Topic: Man must be pay child support even though children not his

[Ex-airbalancer]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/563571

In the end, van Rensburg ruled in favour of Anciolina.

"The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children," she said.

"The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."

Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is.

The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.

[toolatecrew]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/563571

In the end, van Rensburg ruled in favour of Anciolina.

"The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children," she said.

"The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."

Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is.

The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.

Yeah only the man (who in this case appears to be blamless) should suffer.

Lets review:

Marries a woman who cheats on him.
Marries a woman who gets preganant by another man and lies about it.
Gets divorced to get away from lying cheating wifeand needs to pay a substantial portion of his income to do it.
Gets hit up for MORE of a portion of his income to pay for the privalage of not being married to lying cheating wife.
Is threatened with reduced visitiation rights for the kids that he though were his abut is required to support.
Has a wedge thrown between him and the kids that THOUGHT he was their real father becuase wife decided to stir the pot.

Anyone think he's suffered enough?

For every deadbeat dad out there there is probaly some poor shmuck out there who gets hosed by the system.

I hope the guy gets some justice in the end like having her have to pay back any past spousal support.

the article doesn't say but can you imagine if the judge grants the petion for an INCREASE in support payments after all this?

[tenpenny]

I hope the guy gets some justice in the end like having her have to pay back any past spousal support.

the article doesn't say but can you imagine if the judge grants the petion for an INCREASE in support payments after all this?

The support is for the children.  THE CHILDREN.  It's not spousal support.  Which children he has helped raise for many years.

It's not the children's fault that their parents split up, but apparently many want the children to be the ones to suffer for it.

[safristi]

..U can't legislate LOVE................................but U can fack it UP BIG_TIME.......when well meaning pricks!!! get involved................did she have in Vitro fer tha TWINS ...wot cars would U buy the twins if U were their Lawyer??

[ArticSteve]

Where is the long version of the story published with all the details as opposed to this CP24 readers digest version?
Railton

Definition of fatherhood revisited after Cornelio ruling

Matthew Coutts, National Post
Jan 8, 2009


Questions have been raised about the true meaning of fatherhood in a recent Ontario Superior Court ruling that decided a Toronto-area man must continue paying child support to his former wife, despite DNA tests that proved he was not the biological father of her 16-year-old twins.



The decision appears to underline a trend that suggests biological connections play a much lesser role in defining the meaning of fatherhood in a court system that is increasingly considering the best interests of the affected children and redefining the concept of family.



"These kids treated him as a father, and knew him as a father. And the Supreme Court of Canada said we should look at this issue based on the child's best interest, and it certainly in the child's best interest to continue to be supported by the only man they have ever known as a father," said Kelly Jordan, a partner at Jordan Battista LLP in Toronto.



Ms. Jordan, an expert in family law, said the decision is based on the Divorce Act, which states a child of a marriage can be any child for whom one stands in the place of a parent.



In the recent case, in which the mother said she did not recall having an extramarital affair and the father said he had been misled about the origin of children he raised as his own, the judge decided that since "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage," he was responsible for continuing that relationship after the couple's separation."



"While the failure of Ms. [Anciolina] Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair and that the twins might not be his biological children may well have been a moral wrong against Mr. [Pasqualino] Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support," Judge Katherine van Rensburg wrote in her summary on Dec. 22, 2008.



Mr. Cornelio had suspicions about the twins' parentage before seeking joint custody in 2002, four years after the couple separated. The judge ruled that since Mr. Cornelio's sought joint custody despite these suspicions, it was apparent he considered himself to be the father.



But Walter Fox, a lawyer who has been working with father's rights groups for more than 15 years, said Mr. Cornelio should have been given the opportunity to decide how he would have acted knowing the children were not biologically his.



"Learning that he is not the biological father, it can be a game-changer if he makes it so. He's been given no choices throughout this. And the court continues to say he has no choice," said Mr. Fox.



"These children have been raised by a man who believed he was their father and wasn't, and that is something they should have to deal with.



Everybody has a struggle with something in their lives, and this is something those children should have to deal with."



But Ms. Jordan contends it is likely the same decision would have been reached even if the father had not had any doubts since it is in line with recent



legal judgments. With adoptions and the formation of non-traditional families more commonplace, courts now look beyond genetics to determine what makes a family.



Ms. Jordan pointed to a 2006 ruling that allowed a lesbian who conceived with an anonymous donor to put her partner on the birth certificate.



"You've got a situation here, for 16 years he raises these ... (children) as his own and looking at it with the lens of what is best for these kids, I don't think he can say ‘I would have done it differently had I known.' Because he may have, he may have not."



