Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 letscnow
Joined: 5/10/2008
Msg: 111
Paying child support for kids that are not yoursPage 3 of 30    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
There are state and federal laws that help with child support issues. Every state is different, but for the most part they are all full of catch 22's.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/9/2010 6:40:53 PM
I agree it doesn't seem fair to pay for the support of children who aren't "yours", at least on the face of the argument, and I am certainly not condoning (no matter what the almost certain responses some of you more embittered posters may choose to post) fraud of any kind, but, on a purely legal basis, there is certainly more to the story. "Psychological parenting" is a legal term, applied both to those who seek to continue a relationsip with a child not their own biologically, as well as by those who seek financial contribution for a child they feel is entitled.

Regardless of the arguments regarding cp's and their gender, let' s not forget that the same statistics can be used to back up both sides of the argument. The bottom line is that despite any court proceeding & which side initiated them " Parents will always have the option of working out a parenting plan together, which will be approved by the court if deemed fair and appropriate". The problem is nearly always the individuals involved. The "system" is worked best by its' servants, those best suited to take full advantage; the attorneys who are the only real beneficiaries of any court proceedings.

As far as I am concerned, there is another legal term that we should all take to heart, enabling it to encompass our relationships with those we are capable of making and/or raising children with: caveat emptor.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 114
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/10/2010 5:58:14 PM
caveat emptor.


And here I thought it was a latin " kævi.??t '?mpt?r" something that is in fact perhaps poor taste in terms relating to our children......


"Psychological parenting" is a legal term, applied both to those who seek to continue a relationsip with a child not their own biologically, as well as by those who seek financial contribution for a child they feel is entitled.


My compliments "ohwhynot"...Did not know this term...until a quick search finding it
and along with it De-facto-parent doctrine. A doctrine that is in fact legally accepted in Canada...but something that has not received the same wide acceptance in your country......the Utah Supreme declined to adopt psychological parent doctrine in 2007 in Jones v Barlow. The Michigan Supreme Court recognized that the legislature would have to make that determination in allowing third party rights...and liabilities...

......yet Washington Supreme court adopted de facto-parent doctrine in 2005 where two woman shared custody of a child.

But this is also brings to the table is the fundamental right of a parent to control his or her child's upbringing. This is not in keeping with your doctrine of the custodial parent knows what is right for the child and they should be allowed to detrmine the rules in both homes because they spend the most amount of time with the custodial parent...as you have argued already.

But something I believe in that either parent has the right to determine or be a part of the path that the child is to follow into adulthood and that in growing up...in living in the cusodial home or the non custodial home.....determination of the rules is not for the primary or the one parent alone to control.

But then one also has to recognise that not every parent will meet the same level of involvement that perhaps others are capable of...but if a level of parenting is needed to determine rules in their home...then that level or measurement is needed to be applied to each and every parent in society...not just a vindictive and embittered custodial parent as some seem to illustrate themselves as.

LOL...this is so much better than 1/2 hour of mindless TV.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/10/2010 6:48:25 PM

And here I thought it was a latin " kævi.??t '?mpt?r" something that is in fact perhaps poor taste in terms relating to our children...


Something that was in fact not used in relation to children, rather to the choice of whom we make them with.


But this is also brings to the table is the fundamental right of a parent to control his or her child's upbringing. This is not in keeping with your doctrine of the custodial parent knows what is right for the child and they should be allowed to detrmine the rules in both homes because they spend the most amount of time with the custodial parent...as you have argued already.


OMG, would you grow up already?! My doctrine?! You're a fool, and once again display an asinine immaturity & an attitude that exposes your own "doctrine".


But something I believe in that either parent has the right to determine or be a part of the path that the child is to follow into adulthood and that in growing up...in living in the cusodial home or the non custodial home.....determination of the rules is not for the primary or the one parent alone to control.

But then one also has to recognise that not every parent will meet the same level of involvement that perhaps others are capable of...but if a level of parenting is needed to determine rules in their home...then that level or measurement is needed to be applied to each and every parent in society...not just a vindictive and embittered custodial parent as some seem to illustrate themselves as.


