Almost Canadian

I just find it strange that, yet again, no-one is criticising the woman. I am not saying that what he was trying to do was right, but I am amazed at how it is "always the man's fault"

DaveLovesDee

I think she's a manipulative, lying, cheating, no-good discredit to her gender (I was going to refer to her as something else but I thought it would be unfair to female dogs), but I was trying to be polite. I think the female judge made the wrong decision.

I agree how in most cases it's automatically assumed the guy is in the wrong, or appears that way.

Piff Poff

I feel he should no longer have to pay child support in the light of the DNA test but also should just have to suck up what he has paid. I also feels if he wants to continue seeing the kids he should be able to. Can you imagine the shock?

And as for the woman - well love you've been found out - take it on the chin!

BristolUK

Perhaps she should give him a kidney.

DaveLovesDee

Agreed.

Almost Canadian

Unfortunately, that is not what the law over here says. As "locus parentis" he is on hook regardless.

dingbat

No, I would have quite a bit to say about her too, but that was not the question. The children thought this man was their Dad for sixteen years - he acted as such, he is to all intents and purposes. Too bad.

I sometimes deal with adoption breakdowns, where a child has been legally adopted (for years in some cases) and then the parents decide they don't want the child anymore. This is usually due to behaviours surfacing with the child they do want to deal with, or a new bio child suddenly appearing. It is amazing how these people can sit there and say the child is not really theirs anyway, have back your defective merchandise. In all the cases that I have had, without exception, the woman is the one who is the first to cut and run. I can go after them for maintenance (child support) on behalf of the government in these cases. The adoptive fathers tend to "take it on the chin", but the mothers...... Think how the kids feel.

DaveLovesDee

Yet the media usually appear to place the blame at the guys feet.

Piff Poff

That's awful, wanting to give back an adopted child.

But the guy in the news was duped. I hope he continues to want to see the children he has loved for 16 years though.

purple80

I would not need to be told by aj udge to pay for my children, but I do take your point that the woman appears to be shouldering none of the blame.....

As usual it is the children who suffer all because of the adults behaviour.

I guess that the situation is different as I know who everybody is in our family, and I am not suddenly going to find out that there is another 'parent'.

fledermaus

I agree, we weren't talking about the woman. Just the man deciding he doesn't want those children any more.

She sounds a little strange.

acer rose

There are too few details in the story to ever know exactly what it was about but I wouldn't be surprised if he was getting back at her because she'd been getting at him to get more support. As usual, the offspring are used as pawns.

seaham gal

Hear hear!

Purley

The law is similar in Sask - if a man has been acting as the parent then he has to pay child support. One of the lawyers in my last office had a case where the mother was getting child support from the biological father and her stepfather was also required to pay for the same children!

As to the father always being "wrong" - reminds me of a Bill Maher show years and years ago. They were talking about how the mother is always given custody of the children. And his guest said something about "Yes, the mother gets custody unless she is taking drugs" and Bill Maher said "in the court room."

However, I think (and hope) that things are changing.

GrantE

I'm curious: say Jack marries Jill, fathers a child, divorces Jill; at this point in time, Jack will be paying Jill child support; then, Jill marries Joe. What happens then? will Jack be still paying child support? and what happens when Jill and Joe divorce? who'll be paying child support then? Joe? Jack? both?