EPTAmusing Canadian Court Judgment - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
| ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On January 21 2011 18:21 vetinari wrote: Screw the children. They are not of his blood, he shouldn't have to pay a cent if he doesn't want to. If he wants to support children that he is fond of, he of course has the right to do so, just as I have the right to give donations to orphanages. But just as the orphanage doesn't have the right to pursue me for child support, neither should his wife nor the children of his wife have any right whatsoever to his money. Again, I refer you to the situation of adoption. By becoming the legal guardian of a child, whether or not they are yours, you are TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for them. No ifs, ands, or buts. The law, and society, values children and their well being over someone's inconvenience or obligation, and rightly so. On January 21 2011 18:21 vetinari wrote: Here, I'll give you an analogy: A woman with fertility trouble is having IVF treatment. Her husband is the doctor. She believes that the embryo that is implanted was made from her husbands sperm and her own egg. But in fact, the doctor (who is her husband), actually used an egg harvested from his mistress, because he decided that his mistress was better looking, and thus he could have fitter children. So he implants the embryo into his wife, she carries it to term, never realising that she is actually a surrogate. Years later, the doctor decides that his wife is no longer pretty enough. He divorces her, and lives in a de facto relationship with another woman. He gets custody of "their" daughter, and she is ordered to pay child support. OK. On January 21 2011 18:21 vetinari wrote:Even knowing that a large portion of the child support will actually be spent buying jewellery for his new lover, she opts to pay the money anyway, as she figures she has a duty to support her daughter. Doesn't matter. You have a direct responsibility toward the child, and you must try to help provide for them. On January 21 2011 18:21 vetinari wrote: One day, she finds his dairy and reads it. She finds out the daughter she so loved wasn't even hers. She sues him, but the courts dismiss her case and order her to pay increased child support. Would you call this just? Yes. These are the key concerns: Does the adult have a (reasonable) responsibility towards the child? Yes. Even if the child is not yours, you do. Why? - You have acted towards the child as a parent. Therefore, the child sees you as a parental figure, regardless of whether or not you are biologically related. - Since you have put yourself into this position, you are responsible for the child. The child depends on you, and you have fostered this dependency. You have created this responsibility by your own hand. - It doesn't matter that this was done fraudulently. You are not committing a crime - you do not need mens rea to be liable. However, for example, if you left after the child birth and then simply payed child support payments without acting as a parent for the child, and it was later determined that the child was not yours, you could probably get your child support payments back. You have not created a responsibility towards the child. Child support is ALL about the child. The judge, the law and society will always hold the welfare of a child, a person who cannot fend for themselves, above the petulance that is trying to abdicate parental bonds after you have formed them. I think this is the point you don't understand, judging by your first sentiment of "screw the children". The law absolutely takes the considerations of children into their views. | ||
| ||