There is a vast difference between the cp of which you speak & a 24/7 parent who may get a break once or twice a year from other parent, if it is convenient for them. Yes, a level of involvement is required in order to be entrusted to ensure that a child is safe . Vindictiveness plays no role at all when it comes to remaining responsible for your offspring outside of your home. As far as illustrative embitterment, nice photo Tealwood.


LOL...this is so much better than 1/2 hour of mindless TV.


Without thought can be preferable to twisted notions.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 116
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/10/2010 7:51:53 PM

"Psychological parenting" is a legal term, applied........ who seek financial contribution for a child they feel is entitled.

^^ That's all it really it is.
It's quite revealing when all is said and done, that a woman can collect support from many men... there is no limit. No matter which way you slice the definition the only common denominator is that mom gets money. So, from a legal perspective, that definition doesn't do much of anything except for procure monies for mom.
The bullshit to this is that a child would have two fathers and the only thing these two fathers have in common with the child (legally) is to fulfill financial obligations.

Mother can sabotage a child's relationship with both men and mom has no real legal obligation to do anything except for the standard generic law to mitigate a safe and healthy life for the child.... she doesn't even have to work.
In Canada men are used to such ridiculous legal definitions. And as I recall from some article I read a few years back, usually, those women who collect support from mutliple ex-partners are the ones who have the least success in securing a long term relationship because they put fear into potential mates.

Regardless of the arguments regarding cp's and their gender, let' s not forget that the same statistics can be used to back up both sides of the argument

Since you enjoy legal terms that certainly favor moms, please try and find cases of men collecting support from multuiple women - cut the crap about this issue is two way - you're stretching it, as usual
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 117
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/10/2010 9:10:38 PM
There is a vast difference between the cp of which you speak & a 24/7 parent who may get a break once or twice a year from other parent, if it is convenient for them. Yes, a level of involvement is required in order to be entrusted to ensure that a child is safe . Vindictiveness plays no role at all when it comes to remaining responsible for your offspring outside of your home. As far as illustrative embitterment, nice photo Tealwood


Are we talking about a non custodial parent who lives around the corner from their child or the non custodial parent who had his children re-located hundreds of miles away or to another country?

A level of involvement to entrust a childs safety is something many children do not have even in families where the parents are still together....but then who defines what is the correct level of involvement to qualify to know what is or is not appropriate?


Vindictiveness is the arguement of too many barbie dolls or the MP3 player....just love how you defend that arguement about how the custodial had better or more enlightened understanding of determining what the child could or could not be given by the non custodial father....or ex in laws....but the original arguement that poster presented was her belief was the ex was to contribute what she deemed acceptable and no doubt she would have given it on her terms.....what she did not like was not being able to control what the child was given....and perhaps outside of her own financial ability..something that is often felt when you are not working or not working full time?

MYI just curious and it is none of my business but are you in the majority of custodial men where they do not see cs from their ex..or the minority where they do see child support?


You're a fool, and once again display an asinine immaturity & an attitude that exposes your own "doctrine".


And thank you...yes my doctrine or belief is even though my ex is not fully engaged or involved in the raising of our children...when she does have them ...her house and her rules as long as they are within acceptable social norms or legally acceptable.

as opposed to your doctrine that you need to have control in both homes.

But I understand your rationalization or thinking you know more than others or more than the foolish ex...because you are or think you have better understanding...better knowledge...better intelligence...better empathy...better ???? can the list go on and on...but then i think that was what i heard from my ex for too many years...and why it is the x....

but then why should i then act like that?

My house....our rules that we reached together

her rules her house..and i have no say in it what goes on even though i do get frustrated when they return with no homework done and tests or assignments due the next day...but that is her criteria of importance.


and paying child support for children that are biologically not yours...just another way of controlling or exerting expectation on someone to pay...which I in many ways do not have issues with...but there is never equal expectation for the custodial parent to actually be earning their own income.....

 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 118
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/11/2010 6:47:33 AM
MYI just curious and it is none of my business but are you in the majority of custodial men where they do not see cs from their ex..or the minority where they do see child support?

