My comments on Mr. Gunter's column follow. The case he discusses is one of the more egregious and discriminatory in family law.
Lorne:
..."he's trying to disavow this earlier emotional commitment." Your column is well stated but this conclusion is a fallacious non-logical presumption. It is the one many not familiar with the emotional heartbreak a person suffers at the hands of lying, cheating spouses in family law may come to but it has no merit.
I would argue clearly that the dad loves his children as much as always. I would suggest he has clearly been stabbed in the heart by 1:) his lying cheating wife and 2:) the Gender Feminist rule of law in much of Canada and the U.S.A.
Put yourself in his shoes. He doesn't pay child support to his children. He pays it to his lying cheating ex. That they are divorced is testament to some degree of animosity. To find also he is not their biodad is egregious emotional heartbreak. What would anyone do?
The judge had clear other choices and is typical of the laziness and lack of courage by these administrators of law and the Divorce Industry members. This judge is an obvious Gender feminist sympathizer. Why didn't she award shared and equal custody with no child support by either party? The dad would then have a direct input to their support without having to pay a lying cheating spouse. All the judge has done is maintain the status quo for gender feminist entitlements encouraging other lying cheating females to do the same thing. She is not accountable for these tax free payments. The dad pays the taxes. It is part of the Marxist philosophy that contributes to and encourages family destruction.
We need to have a presumption in law of shared and equal parenting. This will reduce divorce rates, as some of the female entitlements will not be present, reduce the backlog in our courtrooms as a concomitant outcome, help children by keeping both parents in their lives equally, reduce social problems of children that are on the increase because of the current injustices in family law and this is truly in the best interest of children.
Australia has this and they allow dads to sue the lying cheating ex's for paternity fraud. When will Canada and Ontario wake up to the problem? When the law creates recourse for fraud perhaps the fraud will be reduced? Currently there are no consequences for the mother(s) perpetrating the fraud.
It is only in family law that allows someone to gain from their criminal activity. Paternity fraud is still fraud and fraud is a crime in all areas other than the system of law that allows dads to be indentured for life for being male. It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sex, except in family law. As long as you are male anything goes.
The National Post
Lorne Gunter: Family court to men - 'Just shut up and pay'
Posted: January 12, 2009, 1:00 PM by Kelly McParland
Lorne Gunter, Full Comment
There is perhaps no area of law in which logic is so distorted as family law. Men are seen as only two things: deadbeats or moneybags.
Consider the case of Pasqualino Cornelio.
Mr. Cornelio is a Toronto man who was ordered before Christmas to continue paying child support to his ex-wife, even after it was proven the couple's twin girls were fathered by another man with whom the former Mrs. Cornelio had had an extramarital affair while the couple was still together.
Madame Justice Katherine van Rensburg of the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Mrs. Cornelio had wronged her ex-husband by lying about the paternity of the twins she had borne 16 years ago. But, "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."
Justice van Rensburg explained that in 1999 the Supreme Court decided family law cases should be decided in the best interests of the children. "The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent's own conduct."
Apparently, even when the "father" isn't really the father his conduct doesn't matter. All that matters is a man has been found who can write cheques so a woman is spared the financial hardship of living with the consequences of her actions or the irritation of trying to find the real father and make him pay.
Conveniently, the former Mrs. Cornelio claims she doesn't remember having an affair because of some medication she was taking at the time.
As with almost all family law cases, the Cornelios' is not entirely cut and dry. Mr. Cornelio did apply for joint custody of the twins in 2002, even though he had had suspicions about their parentage for years. He wanted to be their father then, but now that he wants to be done with his financial obligation to their mother, he's trying to disavow this earlier emotional commitment.
Still, all along he has had little choice about his obligations to the twins — obligations that, initially, at least, were based on a falsehood. And now a court is telling him he has no choice at all, even though the initial lie has been exposed.
Some in agreement with Justice van Rensburg's decision have said Mr. Cornelio should not complain. Biology is not as essential to family formation as it once was. Surrogacy and adoption have led to all sort of non-traditional family arrangements. In 2006, an Ontario lesbian was even permitted to list her partner as the other parent on her child's birth certificate, even though the other women could not possibly have been the other biological parent.
