funny thing is these mommies will get a significant monthly Family Allowance(?) check and probably a tax refund.
How many men pay through the nose for their kids only to find that the money is squandered on the new boyfriend, booze, drugs while the kids go without and the mother keeps harrassing the father for clothes and food for the sake of the kids even tho he has met his financial obligation?
If a woman walks out of a relationship, especially without the kids, she forfeits any claims to anything, simple as that.
The laws even though they are written to be gender neutral, are one sided and prejudicial in real world sense. FAIR and common sense legislation is needed.
No, George. Just very angry women or limp-wristed liberal men who hold the archaic view that only women can raise a child. Which then begs the question, I will duo daddies fair in front of a court in a custody battle?
“How many men pay through the nose to find it squandered”? Probably not as many as you think. There is a stereotype out there of the flakey ex-wife, laying on the couch eating chocolates while watching soap operas while their kids go hungry that is just that: a stereotype. Just like the deadbeat dad one. I would argue that there are far more hard-working single moms, and dads that DO pay their support, than the reverse.
While we all tend to view this subject through our own experiences, it probably a good idea to avoid sweeping statements. Yes, there ARE mothers that abandon their children and lie to the court about the money they make, just as there are fathers who do the same, and I believe there is a special place in Hell for them. Those that choose pregnancy & welfare are fewer than those that do not, IMHO, although that’s a gut feeling & not anything I’ve researched. I know a LOT of struggling single mothers, far more than single dads, and none of them are drunks or irresponsible with their children.
I agree with Candace that we should not make sweeping statements and generalizations on this issue; the courts have seen them all. Iron Lady makes an interesting query on what the case might be for duelling daddies and/or duelling mommies in same sex marriages. This is all about establishing who the primary caregiver is and with same sex marriages it may be harder to establish especially if neither is a biological parent.
I have had 13 years experience with the Sask. Family Law Division due to multi-millionaire ex. who has more money than brains.
Family Court is the last place one should go to settle family matters. Many of the laws are subjective, many of the judges are elderly and not current with today’s family life and its issues, and there is little consistency in outcomes. As my lawyer says, it is a crapshoot every time you appear in court.
It is my opinion, that the birth father is the one who should be responsible for paying child support for his children until they are 18 or done post-secondary education. I would only make the step-father or significant other male pay child support if he has been in the locus parentis role for a number of years due to the birth father being untraceable. This would also be applicable for step-mothers.
If you produce the child, then you must be responsible for it. This ruling is going to have a disastrous effect on children because of the financial hardship it will place on divorced parents who are in second or even third relationships.
Screwing around with your “hoodie” on will now be the modus operandi. The 4 F’s are also mandatory under this ruling. I would never enter into a relationship for any length of time, especially if children are in the picture. And, I would never live with anyone who had children. The risk is just too high.
Tell me again how this ruling will benefit children. The Supreme Court Liberal Judges have instead stuck another knife into many families. Another Liberal make-work policy. As if we already don’t have enough dead-beat swivel servants leeching on our hard-earned dollars!
The only thing I wonder about this case is whether, when the birth mother & step-father split, he somehow tried for custody. If he did, then he set himself up for this. But I do find it very strange that the judge is ignoring the fact that the biological dad is now back in the family. Very weird.
Old Mother:
“It is my opinion, that the birth father is the one who should be responsible for paying child support for his children until they are 18 or done post-secondary education”
I agree with this 110%. I’ve seen too many cases where the sperm donor makes a passionate deposit and skips away, leaving the newly annointed mother holding the stork’s bag. It’s way too easy for guys, especially outside of marriage, to skip out of any financial responsibility (especially if they’ve never had any to begin with).
If males knew they had no escape options from parental and/or financial care (i.e. do it or do time), there would be quite a fall in the population of desperate young unwed mommies. They have the power to fix the problem but it involves thinking with the bigger head.