Tealwood, My ex isn't a deadbeat parent but she is the closest thing to being one. When the children moved in with me and by the time I was able to legally stop the support payments being deducted from my cheques, she collected 4 months of support and kept it. Even with a court order to repay it, she still hasn't (since 2008). I simplly don't want to waste money chasing her.

I will say that her attitude is exactly like lizzbeth's in the sense that my ex trashed me the entire time since our divorce. But now that the roles nand responsibilties are changed, my ex is exactly like the men some women complain about.

Knowing other men in my circumstance, it's safe to say that a lot of custodial moms would fail miserably if they were in the father's shoes and was to pay support financially and emotionally. My daughters came home crying many times from some terrible things their mother said to them.... the klids want love but their mom is living in a world of misery and she needs the company (the kids)

When some women react to me as a woman hater.... they're wrong. I simply believe that people like lizzbeth, and others (those who are always right or they insult the intelligence of those who disagree), would fail miserably if the roles were reversed.... they're bosses (b!tches) with a huge sense of entitlement and a low level of dignity - why bother trying to debate anything with them?
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 119
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/12/2010 4:55:09 AM

Coincidentally, I have recently just escaped getting a full-ime job..as I have temporary custody of my boyfriends kids....no child support though....do you think I could go after thier Step-Father for child support?


Well it seems you and your bf joined the majority of custodial men....no child support....but I notice you talk about going after the step father...neglecting the mother again? Another free pass for the woman?


^^^^Hmmmmm.....acceptable norms you say?....How old do your kids have to be before you as a custodial parent don't have the RESPONSIBILITY to FORBID the use of GUNS while away from your home? Legally acceptable?...NO...I think if this behaviour was reported to the local CAS it would look as if YOU were LEGALLY negligent as the custodial parent turning a blinde eye.


I am sure some of the CAS offices would love to try it...but they would have some difficulty...as I would suggest that the Federal legislation trumps there very loose agenda.

RCMP web site.....or for those not Canadian...Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Federal gun registry laws...
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm

For Individuals aged 12 to 17
•A Minors' Licence will enable young people to borrow a non-restricted rifle or shotgun for approved purposes such as hunting or target shooting. Generally, the minimum age is 12 years, but exceptions may be made for younger people who need to hunt to sustain themselves and their families. Applicants must have taken the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and passed the test. The fee to renew a minor’s licence is waived.
•Once a person turns 18, they are no longer eligible for a minor’s licence. Instead, they must apply for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) and pay the applicable fee. Currently, the fee only applies to the first PAL. Fees to renew a licence or modify licence privileges are waived.



So the issue is your preconceived ideas of what is or is not wrong...based on your own views....not on what might be someone elses legally and socially acceptable view of what is appropriate...

So no..I do not have any real foundation or acceptable arguement in objecting to my daughters...or in reality my youngest daughter from having took the course and has her age appropriate license.....

No single parent has the authority to mandate rules or their preconceived views on what is or is not appropriate on the other or non custodial parent...that is simply abuse of privilege or abuse of power.

Bu I did happen to have reservations...but no legal means of objecting...


Lemme ask you Tealwood...are you one of the CS PARENTS who has been undermined and recieved no child support ? Maybe you shouldn't have worked so much....childhood ony lasts a few years.


Undermined...no...becasue I understand the conception of boundaries and the boundary walking into my house house or on my custodial time...is also understood. But then child support...i have a house...my ex has a house...they both have energy bills...they both have payments....so there is always a choice or safe haven for the children....to have a choice or alternatives in where and how they chose to live...and they are not held againts their will...and they do not hate me....and we have had over the years numerous vacations...time away to enjoy and create quality memories together...we have enjoyed quality time going out together as an adapted family...and last year....athletic scholarship earned...and graduated with honours...and the younger one flirting with a 90% average.....so yes...the childhood only lasts a few years...and it is important they learn the lessons in school and are successful...they learn the lesson in life that greater freedom is achieved through working and earning your own income...as opposed to living off the avails of someone else.....


When the children moved in with me and by the time I was able to legally stop the support payments being deducted from my cheques, she collected 4 months of support and kept it. Even with a court order to repay it, she still hasn't (since 2008). I simply don't want to waste money chasing her.