Harold Niman, an expert in family law at Niman Zemans Gelgoot LLP in Toronto, says that there is no question that Mr. Cornelio is legally the children's father, although he believes he has a fair complaint about being misled by the mother.



"What I see as being the question that flows from this situation is should the mother be accountable? Not in the sense of losing child support, because child support is for the benefit of the children, but should she be accountable in law to the father for having deceived him?" he said.


More On This Story

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=1156430

[ArticSteve]

In this case Yes on the narrow grounds that he acted as their father before the separation.   But only until their 18th birthday IMHO.

 

and none of this "support thru ENDLESS levels of post secondary education" BS that is routinely awarded against Dads.

THEN, after the kids hit age 18, the dad should be awarded a judgment against the B*TCH for all monies paid.  Seize her assets, buy her a tent, and turf her out on to the street.  BURR-RR it's cold out today.  Gotta set an example so say the CONS.

[safristi]

  DADDY!!!  is THAT U.................... ................


 wot 'appened to "Ya DO the Dame ya PAY  all the TIME"................

[toolatecrew]

I hope the guy gets some justice in the end like having her have to pay back any past spousal support.

the article doesn't say but can you imagine if the judge grants the petition for an INCREASE in support payments after all this?

The support is for the children.  THE CHILDREN.  It's not spousal support.  Which children he has helped raise for many years.

It's not the children's fault that their parents split up, but apparently many want the children to be the ones to suffer for it.

Him paying that $ enables the MOTHER to have that amount of $ as disposable income for herself.

Had he known they were not his kids and left her she would have had to pay for their care HERSELF (since she can't remember the name of the father wonder if she'd remember if she lost?). So lest say she has a Job making 20K a year. It costs 10K a year to care for the kids.  

Hubby makes 50K. and needs to pay 8K child support and 8 K spousal support. He has 34K left for him

Wife has 20- 2k for the kids +8 K from spousal support = 26K a year for dear wifey

She's substantially PERSONALLY better off financially because of the child support burden SHE does not carry. I did not say he should recover the CHILD support. I said he should be able to recover SPOUSAL support since she increased her own personal wealth (since she did not need to pay out as much to care for the children) through deceit.

The money is for the care of children. The question is who provides that money and in what proportion. He's footed the bill for 16 years despite having JOINT custody for part of the time since separation. Meaning he pays support when they live with HER and pays for food lodging etc when they are with him. She on the other hand pays nothing when they are with him and receives support when they are with her.

I guess the moral of the story is every father should get a paternity test on every child he fathers matter what to protect himself?

[safristi]

  Geez @ $125 a "POP" i'd be BROKE..............................................

[random006]

The law, at least in Quebec, would rule that the man must pay child support as he was one of the two parents who raised the children.  However, there are a few wrinkles on that argument which deserve a good reviewing.  Here is an old article from the Globe and Mail on the subject:

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspx

[Brig]

Wow.  Interesting article, Random. 

[tenpenny]

Him paying that $ enables the MOTHER to have that amount of $ as disposable income for herself.

That's certainly true, which is why it's called 'spousal disposable income'.

[barrie1]

I wonder if she even has a clue who it was? To me this is entrapment of a very sick low kind. She dosen't 00000 in my books as well. 

[mmret]

Personally I always thought that support payments for children do make sense, but for spousal support not so much. Things today are fair enough that either sex can go out and make a living. I will admit that it is probably easier for men though its not an egregious differential.

If custody is solely with one parent then child support payments should come from the other as obviously there are monies required as well as an opportunity cost to the time etc. spend to take care of them. 50/50 custody should mean that very little, if any, payments are made, as presumably both sides share a similar burden.

And if the father has 100% custody and is raising the kids then he should get payments.

These laws must be old holdovers from the days when by and large women weren't in the workforce. Before my time.

[barrie1]

I can understand him paying for the children until they are 18 but the ex-wife should not get anything further if she is receiving any support from him at all and should be made to pay him back because of the deceit and lies she used to keep him there for X No. of years while she was unfaithful to him. To me to not know who the father is just shows there must have been many lovers during that time. Obvously not a woman to be trusted at all. A friend of mines ex tried to get more support out of him for her and her new Lawyer Husband as they were building a fancy new home. Surprisingly enough the womens rights group threatened to picket their law Office if they persisted in attempting to blackmail this man any further. His ex have threatened not to allow him any more visitations with his 2 daughters if he didn't comply with their demand. It backfired on them. They never came back agin with this kind of request.