All of which is true, but entirely besides the point. In each of those other non-traditional arrangements, all the partners had a choice to accept family obligations, or not.
Mr. Cornelio is being press-ganged by a judge into funding his arrangement. Imagine the hew and cry if he had fathered children out of wedlock and the courts were now forcing his ex-wife to pay support to the mother of those children.
Harold Niman, an expert in family law at the Toronto law firm Niman Zemans Gelgoot, told the National Post on Friday, "Should [Mrs. Cornelio] be accountable? Not in the sense of losing child support, because child support is for the benefit of the children."
The fact that support is a desirable benefit for children does not entitle them to receive it from just any man. Their mother has an obligation to seek it, first and foremost, from the man with whom she conceived them. They, together, were the ones who brought the girls into the world, and they, together, are the ones obligated to underwrite their stay here.
Mr. Cornelio has discharged his humanitarian obligations to the girls and his former spouse by paying for the twins' upbringing, even though he was not their real father, while he and his ex were together — and for 10 years since.
I would argue that on a personal level Mr. Cornelio still needs to provide the twins emotional and financial support for as long as he desires a familial connection with them.
But personal obligations are voluntary. They should not be enforceable at law. And in Mr. Cornelio's case, he should be free to stop maintaining another man's children whenever he chooses, even if that makes him a heel.
National Post
lgunter@shaw.ca
National Post
31 Comments
by Tossed Salad
Jan 12 2009
1:28 PM
Bravo. It is a miracle that the MSM has allowed this editorial to be posted. The word is just starting to spread about the blatant misandry perpetrated by society including gender pandering judges both male and female. The femminist movement of the nineteenth century (suffragettes) grew to the growing liberation of the sixties. What has started as a trickle is going to grow into a tidal wave in the years to come. Those of you who have belittled, scorned, and in this case extorted are going to be made to pay for your crimes.
by nicky1
Jan 12 2009
1:42 PM
There is an American TV show-The Maury Show- where they quite frequently help "abandoned" women find out who fathered their children, through free DNA testings. Once they prove who the real father is, he usually rises to the challenge of becoming involved in his children's lives, financially and often emotionally, too.
by sendergreen
Jan 12 2009
1:46 PM
The Family Courts assertion that they operate in the best interests of children is dishonest. Their first loyalty is to the adult woman involved. What the Court is really afraid of is the studies that suggest that 20 to 30 percent of children are not biologically fathered by the husband, main partner, father of record however you want to put it. The mount of fathership fraud is staggering. And, the Courts want to help the woman avoid the work and embarrassment involved in chasing down biodad candidates when a easy target is available. PS I'm a dad with full custody not a bitter payor.
by Fred_001
Jan 12 2009
2:05 PM
And what of the man who did father the children? Does he even know he has children? Or has she lied to him by omission also, keeping secret from the children's true father that he has babies on this earth? Under today's family law, women can do anything with complete impunity.
by canadian infidel
Jan 12 2009
2:08 PM
In Ontario, men are the equivalent of a "Cash for Life" lottery ticket. If a women can find a guy to get her pregnant (regardless of whether he wants to be a parent) she gets the equivalent of cash for life.
If however, she decides to terminate her pregnancy, the father has no choice or rights what so ever.
by rossbcan
Jan 12 2009
2:16 PM
"The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent's own conduct."
Been there done that. It is a sick game of organized child abuse and pass the parasite by our very corrupt legal system and their co-conspirators, the psychiatric "profession". They claim it is "necessary" due to flawed human nature.
The law (instrument of collective social accountability) says:
The only consideration is children's best interests.
Parental behaviour is irrelevant "unless it negatively affects the children" Judges ignore the part in quotes.
In the matter of custody, the parent with the best ABILITY to care for children trumps.
Child support shall be based on the REAL costs of raising children. The law maximizes conflict (and legal fees) by making divorce a survival threatening prospect for both spouses. The "winner" is on easy street, the "loser" is a slave. It is "neccessary" that we be treated unequally (in terms of rights and responsibility) by law.