Typical story...I know one guy who paid almost 9 months before he was able to get the courts to rule and stop the payments...and they did not get the payments back either...and he did not get cs either...and another guy does not have the money for a lawyer...but figures paying the money...and being able to have children...the having children is more important than having his ex mandating the children go back to living with her...as is the threat.


My daughters came home crying many times from some terrible things their mother said to them.... the kids want love but their mom is living in a world of misery and she needs the company (the kids)


I understand very well the situation you are facing...been down that path for almost 9yrs now.....always told them that different parents..different ways and means of doing things...and even if they can enjoy 1/2 a day...they should enjoy and be grateful for that 1/2 day....as opposed to having nothing.

In a perfect world...2 parents who were fully engaged and working together in the well being of the children. Reality is that most marriages that fail...they failed because the parents could not work together..so one looks to find accommodations and realizations that one cannot control every moment of their children lives...

But along with finding accommodations for allowing different set of rules and values...should come the requirement of being finacially self sufficient and finacially capable to provide for their own children.

Got to love how they always talk about the child support they do not get...when working part time..or not at all!

As opposed to perhaps the custodial fathers...who work full time...and whose children do better in school...and perhaps there is a reason for this...self respect and self determination?

LOL...got to run.....work beckons.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 120
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/12/2010 11:00:09 PM
Is this really all that common of an issue, or is it a strictly Canadian law?
I have never heard of such a thing, there is no such thing as common law in my state, and from what i understand, unless a guy legally adopted a child, he could act as a father figure for 10 years and then walk away with a clean break, if he chose to do so, even if he was married to the mom.
 Tigerbabygirl
Joined: 10/25/2010
Msg: 121
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/12/2010 11:08:48 PM
it tends to depend on how money hungry the other person is. Normally it isn't done this way but there are women who go after the step parent because they don't feel they get enough, want to sit on their butt and do nothing for more money or just plain vindictive.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 122
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/13/2010 5:30:55 AM

Is this really all that common of an issue, or is it a strictly Canadian law?
I have never heard of such a thing, there is no such thing as common law in my state,



A "common law marriage" is one in which the parties may hold themselves out as a husband and wife, and under certain circumstances, be deemed married without a marriage license or ceremony. Florida doesn't have a common law marriage, however Florida does recognize common law marriages that occurred in other states.



Common law marriage is recognized only in the following states:

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah


Mens Divorce web site in US...


It isn't even morally right for any person to play house for a few years and become a parent to a child when they can walk out the door and away from the the relationship and the commitment they made to that step child.
If you think about it in the sense that it is harder for single Mom's to date...yup...but when you think of it from the long term emotional damage it can do to a child perhaps it isn't a bad thing that people don't jump into a relationship and cohabitate with a single parent before they know what their liability and obligations long-term will be to that step child. It actually kinda helps weed out the throw backs...don't ya think?
It really isn't about child support...it is about not treating children like disposable objects.....JMO


Just my opinion that your views are often very pro woman as opposed to equal treatment for both parties.

Morally right is or can be a slippery slope....morally right to withhold allowing two children to live with their father when it is their desire to do so? Revelling in the atmosphere that your children dislike you and you see that as part of being a parent...requiring the father to go to court and have the courts reverse the custodial order...that is morally right? But then...as you once posted...you could not and would not be able to continue to live in your 2,000 sq foot home and continue to work part time while spending time at home with your youngest daughter......morally right?

So I may have some agreement with your premise that their is an obligation of the step parent to financially contribute after the break down of the relationship...as the arguement is the financial emotional support is vacating. I can agree with your premise that is morally acceptable...but...and this is a big but...these woman while married or happily in the throes of enjoying the finacial and emotional support while together...are adamant that the support of the new husband new bf...never be used or recognised by the ex partner in suggesting that child support be lowered or reflect the total household income of both parents in the custodial home...as they strenuously argue that the care and costs of raising the child or children of the marriage is not the responsibility of the new partner....or at least...while they are happily together....woman only change this tune once they break up with the bf or second husband...then changing or suggesting they are within moral rights to pursue cs....using their cash cow to supplement what perhaps they are not capable of earning themselves..or unwilling as they work part time...playing at being a fully contributing parent?

