'Dad' Ordered To Continue Paying Child Support After Finding Out Kids Aren't His

[24KT]

'Dad' Ordered To Continue Paying Child Support
...After Finding Out Kids Aren't His
Thursday January 8, 2009
CityNews.ca Staff



Not long after Pasqualino Cornelio got married, he was thrilled to learn his wife was pregnant with twins. The two babies were born healthy and have since grown into 16-year-old teenagers who have suddenly found themselves at the centre of a bizarre court case that's sparked controversy across Ontario.

It started back in 1998 when the marriage of their parents unraveled and the couple separated in a bitter break-up. Cornelio has been making child support payments ever since. But when his estranged wife recently demanded more money for their upkeep and cut back on his visitation time with them, an angry Cornelio decided to take drastic measures.

He got a DNA test and discovered to his surprise that the twins weren't really his. Instead, they were the result of an affair his wife had while they were together, one he never knew about.

Those test results led Cornelio to get a lawyer and try to put an end to the payments and get his money back, arguing that he wasn't the biological father and therefore shouldn't be paying the freight for someone else's children.

But an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled that, despite his wife's infidelity, he still has a duty to support the kids because he's the only father they've ever known.

In effect, Justice Katherine van Rensburg is siding not with the parents, but the children, who would be victimized by a stoppage in payments from the man they consider to be their dad.

Why can't the real father step up to the payment table? Cornelio's wife claims she has no memory of having any affair and has no idea who the actual dad might be. 

The case has now lead to a huge controversy across the province, with many wondering if a man should be forced to support someone else's offspring in the face of such deception.

What do you think of the decision and the man's attempt to stop payments?

==========================

Personally, I think I've been victimized by not getting the benefit of extravagant child support payments from the Hilton or Rockefeller families as I was growing up.

So what if I wasn't fathered by them. They should have been made to support my desired lifestyle. They can afford it. Thankfully, this judges decision has paved the way for me to collect the years of support payments I never got. 

[tonymctones]

again this is why ppl go postal honestly...if this happened to me i would go ape shit.

[tonymctones]

this has got to get overturned by appeal jag keep us updated if you can.

[Soul Crusher]

again this is why ppl go postal honestly...if this happened to me i would go ape shit.

This is why men should not get married. 

[tonymctones]

This is why men should not get married. 

ehhh some states have that law i forget what its called where if you live with a partner for a certain amount of time you are legally considered married.

[Soul Crusher]

ehhh some states have that law i forget what its called where if you live with a partner for a certain amount of time you are legally considered married.

Serious, everyone rags on guys for waiting to get married or not at all.

can anyone blame men anymore for not wanting to get married with stories like this?

[Hereford]

ehhh some states have that law i forget what its called where if you live with a partner for a certain amount of time you are legally considered married.

Yup.

In California I think it's 5 years of living together and you are considered common law married, and a woman can claim half of everything, even if the man can prove she brought nothing financially into the situation.

I had a boss once that was dating a woman who was, for all intents and purposes, a professional divorcer. She married and divorced three rich guys over 6 years, and was seriously living high class, and had never worked a day in her life...

In Cali, it is also known that the state looks to provide for the interest of the child... so even if DNA prooves the kid is not the guys, the state can still require him to pay. The idea is that it will keep the kid off welfare.

Good post Jag.

[tonymctones]

Yup.

In California I think it's 5 years of living together and you are considered common law married, and a woman can claim half of everything, even if the man can prove she brought nothing financially into the situation.

I had a boss once that was dating a woman who was, for all intents and purposes, a professional divorcer. She married and divorced three rich guys over 6 years, and was seriously living high class, and had never worked a day in her life...

In Cali, it is also known that the state looks to provide for the interest of the child... so even if DNA prooves the kid is not the guys, the state can still require him to pay. The idea is that it will keep the kid off welfare.

Good post Jag.

thats it common law marriage, same here in Texas .