I have fought these criminals to a stalemate and secured my children's survival by:
Quitting my career as an engineer, drying up my income (the root cause of the conflict) which convinced my ex to compromise joint custody (her interest in children was proportional to child support, zero support equals zero interest). Her poor, irresponsible parental behavior convinced our children to live full time with me. They no longer wish to see their mother and have not for many years. Both children are now happy, successful, university educated and doing fine.
This entire area of law is part of a "divide and conquer" strategy of rule. The children with the "custodial" parent are socialized to the entitlement philosophy of life and the "support payer" (most responsible parent) is marginalized and the importance of the "work ethic" and personal responsibility is removed from children's lives. The legal profession is nurturing future conflict and legal fees by creating irresponsible, entitled children who can only cause future social problems.
In this matter, our idiotic "social engineers" made the fatal mistake of going head to head with a real engineer. Judicial rulings say my ex "won", and I am a deadbeat, but they are just meaningless squiggles on paper, devoid of any reality or basis in fact or law.
I have fought these tyrants to a stalemate and, for years, have been unsuccessfully attempting to provoke them to deal with what they falsely claim is my scofflaw, criminal behavior so I can deal the final, killing blow to their ability to remain criminals in this matter. Thus far, they have not bitten.
So, those of you who are experiencing this insane, illegally contrived, artificially created trap may want to learn how to fight effectively. If you are fainthearted, forget it, just roll over, accept economic slavery and the fact that you will not be able to participate in teaching your children the values necessary for them to survive in our society.
www.divorcefraud.org/.../21
Post: I accept any and all liability for my behavior and all consequences. If you delete this post, I will assume that you do not want to be involved in this matter and will respect this choice.
by noelt
Jan 12 2009
2:17 PM
The courts have been biased for so long it is the norm. Father's are to be treated like criminals and women should get everything they ask for so they don't depend on the welfare system and the rest of the handouts in place.
The entire family court system needs to be reworked but don't expect that any time soon. The greedy lawyers will need ton's of paperwork and billable hours to even come up with an action plan on how to do it.
If you dig a little deeper Lorn, it will be easy to uncover the unjustices done to father's on a regular basis.
by Treb001
Jan 12 2009
2:21 PM
The real problem is bias judges-most notably female judges. Thats what you get when you have appointed judges not accountable to anyone. Change the system to elected judges and perhalps our justice system would not be so morally corrupted.
by jimshort19
Jan 12 2009
2:27 PM
L.G., "Still, all along he has had little choice about his obligations to the twins — obligations that, initially, at least, were based on a falsehood."
This is a little twisted and you know it. The obligations once had a love basis first and foremost.
This case is inarguably materially twisted in favour of the children. The parent who has custody will derive material benefit also when support payments are large enough. In this case, as happens to be most common custody arrangement, it is the man who pays. But you didn't mention the material aspect of this case. How much money is being paid? Is this woman really getting the free ride that you'd have us believe?
by Fred_001
Jan 12 2009
2:28 PM
Further on the thought of the true father: the children's interests.
If a dad paying child support fails to provide the cash that's in the childrens' best interests, he's held accountable for all missed past payments. He can have his wages garnished up to 50% of his pay, his driver's license suspended, I believe even his passport revoked, until he makes good on all missed past support.
So what of the children's best interests vis-à-vis contact with their father? Their real father. This mother, by keeping their true parentage a secret from them, has actively denied these children a decade of knowledge of their real father. Surely knowing one's true father is in the childrens' best interests? What draconian measures will be taken against the mother for this most egregious denial of the children's rights?
None. Nada. Nothing will be done about it. (a) because women can do anything they please; (b) because that father-child link is absolutely unimportant to the family law system. Oh, they pay lip service to it, but only when it suits the moms and it creates a responsibility to pay.
by Human Rights Commissar
Jan 12 2009
2:33 PM
Your completely missing the point.
Governments and Public Institutions in Canada have for over a generation now encouraged young people to "not" get married and if possible, "not" produce healthy, well adjusted off spring.