Morally right to go after cs for step parents should then mean that when married or cohabiting the income should be there for evaluation in calculating household income.....and ladies....we go there..can you imagine how much more difficult it will be to find someone when guys know up front their income will be calculated for supporting your children..not just after the marriage..but in it as well..

Morally correct needs to be equally applied there....lizzie..not just when it as an advantage to you......as some might suggest you have to stay working part time yet the father of your children does not have that option...moral right is I would suggest taking that premise and applying it to all circumstances...and not just when it is beneficial to yourself.


And Lizzie... anything further on the questioning my parenting decisions and the negligent parenting that the CAS might support....research is so much easier in today's society?
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 123
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/13/2010 5:53:48 AM
It isn't even morally right for any person to play house for a few years and become a parent to a child when they can walk out the door and away from the the relationship and the commitment they made to that step child


Judging by your night hours spent online and knowing what hours (normal) kids are awake and needing supervision, you seem to buck the trend..... maybe you're a vampire, who knows?

As well, I can only imagine what kind of father figures you'd find at those hours of the night.

Some people shouldn't be talking about moral obligations.


edit: I wonder if there is a quota on the number of non-bio-fathers a woman can collect support payments from?
morally speaking, of course
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 124
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/13/2010 9:47:27 AM

It isn't even morally right for any person to play house for a few years and become a parent to a child when they can walk out the door and away from the the relationship and the commitment they made to that step child.


And, there we have it....

.... the truth, the hidden agenda is revealed despite all the little ladies' protestations to the contrary, women really ARE after a father and his money for their kids....

.. straight from the Lizzzzard's mouth....

Her dude had better be careful. She's in need of money so, when she kicks him to the curb....



 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 125
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/14/2010 10:27:04 AM
I wasnt saying that a man who has acted as a father figure should treat kids like they are disposable...just that i have never heard of laws allowing parents to file for support for any other individual besides an absent bio-parent.......i was asking if it was a Canadian law or a regional law.....because in Florida, if a an walked away from kids he had beenr aising but werent his biologically.......the law wouldnt care.......sure it os a scummy thing to do on a moral level....and i would hope that man would set up times and days to visit the kids......but if a woman asked to file support on that man they would laugh her out of town.......unless the guy had egally adopted the child and legally signed on to all the rights and responsibilities.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 126
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/14/2010 11:20:11 AM

.......i was asking if it was a Canadian law or a regional law....

Yes... Canada has a reputation. Here is a terrible story of a mother.... so you can see if the bio-parent is treated like crap, non-bio dads are viewed with less regard.

Barrie, Ontario family court and CAS
destroyed our loving family: Teens
Judge’s heartless court ruling orders that siblings cannot have any
contact with their younger sister until she is 18 years of age!

