Twins not his, but man must pay child support
In making her recent ruling, the judge referred to a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision that said if someone acts as a parent and provides support for a child during a marriage, they are obliged to continue that financial support after separation or divorce — even if the child is not biologically theirs.
“While the failure of Ms. 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. 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 van Rensburg wrote.
Paternity Fraud, supported by legal systems the world wide.
UPDATE 10 JAN
SARAH HAMPSON From Friday’s Globe and Mail January 9, 2009
“If I had a penis, I would be mad too.
Scrap
That is the most morally bankrupt piece of crap I have heard in all my life. That means a well meaning, honest person, who works their guts out, has to take responsibility for someone elses lazy, irresponsible behaviour and “society” through its “duly elected/appointed” representitives are condoning it … that’s disgusting buck passing by the courts (with pressure from the Goverment no doubt). Whats the point is earning a decent crust and doing the right thing well all that happens is that every bludger will try and take it off you ? I seriously think that very shortly this country will start to have a massive labour problem whereby people (esp. men) will just not want to work as it won’t be in their best interests, and yes, I am talking from personal experience as well …
Comment by Anon — Fri 9th January 2009 @ 3:54 pm
This type of ting is happening because men are so politically disorganised. This is not about the welfare of the child, its about the political clout of feminism.
Bruce Tichbon
Comment by Bruce Tichbon — Fri 9th January 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Yes Bruce.
Right on the button about feminist political clout.
It’s not just men who are politically disorganized around these sorts of issues though.
Others have said something I’ve come to believe too – that the socialist left is dominated by feminists and their sympathisers who are all out for getting things for women, and the conservative right is dominated by chivalrists who’ll give women what they want.
That leaves a chunk of people somewhere in the middle who don’t agree with either extremes. THERE is the constituency to build upon. It will surely build further with the posting of this kind of article.
A modest prediction –
watch for feminists in NZ and elsewhere to use the truly bizarre, horrendously unfair ruling by Van Rensberg as a legal precedent for the further spread of the cancer of feminist ‘jurisprudence’.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 9th January 2009 @ 7:06 pm
Yep, both right. However, what are people in all levels of goverment scared of when it comes to feminism ? What is the big stick that makes so called ‘level headed’ people to knee jerk into something so obviously wrong. Is it guilt for sins of the fathers ? Is it the threat that their careers are going to be ended if they step out of line ? Is it even pure ambition, sucking up to get ahead ? I’m all for equality, after all, blokes have been having a go at each other forever, thats all equal. However, equality does not mean equal rights and you have to pay just because you are a man. There is a whole strata of women who think they are ‘owed’ something, and unfortunately they are being backed up by the framework of the ‘law’. The worst of it is that conscience free lawyers, who want a bigger house, are also cashing in on it.
As Malcolm X once said, “The only thing power respects … is power”. So what to do ? Change the goverment ? Done that, they are are only the shop window. The real problem is the ‘back room boys (sorry … girls)’ the employees that don’t change every 4 years. So, if you want change, don’t cough up blood on these forums, get job in a Ministry and do it from the inside … after all that’s exactly what happened after New Zealand men gave women the vote, thats where ‘men’ really lost the plot. Before anyone jumps down my throat, as I said, I’m all for equality, but the law has gone from port to starboard in a drastic fashion and needs to right itself PDQ.
Comment by Anon — Fri 9th January 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Interesting that Canadian CS includes Best Interests of the Child. That concept is totally different from NZ where CS is strictly a “revenue act”.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Fri 9th January 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Everything has a consequence:
feminism encouraged women to be selfish and greedy and inconsiderate and irresponsible. So now we have fractured families, unhappy women , the most messed up kids , the most divorce, the most single mother messes (called families by some), the most drug abuse, self-harm, suicide, alcoholism.
We also have a feminised education system that betrays boys, and an anti-male sexist legal system. Men and fathers get no rights and no respect – and women get superior – NOT equal treatment, Male breadwinners are forced out of jobs by well off women living off their husband’s money and state subsidy in a myriad of ways.
We need to put families and children first, not selfish women.
Something is very rotten in the state of NZ.
Comment by Perseus — Sun 11th January 2009 @ 2:51 am
Perseus,
Right on.
Expect the rot to continue for some considerable time to come however.
Too many people sacdrificing men by living off their hard earned taxes. Therefore they won’t be in a hurry to help men escape being providers and protectors – Men in NZ are generally treated as little more ATMs or expendable.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 11th January 2009 @ 3:19 am
Skeptik writes …
“Men in NZ are generally treated as little more ATMs or expendable.”
This is not only true in NZ but in all western democracies because the object of “child support” is parental pecuniary. This system is an ATTACK on working class fathers and to maintain a divided working class. This is why women are ENCOURAGE by “feminist” to divorce their husbands. The goal is to disrupt families so that the STATE can use punitive and atomizing measures to control the working class. The STATE avoid real child support measures like FREE health care, education, transport, recreation facilities, etc that creates a healthy and freer society. The STATE works primarily for the wealthy since they are really the only class that can AFFORD divorce. The working classes are left blaming each other. Feminism is really a UPPER CLASS oriented movement that convinced working class women to behave in the same narcissistic manner and the STATE was willing to oblige because then they could use their power to disrupt families and to control working class men.
The problem with many “mens” groups is that they want to REFORM the system rather than OVERTHROW the system. That means DEMANDING a system that scares the shit out of the system — a more communal based system that demand greater PUBLIC and COMMUNITY services like health care, housing, education, etc. A system that supports EVERYONE. If more mens groups would do that then you’ll EXPOSE the “child support” system for what it really is — a REGRESSIVE system design to impose the STATE’s power of punishment and penalties as a means of social control.
Comment by DismantleChildSupport — Mon 19th January 2009 @ 9:14 am
I am a woman and would whole heartedly like to add my two penneth worth on the topice. I have no children but my partner does. After looking after his ex’s two step children and his own child with no support from her ex-partner he is still paying child support for the youngest. With my agreement we decided that I would be the breadwinner and he the house husband (we have a 30 acre life sentence block that takes up more than 100% of his time). Now he is being targetted by IRD because he is a bloke with no income – how sexist is that!! and we nearly didn’t get our mortgage through because the bank was suspicious that he had no income. So now the feminists in power are being sexist and even insulting to me that they don’t regard me as the breadwinner. What a weird world. The whole child support thing is a saga as I am the one who actually pays it (based on his 0 income not mine) but I’m not allowed to discuss it with the department. We have heaps of friends who long after their children turn 19 are still paying penalties – mostly those who are self-employed – the system is stuffed, does not benefit the children, fills the govt coffers and creates more animosity in families.
Comment by Amanda — Mon 26th January 2009 @ 3:21 pm