Our governments and family courts talk a good "Ministry of Truth" kind of game when it comes to Canada's future well being, but in reality, these institutions are at the core of our long term destruction as a prosperous and generous society.
All countries eventually fail. We are no exception. "Who By Their Own Hand..."
This case and so many others, ranging from trumped up "sexual harassment" lawsuits to blatant "Employment Equity" hiring quotas, have convinced millions of young Canadians that the worst possible thing they can do with their lives is contribute to the well being of society.
Why work hard at school when 50% of the economy is run by the Public Service and you are specifically banned from applying for their jobs because of your too white skin, or, if you happen to be an "of colour" male (how insulting is that government label!), your too deep English voice?
Why volunteer at Sunday school when you risk a false accusation of pedophilia? Why give up a seat on a bus for a pregnant woman when you risk consternation for being a "male chauvinist pig"?
Why not just act more like an S.O.B.
That's the only role left for modern young Canadian men, and I strongly encourage them to take it every time I talk to them.
Don't do what my generation, raised in the 1970s and 1980s, has done. Don't go gently into this darkened Star Chamber future. Strip off the chains of responsibility.
Don't marry that girl who seems so nice, (she won't be after 20 years of government propaganda telling her you are evil incarnate).
Don't try to help people, don't try to stop the purse snatcher, don't volunteer at the soup kitchen, and most of all, don't even think about having kids, unless you plan to knock up some married woman.
Whatever you do, don't volunteer to fight and die for this country. No one wants you here anyway. Instead, have the courage to live free of all this country, whose institutional core hates you anyway.
by QUARK1912
Jan 12 2009
2:40 PM
All you "fathers" out there, listen up. As any doctor practicing family medicine will tell you that just from testing blood types one in five children have been sired by a man other than the husband of their mother. Wider use of DNA testing will likely show a much higher percentage so get the test and a good divorce lawyer to do the rest before it is too late.
by Childhood's End
Jan 12 2009
2:41 PM
Kudos for the great column. I heard about this tragic decision on the radio last week. Didnt expect to see it criticized any further.
The feminists and constructivists of nowadays' establishment are slowly destroying society and are just too stupid to realize what they are doing on a long term trend. What this kind of decision tells men is dont get involved in a family. Find another way to enjoy life, or face the risk of working your entire life for other people than yourself (this is the definition of a slave).
by Mambo Bananapatch
Jan 12 2009
2:46 PM
This is a horrible case, but I think the right decision was made.
Either the "father" was going to be screwed, or the children. There's no decision the judge could have made that would have been fair to both parties.
She decided, correctly IMHO, that the rights of the children trumped those of the "father". (I don't mean those as sneer quotes, by the way.)
I can't imagine what those poor kids are feeling right now. An embittered father/not father and a lying sleazebag for a mother. Gee, thanks, mom.
I hope fervently that the disgusting woman who is to blame for all this gets really gross, violent, chronic hemorrhoids.
by Stew88
Jan 12 2009
2:49 PM
Ontario family law has been predicated o Odium Paternus -- Hatred of fathers. It is truly disgusting, and has the unbridled support of sociopaths and psychopaths who use these laws to extort, coerce and steal funds from fathers and good natured people. They hide behind statements like "in the best interests of the child" all the while devaluing fathers in the eyes of children. Ontario law, and its practitioner are vile and unholy beasts steeped in cruelty to children. I find Ontario the most troubling and soulfully degrading provinces in Canada as the family law and social network is truly debased arrogant and hateful of fathers but pretends to act in the best interests of children. I don't even like to drive through Ontario knowing how sick it is.
by General de Goal
Jan 12 2009
3:23 PM
The twins' mother doesn't remember conceiving them because she was under medication. Medication? Does beer qualify? Gender equality? Not in this century.
by Tossed Salad
Jan 12 2009
3:28 PM
Stew88:
You can thank Rae's Socialists for that and the also misandric Ontario version of affirmative action implemented during that hate groups tender.
by alancoman
Jan 12 2009
3:38 PM
This is exactly how the population of the country will shrink into oblivion. Do you really think that men are that stupid? What feminists don't understand is that men cooperate and share information. This information is already considered by males. Better be a player for life then settle down with some woman that might take away all you make.
I don't think women are evil; I think they reach to external stimuli and incentives. How many people would look the other way if they found a 1 million dollar suitcase and knew that the owner would not be able to identify the taker? Very few if any.
I think the laws in Canada are disappointing. Bastiat was right. People learned not to care about the law because the law is crooked. Coming from other country, I tell you, I don't see a bright future for this country. Parasites and government workers live well at the expense of others. Those who provide are cash cows and the rest just takes advantage and don't suffer (actually usually benefit) the consequences of stupid decisions. From this perspective I wonder how stupid men must be for voting for stupid parties that want to redistribute wealth (lils, dippers). These socialists will destroy this country.
I also want to congratulate rossbcan, good work. I always thought that women want the custody because they can use the money on themselves. From this perspective, the children are some kind of object of blackmail.
We live in a disgusting country. Our money as taxpayers is used against us. Shame!
by Denis P
Jan 12 2009
3:48 PM
The Canadian Case Law on this issue is even more disturbing. A step-father can be on the hook for child support for children that he knows are not his after just a few years of cohabitation.
Imagine thinking that you are doing such a good think by helping out a charity, only to realize that the charity is taking you to court because they became dependant on your regular payments.
by Boggie50
Jan 12 2009
3:48 PM
Do our Judges really think these cases through carefully or do they always believe side with the woman's side of the argument's for convenience. "Child support is for the benefit of the children." Is it really, or is it to make the woman's life easier. The supporting ex-husband has no say as to how that money is ever used. I know from personal experience that all the money never goes to the children. The Mother uses those funds as if it was Spousal Support to fund her personal needs.
In this case, if I was the supporting father I probably would be very upset that children were not mine but I don't believe that any decent man would not stop loving those children, and would do what is right for them. However, my question is this how do we get the legal system to recognize that the support does not always go to the children in many cases. Why can this not be changed so the that the parent providing the Child support has a say and can control where those spending's go. How can this be controlled?
by rossbcan
Jan 12 2009
3:49 PM
This is not gender discrimination. When the roles are reversed, prosperous female, deadbeat male, it is the male who has the custodial bias advantage.
The points are:
Pass the parasite, relieve burden from social entitlements.
Rule against the prosperous, to maximize conflict and legal fees until all parties except lawyers impoverished. If you financially recover, the law says your ex (trigger her envy) can legally re-open matters every six months. So, if you try to work, contribute to civilization, it is pointless. You will be "equalized" and contribute to some lawyer toasting your demise with the finest wines.
Once parties impoverished, legal profession and courts have ZERO further interest in matter.
Another thing males should be aware of: If your ex is on legal aid, it is an eligibility requirement that she allege you are abusive. No allegations, no legal aid.
If any shred of honesty remains in the system, Stats Canada could easily confirm this.
by Psyco_Bob
Jan 12 2009
3:52 PM
Given that only a pathologically stupid man would get married under the current laws, it's probably a good thing that so many children are secretly bastards. Otherwise only morons would be breeding, which can't be good for the human race.
It's amazing how everything government touches turns putrid and dies.
by AKTor
Jan 12 2009
3:52 PM
"Imagine the hew and cry if he had fathered children out of wedlock and the courts were now forcing his ex-wife to pay support to the mother of those children."
Two points:
First, your hypothetical scenario is off-kilter. The correct parallel situation would be if a man fathered children out of wedlock and the courts were now forcing his ex-wife to pay support to HIM (and not the unknown biological mother(s)) for those children.
Second, if the ex-wife had been playing the de facto role of 'mother' – financial, emotion, etc. – to these hypothetical children for the past 16 years, I would suspect that there'd be little public hew and cry (least of all from you, Lorne).
by dougEEE
Jan 12 2009
3:56 PM
This is a very sad example of why we have a legal system not a justice system in Canada. I've had two encounters with our legal systems and it left me thoroughly disgusted.