By Mike March, Justice Reporter

In a scathing letter addressed to Justice Craig Perkins
of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and copied to
prominent persons including the Prime Minister of Canada,
three teenagers blasted the senior judge and the family court
system at the Barrie, Ontario courthouse for forcefully
severing them from their younger sister and forcing their
family into financial ruin.
In a court order dated November 17, 2006, Justice
Perkins effectively severed the family and ordered that the
teens’ younger sister be placed under the sole custody and
strict control of their mother and that there was to be no
communication or contact between the three teens and their
sister until she was 18 years of age, eight years in the
future.
The judge also ordered that the three older teens whom
had chosen to live with their father were to have no contact
with their mother as well.
The court Order, which effectively severed the
relationship between the once close siblings, came as a total
shock to the teens.
The mother and her prominent, high priced Toronto
area lawyer fully supported the separation of the siblings
and had fought in court to achieve this objective.
Up until their family got involved with the family court
system the children had enjoyed a very close and loving
relationship with their younger sister.
Justice Perkins order effectively prevents the children
from having contact and building memories with their
younger sister during some of her most important years.
Perkins was so mean spirited that he even stated that
the mother could apply to the courts to have this time
period extended if she wished.
The teens felt that Justice Perkins was punishing them
and their father because they had chosen to live with their
father who they considered to be the most stable and loving
of the two parents. The teens considered their mother as
abusive and suffering some from emotional issues.
The teens referred to Justice Perkins as an incompetent
and reckless judge who was not worthy of making decisions
which affect children and families.
In their letter, the teens enclosed full colour pictures of
themselves and their younger sister which were taken
before she was forcefully stripped away from them by the
mean-spirited Justice Perkins.
One of the pictures showed the youngest girl blowing
out candles together with her older sister at a birthday
celebration.
The love that the youngest girl shared with her older
sister and other members of her family prior to Justice
Perkins order was clearly evident in the photos.
The teens reported that their mother was emotionally
unstable and had been physically and emotionally abusive
to them as well as their father for a number of years.
Evidence in the case indicated that the mother was
suffering from Hostile-Aggressive Parenting (HAP) which
is often the result of mental instability.
The oldest girl reported how her mother assaulted her
on one occasion when she had come to pick up some
clothes at her mother’s house, because she allegedly did not
call her to wish her a happy birthday.
She reported the assault to the authorities, including
police and the children’s aid society, but nobody did
anything about it.
This same lack of due diligence by authorities to
incidents in which mothers abuse their children was
publicized in another recent Barrie, Ontario court case in
which one father, Mr. Leonardo Campione, reported that
the children’s aid society snubbed him when he complained
about his young children being abused by their mother.
In spite of Mr. Campione’s pleas for help to authorities
beforehand, both of his two young children were
subsequently murdered by their mother.
The teen’s claims about their mother’s hostilities
against members of her family were certainly not without
substance.
In court before Justice Perkins, the mother herself
admitted that she had personally broken into her exhusband’s
home after they had separated and in
contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada, covertly
installed spyware on the father’s computer in his home.
The spyware program automatically intercepted copies
of every email message and a history of the internet
Barrie Family court and CAS destroyed our family say teens
Page 2 of 2
activities of the father and the three older children when
they were at their father’s home and then secretly sent this
information back to the mother’s own home.
The mother’s illegal act and invasion of her own
children’s privacy could be described as nothing short of
perverted and sick, yet the mother was never the subjected
to any consequences for her unconscionable act.
In his reasons for judgment Justice Perkins blamed the
father as the cause of the children’s dislike for their mother
in spite of evidence from the children that the mother’s own
actions were much to blame for their feelings.
In addition to the order severing the siblings, Justice
Perkins ordered that the loving and devoted father pay in
excess of $300,000 in court costs to the mother’s lawyer.
This unprecedented costs award effectively bankrupted
the father and financially ruined the family.
While the family court system claims to be working in
the best interest of children, it is painfully obvious in this
case that the order of Justice Perkins has effectively
stripped the children not only of their financial security but
many of the opportunities and benefits that these family
assets would have made available to them.
The only real winners in the court were the lawyers
who pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the course of legal proceedings, the father was
forced to use his equity in the family home and to cash in
all of his savings and investments to defend himself in a
court action in which he was forced by his ex-wife and her
lawyer to participate in.
The father said that he had been unwillingly forced to
trial in order to simply maintain contact with his youngest
daughter who the mother was obstructing access to.
The father maintains that he only wanted to have every
other weekend access to his daughter and for the teens to
see their mother on a regular basis, an arrangement which
the mother and her lawyer were unbelievably opposed to.
According to the father, the large award of court costs
was not really about costs, but rather a punitive act in
retaliation for him and the children speaking up against the
abuse as a result of the family court system, the lawyers and
the local children’s aid society.
This family’s case involved a number of improprieties.
In one hearing held in the Barrie court, Madame Justice
Lydia Olah, using threat of arrest, ordered the media out of
the court notwithstanding the requests of the family that the
local media attend the court.
While the law recognizes the media have a role to play
in protecting the public’s interest in the administration of
Justice, obviously Justice Olah wanted no media observing
her at work in her court.
At a second court hearing in which the family again
requested media to attend, armed officers from the
Collingwood detachment of the OPP locked the doors to the
court and told reporters outside of the courtroom that they
had been instructed by Justice Olah to padlock the
courtroom doors and to keep members of the media away.
These instructions to OPP appear to have been given
without any official judicial order and behind closed doors
with the obvious intent to maintain secrecy in Justice
Olah’s court.
To further prevent members of the public from
knowing about this family’s case and trial, Justice Perkins
issued a widespread publication ban preventing the
publication of the names of the family members, names of
lawyer and even the city in which the family resided. Such
a widespread publication ban is unheard of in such cases
and the reason why names do not appear in this article.
According to the father, Justice Perkins broke his own
publication ban by naming individuals in his reasons for
judgment which are published.
The father also reported that there were irregularities
with court transcripts with reasonable access to court
transcripts being denied and in some cases, blocked.
At one hearing prior to the trial, he was threatened by
one of the judges and almost as if the outcome had been
determined, told the father in no uncertain terms that he will
lose if he does not concede to the mother’s demands.
According to the children, in spite of the court order
banning contact between the children and their mother,
their mother sent the older son an email in contravention of
Justice Perkins order providing details of the judge’s order.
The children maintain that their father is a victim of the
anti-male bias in the family court system and that because
they have chosen to live with their father and not their
mother that this amounts to punishment by the courts.
According to the teens, their sister would prefer to live
with them and their father which is why the mother and her
lawyer insisted the court totally take her out of their lives.
In their letter, the teens told Justice Perkins that he
should have simply asked their sister about what she
wanted, as he has the right to do, before stripping her from
their lives and away from their loving father.
“Our sister would have been happy to have been given
the opportunity to express her wishes to the judge but she
was not given the opportunity because everyone, including
our mother, knew she was close to us and would not want
to be separated from us.”
The teens and the father felt that the system and the
mother did not want the younger daughter’s wishes to be
known so they isolated and silenced her.
“Our sister is likely not being told the truth,” said the
teens believing that their sister is being threatened and
coerced by the mother into forced compliance.
“Our sister would love to see us but others in the
community have told us that their mother is badmouthing
our father and is taking steps to prevent their sister from
contacting them.”
The three teens vow that they are going to fight to see
the truth exposed and their sister’s right to have a loving
relationship with her other family members is respected.
They are greatly disappointed in a court system that has
done so much harm to their family and violated their rights
and freedoms.
“Justice Perkins should retire or be fired before he
causes any more harm to other children and families,” said
the teens.
Note: The teen’s letter to Justice Perkins may viewed on
the internet at http://www.canadacourt
 aliveandwell314
Joined: 10/7/2010
Msg: 127
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/14/2010 12:05:00 PM
It can be different in some states and provinces, the government agencies that deal with these cases want a father figure established so the tax payers arent on the hook for this child. Quite often that is priority #1 for these departments so anyone paying is better than the people and thats all that matters to them.They often ignore DNA evidence
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/14/2010 7:48:38 PM
Yes... Canada has a reputation. Here is a terrible story of a mother.... so you can see if the bio-parent is treated like crap, non-bio dads are viewed with less regard.


