Wednesday, March 15, 2017

"Woman loses bid for child support from ex-husband who was not father of her son"

Via Reddit:  A woman who concealed from her husband the fact that he was not the father of her son has lost her bid for child support from him.

The couple had been married for three years when the son, only identified by the initial D in a court ruling, was born in March 2009.

The husband, identified by the initials P.Z., took it for granted that he was the child’s natural father, but it turned out that the birth was apparently the result of a “dalliance” between his wife, identified as E.Z., and another man.

In the ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robin Baird said that it was not clear how or when the question of the child’s true parentage came up or what led the parties to agree to paternity testing.

But the paternity issue was laid conclusively to rest in June 2013, a year following the couple’s separation, when DNA lab results confirmed that the respondent in the case, the husband was not the dad.

“Not surprisingly, the respondent was crestfallen and felt upset and betrayed,” said the judge. “By this time, D was four years old.”

The couple were living in Ontario prior to the divorce but after the September 2014 divorce, the wife moved to B.C., apparently to start a new life with a local man she had met on the Internet.

Link for more

9 comments:

rhhardin said...

You've got male.

AllenS said...

I had a good friend (who died a couple of years ago) who was married and they had one son. Eventually, they divorced. Years later, the son had some kind of medical condition that required the family take a test for donor information. The doctor told my friend that he was not only not a compatible donor, but he wasn't the father.

ken in tx said...

This is a step in the right direction, however Canadian court cases have no effect on US courts. It is routine in US courts to award child support regardless of the child's true paternity. It's for the good of the child and the state which has possibly paid out welfare to the mother and wants some of it back.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It is deliciously ironic that the woman's alias is EZ. :-)

Good for the court. The fact that they divorced when the child was very small <4yrs and the man had no or minimal contact after that separation means that he has not acted as or been parent for many years.

It's for the good of the child

Possibly it might be good for the child to have some money extorted from the non-father. However, in many cases the money isn't spent on the child and is siphoned off by the mother to support HER lifestyle. She moved away to live with another man she met on line. That guy has as much responsibility to fork over money as does the divorced husband......none.

and the state which has possibly paid out welfare to the mother and wants some of it back.

Who cares about the State. They made a mistake in giving out money. Sorry taxpayers. You should be asking the state to reimburse YOU for this.

Lem said...

You are not the father, Maury Povich said.

Leland said...

I'm with DBQ. The notion a women is owed money from the State or Man A because she conceived a child with Man B is just ludicrous. Those are her actions made without the consent of either the State or Man A, and if either of those parties demanded their consent; we would hear all about how the woman has a right to her own body. Ok, she got the right to her body, as she deserves, and now welcome to the responsibility that comes with it.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm guessing that paternity by estoppel makes more sense in cultures where they stone women for adultery.

Trooper York said...

I guess this guy was a splooge stooge.

(Call back...was the phrase. It was all so long ago and far away.)

rcommal said...

I say, "Hooray." The woman in question ought go after the *actual, biological" father for the benefit of the support of the child. Lying is wrong, full stop, especially in the most key of fundamental things. LYING is WRONG, full stop, ESPECIALLY in the most key of fundamental things.

Now, if a non-biological father KNOWINGLY embarks upon raising a child as his own, what I would also say that he should not later be able to shirk his chosen, self-assumed duty if the relationship with the mother at some later point disintegrates. < THIS is an entirely different situation, and one in which the competing interests quite legitimately could, and ought, and even should be weighed differently.