Men are treated like second class citizens as a legacy of years of Socialist political correctness - don't expect that to change anytime soon.
by LynnH
Jan 12 2009
4:03 PM
The courts need to be fair. Once the kids turn 18, the ex-husband should be allowed to sue his ex-wife for fraud. Then she should be required to pay him the equivalent of what he paid in child support. I'm betting her memory improves once she experiences negative financial consequences.
by Sassylassie
Jan 12 2009
4:05 PM
Human Rights Commis, thanks for the chuckle. Were you being sarcastic or just bitter, bitter is okay by the way.
I've seen this self same scenerio played out numerous times when I was a Military Wife, the ole bait and switch is what it's called. In one case the male had to pay child support for a child he knew he didn't sire and she lived with her biological father who got the child support.
I feel for men, the leftarded socialists' tinkers use you for experiments and today we see the results of their twisted logic being given the power to destroy everything decent. Hundreds of thousands of children will grow up not knowing who their father's are because their mothers only had them to get cradle to grave welfare. The message- men are desposable. Women in the work force parade around half naked but if a guy looks sideways at them it's harassment. Message bow before your feminists master and cower. How do you change an entire system built on flawed logic, you can't.
Good luck, god bless lads.
by weird world
Jan 12 2009
4:14 PM
So for 16 years this man thought these girls were his and supposedly loved them and now that he know he is not the father, he no longer loves or want to support them and takes out his anger at the mother on the girls. Great Father he would have made, the girls should be thankful he wasn't their real father. These poor girls were short changed on both counts.
by Fred Z
Jan 12 2009
4:38 PM
I am unable to accept that 'the best interests of the children' include living off the proceeds of fraud. Better they should live on welfare.
We have this strange theory today that the only interests worth looking at are material interests. Truth, justice, fairness, honesty: immaterial, not to be considered when looking at the best interests of anyone, much less children.
by MikeMurphy
Jan 12 2009
4:42 PM
Lorne:
..."he's trying to disavow this earlier emotional commitment." Your column is well stated but this conclusion is a fallacious non-logical presumption. It is the one many not familiar with the emotional heartbreak a person suffers at the hands of lying, cheating spouses in family law may come to but it has no merit.
I would argue clearly that the dad loves his children as much as always. I would suggest he has clearly been stabbed in the heart by 1:) his lying cheating wife and 2:) the Gender Feminist rule of law in much of Canada and the U.S.A.
Put yourself in his shoes. He doesn't pay child support to his children. He pays it to his lying cheating ex. That they are divorced is testament to some degree of animosity. To find also he is not their biodad is egregious emotional heartbreak. What would anyone do?
The judge had clear other choices and is typical of the laziness and lack of courage by these administrators of law and the Divorce Industry members. This judge is an obvious Gender feminist sympathizer. Why didn't she award shared and equal custody with no child support by either party? The dad would then have a direct input to their support without having to pay a lying cheating spouse. All the judge has done is maintain the status quo for gender feminist entitlements encouraging other lying cheating females to do the same thing. She is not accountable for these tax free payments. The dad pays the taxes. It is part of the Marxist philosophy that contributes to and encourages family destruction.
We need to have a presumption in law of shared and equal parenting. This will reduce divorce rates, as some of the female entitlements will not be present, reduce the backlog in our courtrooms as a concomitant outcome, help children by keeping both parents in their lives equally, reduce social problems of children that are on the increase because of the current injustices in family law and this is truly in the best interest of children.
Australia has this and they allow dads to sue the lying cheating ex's for paternity fraud. When will Canada and Ontario wake up to the problem? When the law creates recourse for fraud perhaps the fraud will be reduced? Currently there are no consequences for the mother(s) perpetrating the fraud.
It is only in family law that allows someone to gain from their criminal activity. Paternity fraud is still fraud and fraud is a crime in all areas other than the system of law that allows dads to be indentured for life for being male. It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sex, except in family law. As long as you are male anything goes.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/12/lorne-gunter-family-court-to-men-just-shut-up-and-pay.aspx?
Posts