Barrie, Ontario family court and CAS
destroyed our loving family: Teens
Judge’s heartless court ruling orders that siblings cannot have any
contact with their younger sister until she is 18 years of age!

By Mike March, Justice Reporter

....lots and lots of complete bullsh!t.....


Note: The teen’s letter to Justice Perkins may viewed on
the internet at http://www.canadacourt


I didn't bother to read the letter the teens wrote, but I would have let off A LOT of steam.

Best interest of the child(ren)?? Right....
 S.O.U.L
Joined: 11/23/2009
Msg: 129
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 7:02:42 AM

My amusement actually comes from those who think the worst of custodial parents who even mention child support, because that tells me two things.
1. motives are clearly not directed towards being open to co-parenting.
2. That the arguement will always be basd on financial compensation or obligations.


The step=parent or the live in boyfriend/ girlfriend doesn't have the same rights as the custodial parent or the non custodial parent when the relationship ends so why should the be stuck with the financial responsibility. The step parent or live in boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't get visitation, rights, they dont get any of the tax benefits, and they probably dont get to make any decisions regarding the child but they should merrily just send over check?

And what about the biological non custodial parent....why aren't you going after him /her for child support if it's needed after all they are the person that helped create the child to begin with. Things like child support agreement and visitation should be hammered out before getting into another relationship.