They do this shit in cali too hereford? this is utterly fuking ridiculous

[Hereford]

Cali is known for being the most un-dude-friendly state in the country when it comes to divorce and family law.

[Cap]

Yup.

In California I think it's 5 years of living together and you are considered common law married, and a woman can claim half of everything, even if the man can prove she brought nothing financially into the situation.

I had a boss once that was dating a woman who was, for all intents and purposes, a professional divorcer. She married and divorced three rich guys over 6 years, and was seriously living high class, and had never worked a day in her life...

In Cali, it is also known that the state looks to provide for the interest of the child... so even if DNA prooves the kid is not the guys, the state can still require him to pay. The idea is that it will keep the kid off welfare.

Good post Jag.

Leave the country or have the woman whacked.  Hell, even leaving the state might work.  Just pick up and go.

[Soul Crusher]

Leave the country or have the woman whacked.  Hell, even leaving the state might work.  Just pick up and go.

I can imagine a jail cell is probably better than living in that hell.

[The Luke]

Believe it or not, this is a actually a remnant of Etruscan law that has come to us through the Romans.

Reading through Roman history you will occasionally happen upon a the first name (or "praenomen"): Posthumus.

"Posthumus" became titular for any aristocratic Roman who was born after the death of his father (a relatively common occurrence in a time when women suffered a constant state of pregnancy and husbands often traveled on military campaigns). A Roman citizen named Posthumus (from which we derive the English word "posthumous"), did not inherit the full extent of his late fathers estate on account of the fact that he had not been officially accepted by his father.


Traditionally, any baby born into a Roman household would immediately be placed at the feet of the father/husband... before the cord was cut... before the mother held the baby... before the baby dried (literally)...

The father would then have to pick up the baby off the floor in order for the baby to be officially accepted in any legal sense (inheritance; discipline; criminal liability etc).

If the baby was black... looked like the house slaveboy... had a deformity... or was just sickly... maybe even if it was simply the wrong gender... the father could simply refuse to accept the child. In fact a husband could refuse to accept the child as his own and then use the fact that his wife supposedly bore someone elses child as grounds for divorce.


The English legal system, derived from Christendom's law canon, derived from Roman law, and from which America's (and Western law in general) is in turn derived, similarly hinges upon this acceptance of the child by the father.

However, modern law takes this acceptance of children born to the wife during the course of the marriage as TACIT.

The father must immediately DISOWN the child (at least by age three) if he ever hopes to divest himself of financial responsibility for the child (which is difficult).

If the father does not openly and publicly repudiate his siring of the child, then it is taken as a matter of law that he has in effect tacitly accepted the child as his... if a man actually accepts a child as his, just once, then that (legally speaking) supersedes any future paternity findings, and can NEVER be retracted.


Technically speaking, if an English aristocrat (gay) hadn't managed to sire any heirs... his wife would simply boff the stable boy, many times such action would be at the husbands behest or bidding. But either way, once accepted, the little bastard is just as much to the manor born as his inbred blue-blooded peers (Peers?).

In fact his ill-begotten Earlship, even if his lineage is exposed, retains his birthright AND a claim on the measly estate of the stable boy.


Legally speaking, if your wife has a baby, it's yours... no matter what the DNA says.



The Luke

[Wiggs]

That girl would be dead
All the emotions, joy and pain and the kids aren't his...yep, dead.

[Cap]

This is why you have the genetic test done while the infant is in the hospital immediately after birth.  Women that get away with this crap disgust me.  I'll pay whatever it costs.

[Tre]

There's no common law marriage in California, but it's a very bad state for the payers of child support. 

[Parker]

There is a saying, "Feed them until they look like yours"

[Cap]

There's no common law marriage in California, but it's a very bad state for the payers of child support. 

I was under the impression there was.  As far as child support, just get it in your prenup that if any of the kids are not yours then you will not have to pay for them. 

What makes CA different from other states?