Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tep1208/BNStor
y/National/

Saskatchewan father loses child-support case
Thursday, December 8, 2005 Posted at 8:55 PM EST

Canadian Press



Regina - A Saskatchewan man must continue paying child support for his
stepdaughter even though his ex-wife married the child's biological father,
a court has ruled.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal judgment handed down in November struck
down a lower court ruling that said the man was no longer obliged to pay.

The appeal court ordered the man to pay half of what he was originally
paying in monthly child support plus $12,144 in arrears.

He must also maintain his parental relationship with the girl.

The couple, whose name is not being published to protect their privacy,
married in May 1998 after living together for about 3½ years. They separated
two months later.
The woman, who had a daughter in June 1995 from a previous relationship,
gave birth to his child on Oct. 13, 1996.

The man petitioned for divorce in November 1998 and claimed access to the
children.

When his ex-wife and the girl's biological father reconciled and married in
September 2000, he sought permission from the courts to discontinue making
support payments for his stepdaughter and to sever his relationship with
her.

In a November 2004 decision Queen's Bench Justice Robert Laing ruled in
favour of the man.

The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tep1208/BNStor
y/National/

Saskatchewan father loses child-support case
Thursday, December 8, 2005 Posted at 8:55 PM EST

Canadian Press



Regina - A Saskatchewan man must continue paying child support for his
stepdaughter even though his ex-wife married the child's biological
father,
a court has ruled.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal judgment handed down in November struck
down a lower court ruling that said the man was no longer obliged to pay.

The appeal court ordered the man to pay half of what he was originally
paying in monthly child support plus $12,144 in arrears.

He must also maintain his parental relationship with the girl.

The couple, whose name is not being published to protect their privacy,
married in May 1998 after living together for about 3½ years. They
separated
two months later.
The woman, who had a daughter in June 1995 from a previous relationship,
gave birth to his child on Oct. 13, 1996.

The man petitioned for divorce in November 1998 and claimed access to the
children.

When his ex-wife and the girl's biological father reconciled and married
in
September 2000, he sought permission from the courts to discontinue making
support payments for his stepdaughter and to sever his relationship with
her.

In a November 2004 decision Queen's Bench Justice Robert Laing ruled in
favour of the man.

The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.

I can hardly express in words the UTTER INSANITY of the appeal court AND the
girls' mother - but then again I made the MISTAKE of looking at this from an
ethical viewpoint!

Phil




--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.

"Philip Lewis" wrote in

The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.

I can hardly express in words the UTTER INSANITY of the appeal court AND
the girls' mother - but then again I made the MISTAKE of looking at this
from an ethical viewpoint!

Yes, all too often the concept of logic and common sense can escape the best
of judges when lawyers play & twist the truth to manipulate

I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?

Is it not possible the judge is incompetent and should be cleared from the
bench by his peers?

The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.

I can hardly express in words the UTTER INSANITY of the appeal court AND
the girls' mother - but then again I made the MISTAKE of looking at this
from an ethical viewpoint!

Yes, all too often the concept of logic and common sense can escape the best
of judges when lawyers play & twist the truth to manipulate

I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?

Is it not possible the judge is incompetent and should be cleared from the
bench by his peers?

The judge IS incompetent, no doubt about it, he should be cleared from the
bench in any legal way possible. They do stupid things in the U.S., it seems
Canada is able to top it.

Joe St. Lucas wrote:
The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.


I can hardly express in words the UTTER INSANITY of the appeal court AND
the girls' mother - but then again I made the MISTAKE of looking at this
from an ethical viewpoint!

Yes, all too often the concept of logic and common sense can escape the best
of judges when lawyers play & twist the truth to manipulate

I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?

Is it not possible the judge is incompetent and should be cleared from the
bench by his peers?


The judge IS incompetent, no doubt about it, he should be cleared from the
bench in any legal way possible. They do stupid things in the U.S., it seems
Canada is able to top it.

Did the man in question adopt the child? Did the biodad relinquish his
rights as a parent?

If this is the case, the judge was just following the law. It's stupid,
yes, but there you go. Something one of our recent posters here should
think about.

- Ron ^*^

jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas) wrote in
message news:FREmf.660$Ru.295@fed1read05...
The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.

I can hardly express in words the UTTER INSANITY of the appeal court AND
the girls' mother - but then again I made the MISTAKE of looking at this
from an ethical viewpoint!

Yes, all too often the concept of logic and common sense can escape the
best
of judges when lawyers play & twist the truth to manipulate

I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?

Is it not possible the judge is incompetent and should be cleared from the
bench by his peers?

The judge IS incompetent, no doubt about it, he should be cleared from the
bench in any legal way possible. They do stupid things in the U.S., it
seems
Canada is able to top it.

Oh, I dunno. My brother in law married a woman, not knowing she was already
pregnant. He raised the child until she was 4. Then the mom left him,
taking the child with her. She got CS, of course, and cut off any
visitation because he was "violent." Didn't have to prove it--just say it.
She was also awarded alimony until she married again. She told the girl
that her "dad" didn't love her (the child)--that's why he threw them out.
Sweet mama then moved in with the child's bio dad--keeping both alimony and
CS. Everyone knew it--the courts knew it--but he still had to pay. She
would taunt him about it, and tell him that "his" daughter hated him--and
nobody would do anything to fix the situation. Sick, huh?

"DB" wrote in message
news

"Philip Lewis" wrote in

The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.

I can hardly express in words the UTTER INSANITY of the appeal court AND
the girls' mother - but then again I made the MISTAKE of looking at this
from an ethical viewpoint!

Yes, all too often the concept of logic and common sense can escape the
best of judges when lawyers play & twist the truth to manipulate

I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?

Is it not possible the judge is incompetent and should be cleared from the
bench by his peers?
You could be right but I suspect something much more serious and sinister.
For example WHOM made the mother feel confident enough to intiate the
challenge via the appeal court in the first place - somehow I doubt she
would have initiated this action were it not for 'knowing' advice that she
had a good chance of success - personally I suspect that feminist activism
within the legal system is increasingly corrupting law and the very
principles of justice.

Phil

Hi hope he counter-appeals to the Surpeme Court of Canada! This is a
mockery of justice. Let the biological father support the child -
after all, he IS domiciled with the child and the mother now!

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:46:47 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tep1208/BNStor
y/National/

Saskatchewan father loses child-support case
Thursday, December 8, 2005 Posted at 8:55 PM EST

Canadian Press



Regina - A Saskatchewan man must continue paying child support for his
stepdaughter even though his ex-wife married the child's biological father,
a court has ruled.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal judgment handed down in November struck
down a lower court ruling that said the man was no longer obliged to pay.

The appeal court ordered the man to pay half of what he was originally
paying in monthly child support plus $12,144 in arrears.

He must also maintain his parental relationship with the girl.

The couple, whose name is not being published to protect their privacy,
married in May 1998 after living together for about 3½ years. They separated
two months later.
The woman, who had a daughter in June 1995 from a previous relationship,
gave birth to his child on Oct. 13, 1996.

The man petitioned for divorce in November 1998 and claimed access to the
children.

When his ex-wife and the girl's biological father reconciled and married in
September 2000, he sought permission from the courts to discontinue making
support payments for his stepdaughter and to sever his relationship with
her.

In a November 2004 decision Queen's Bench Justice Robert Laing ruled in
favour of the man.

The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.

I have a feeling that the law was followed to the letter on this one.

That being said, it's a stupid outcome, and like most cases of stupid
outcomes being the result of following the law to the letter, this isn't
going to get fixed until it personally affects someone in a position of
political power.

And even then, it'll be a "wink and sweep it under the carpet job" if at
all possible, so as not to actually have to CHANGE anything.

- Ron ^*^


NewMan wrote:
Hi hope he counter-appeals to the Surpeme Court of Canada! This is a
mockery of justice. Let the biological father support the child -
after all, he IS domiciled with the child and the mother now!

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:46:47 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tep1208/BNStor
y/National/

Saskatchewan father loses child-support case
Thursday, December 8, 2005 Posted at 8:55 PM EST

Canadian Press



Regina - A Saskatchewan man must continue paying child support for his
stepdaughter even though his ex-wife married the child's biological father,
a court has ruled.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal judgment handed down in November struck
down a lower court ruling that said the man was no longer obliged to pay.

The appeal court ordered the man to pay half of what he was originally
paying in monthly child support plus $12,144 in arrears.

He must also maintain his parental relationship with the girl.

The couple, whose name is not being published to protect their privacy,
married in May 1998 after living together for about 3½ years. They separated
two months later.
The woman, who had a daughter in June 1995 from a previous relationship,
gave birth to his child on Oct. 13, 1996.

The man petitioned for divorce in November 1998 and claimed access to the
children.

When his ex-wife and the girl's biological father reconciled and married in
September 2000, he sought permission from the courts to discontinue making
support payments for his stepdaughter and to sever his relationship with
her.

In a November 2004 decision Queen's Bench Justice Robert Laing ruled in
favour of the man.

The girls' mother then appealed that ruling.

"DB" wrote in message
news
(snip)

DB wrote:
I wonder what possible argument could justify and force a man to pay for
another man's child?

If a man acts in a fatherly capacity and is living with a child not his own
for any length of time, he can indeed be held up for child support. A BC
court ruled similar in a situation involving an acquaintance of mine. The
divorced bio-father was making child-support payments while this
acquaintance was married to this woman. And after these two divorced, he
was also ordered to pay. The mother ended up collecting from two men for
that one child.

If a woman plays her cards right, and has successive marriages, there may
indeed be instances where she can collect from any and all men who acted as
a father along with that bio-father. Biology does not necessarily determine
father responsibility. The *relationship with the child* is also
considered.

Heidi