So questions for you...let's say a single mother is living with a man who isnt her child's father for five years and she decides to up and leave him one day. Should he forced to child support for her kid. And lets say she moves in with another guy who isnt the child father and then leaves him after five years...should he then be paying child support? If guy #1 is paying child support for a kid that isnt his should guy#2 be also forced to pay or does he get off the hook? And if guy#2 gets off the hook why should guy#1 stay on the hook? And finally what about the biological father...he's not paying anything while one or both of these other guys being forced to pay for his kid.
 S.O.U.L
Joined: 11/23/2009
Msg: 130
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 9:58:37 AM
In other words, the biological father and one or more step fathers may all end up paying support.

The problem with the notion of going of multiple sources for thechild support is what about the other things such as visitation and decison making. Does the biological father get one weekend, step father 1 gets a weekend, step father 2 gets a weekend. Does everyoen gets a say so in decision affecting the child.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 131
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 11:06:36 AM
A stepfather by definition is someone who has accepted the rights and responsibilites of a child....i was asking along the lines of a man who is in a relationship with the Mom (not married to mom or legal guardian of the kids) and then they break up........is that really legal? I have heard a lot of you guys stating that law as a reason not to date single parents.....but as i said down south you would get laughed outta town if you asked for support from a man who wasnt biologically related to or a legal guardian of said child. And doesnt Canada give all parents some sort of child raising grant anyways, so why would the government do that?


The problem with the notion of going of multiple sources for thechild support is what about the other things such as visitation and decison making. Does the biological father get one weekend, step father 1 gets a weekend, step father 2 gets a weekend. Does everyoen gets a say so in decision affecting the child.


Child support and visitation/custody are seprate issues. But yeah i can see where it would get sticky.
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 12:00:08 PM

I was asking along the lines of a man who is in a relationship with the Mom (not married to mom or legal guardian of the kids) and then they break up........is that really legal?


As far as the law is concerned, as long as the man does anything fatherly and/or is seen as a parental figure in the eyes of the child, then he is a candidate for paying up. And it's a pretty d@mn gray area. Taking Jr to soccer practice, or picking him up from school a couple of times can amount to a guy being on the hook.

The term being De Facto Parenthood. Here are the stipulations:
(1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship;
(2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household;
(3) the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood without expectation of financial compensation; and
(4) the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 133
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 1:24:22 PM

in canada you get a provincial child tax credit depending on your income up until they are 18 and then you also get a Universal child tax credit (which is given to help with daycare if you use daycare, or you can use it in different ways..etc) but the universal is only until the child(ren) is/are 6 yrs old

Also keep in mind that child support payments are tax free to the recipient (usually moms). The payor (usually dad) does not get to deduct the support payments but he does pay taxes on the support payments which, in effect, pays for the child tax benefit to a larger degree - the support payor is being double dipped while the reciepient recieves thousands of dollars a year tax free.
 S.O.U.L
Joined: 11/23/2009
Msg: 134
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 1:25:21 PM
Before I continue, I do relaize we're discussing Canada here. Money from the biological parent, money from the government..thats alot of money going around....so why the need to keep the de facto parent on the hook financially. This sounds like pure greed more than interest of the child.

Does Canada address things like visitation rights and decision making when it comes to the de facto parent after the relationship. Sounds like taxation with out visitation to me.
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 3:02:37 PM
It's also not a law geared specifically towards men, either, women can be made to pay the same child support for having lived with a single father as well, although that's very much rarer.

How the law is written and how it is implemented are 2 different things. And gender bias is something that DOES get written into the laws.

California Health and Safety Code 124250:
(1)"Domestic violence" means the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from or control over, that woman.

You can read the rest of that law if you want, but it specifically explains that women are the only ones who are the victims. And there are several other ones out there that show such bias.
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 136
view profile
History
Paying child support for kids that are not yours
Posted: 11/15/2010 3:41:55 PM

I'm surprised you aren't aware of that, considering you mentioned the "requirements" for it in an earlier post. Did you not note that it referred to "the petitioner" rather than "the man", from your own previous post?


And I guess you ignored the fact that I stated that how they are written and how they are implemented are 2 different things.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >