CBC News: Sunday - Segment Paternity Fraud TV Show

Subject matter: Paternity Fraud TV Show on National TV in Canada, Paternity fraud statistics in Canada, Statistics on how many Canadian born children don't have any father listed on their birth record, Newborn screening tests and mandatory DNA paternity testing position statement CanadianCRC

Paternity Fraud TV Show on National TV in Canada

This segment aired on Sunday, January 11, 2009 just before noon and was broadcast nationally.

This segment of CBC News: Sunday was on a paternity fraud case in which the husband was ordered to pay child support for 2 children which weren't his biological children.

The two guests on the show were Grant Wilson, president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council and Judith Huddart an expert family lawyer and past chair of the National Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.

Judith Huddart and Linda Silver Dranoff are the family lawyers at the family law firm Dranoff & Huddart in Toronto, Ontario.

On the CBC TV set for CBC News: Sunday, right after the debate are: Grant Wilson, president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, Carol MacNeil CBC TV co-host, Judith Huddart - expert family law lawyer and past chair of the National Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association, Evan Solomon CBC TV co-host of the CBC News: Sunday

The female CBC producer named this TV segment "The Meaning of Fatherhood"

The CBC producer's description:
The Ontario Superior Court's decision to order a man to continue paying child support - even though he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins -has renewed the debate over father's rights in Canada.

We talk to Judith Huddart, a Toronto lawyer specializing in family law, and Grant Wilson,  president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, whose organization opposes the judgment, about the implications of this week's decision.

Comments left on the CBC TV website on this segment after the show aired.

I continue to pay child support for a son that committed suicide three years ago as ordered by the court. After 13 times in the supreme court in BC and all the battles with the law society and government I have given up.

I am nothing more than a pay cheque to the mother and stepfather to my other son. It is pathetic that while the courts support parental alienation they also financially punish men that are not the fathers. My 13 year old son that was abused last month can now become a child of the BC Government, let me know where to send the money!

Posted by: roy sahm | Jan 10, 09 11:22 PM

An interesting debate. I feel for the father, but what I feel for the mother can't be printed. As I understand it, legally fathers don't have any rights in the legal system or the constitution that mothers and children do. That is totally wrong.

Posted by: BenZ | Jan 11, 09 10:44 AM

sure isn't a 2 way street when it come to support man & woman...& yes men get custody as well but we are not paid like women are paid (a lot less) men are not treated fairly doesn't matter what side of street they are on.

I also don't believe anyone should have to pay child support for a child that isn't their's.

Posted by: Tom Dixon | Jan 11, 09 10:46 AM

The decision to order the man to still pay child support is very unlawful. He should also be repaid for all the child support since the divorce. I am on the father's side of the issue. Good Luck to him Posted by: Sean | Jan 11, 09 10:47 AM

I am a woman and mother of an 8 month old son. It may sound strange but I have to agree with Grant Wilson on this debate. I cannot imagine the pain that father must have felt to find out those children were not his and if he wants to walk away he should. I'm sure it hurts the children and him but the woman caused that problem by not being honest when she found out she was pregnant and knew what she had done. This dishonest woman should not receive a penny. If she decided to identify the biological father, would he have to pay too? This man is not obligated to pay for those children anyRead More ..He may want to continue to have a relationship with those children but the biological father should have to be identified and financially support those children even though he may never play a "father" role in their life. I think this is a terrible precedent set by the courts.

Posted by: Jennifer LeBlanc | Jan 11, 09 10:50 AM

I think this is absolutely a matter of gross violation of basic human rights. The biological father of my daughter chose not to be a social father but absolutely should and did pay child support, however would I have liked to have a social father ahead of financial support, sure, but the fact is that my daughter knows who her father is and chooses herself whether or not she wants a relationship with him. It would have been far more emotionally advantageous to me if I "picked" a more decent human being, but the fact is I DID NOT.

Posted by: Tracy Stevenson | Jan 11, 09 10:50 AM

Why are we allowing members of the judicial system destroy our country. It is very simple, either you are the father or you are not the father!!! These people that turn very simple topics into complicated arguments just want to make more and more money of the common people of this nation.

One of your guest debated that it was not about the father it was about the child. If this kind of law is allowed to exist, than many children will suffer in the future. How? Why would any person let their guard down and help raise a child when you know that now you can be legally responsible in the future; no matter what lies you were told.

Let's face it, the legal system have already destroyed the concept of marriage. More ..d more children are growing up in single parent environments or 'bouncing' back and forth from one parent to another. I am an educator, so don't argue with me that the children are better off (I'm not some lawyer oblivious to the real world of children). By the way I am a single parent as well and I know all too well what kind of pain this type of situation causes.

Posted by: Aubrey Grandy | Jan 11, 09 10:50 AM

Just my 2 cents. If a guy goes out and cheats on his wife but in turn fathers a child with this woman, by law is it not his responsibility to pay support? Would it not be the same in reverse. If the woman goes out and gets impregnated by another guy why would it not be her responsibility and this other guy to support this child? why would it land on the current husband just because he did not know. It's not like you ask these questions on a daily basis to "your wife" As for the current show I really didn't like the decision of the courts. it would be like if you were convicted of murder but later proved it was someone else and the courts saying "well we already have you paying for this crime so you get to stay". It really infuriates me to know the courts that are there to protect us all really let the ball drop when it comes to fathers rights. I really don't think there is a fair balance to laws that help women as there is to help men in these types of situations. This ruling disgusts me.

Posted by: Andre Cormier | Jan 11, 09 10:51 AM

Should this non biological father pay child support in this case? The answer is no no no and a million other no(s). Grant rolled his eyes back a couple of times when Judith spoke; I too rolled my eyes back. Judith needs a reality pill about life and the mother needs to step up to her reasonability's for her actions of day gone by. Thank god for the common sense that Grant communicated.

Posted by: jeff | Jan 11, 09 10:52 AM

I would be surprised that a man who has played the role of a father for 10 years or more could simply turn their back on a child because they learned they were not biologically related. That being said, if a man has been deceived throughout a relationship and finds out a child is not his, the man in the relationship should behave control over their own life and decided whether to support a child or not. In the case the children are babies, the man hasn't played a significant developmental role in the sense of behavioural development. He should not be liable for the cost of raising them. With this decision made by the courts, why wouldn't a woman simply choose the whether they want when they know they are pregnant?

Posted by: Jarrod | Jan 11, 09 10:52 AM

Absolutely a ridiculous decision by the courts. If the mother deceived the father it should be the fathers decision about continuing child support. The biological father needs to come forward or found to take responsibility for his children. As a person who just found out after 17 years I have a son (DNA proven), it makes me wonder if the mother had her partner paying for him. The mother of those children needs to find the true father of her children. Jim

Posted by: Jim Halicki | Jan 11, 09 10:52 AM

I felt disgusted listening to this story. This man was lied to for all these years, the children were lied to as well. Then to have a court say he must continue to pay child support is outrageous. Mandatory DNA testing at birth should be instituted, as I have heard too many similar stories. I feel for this man and the children, just now finding out of this deception.

Posted by: Wayne Franklin | Jan 11, 09 10:57 AM

I learned something very important today, that the Canadian Children's Right's Council, has a misleading mandate. It is a father's rights group in guise of children's rights...as if they are one in the same. Grant Wilson's group is most concern about father's not having to pay support for those who are not their biological children. Lost in his argument is the importance of a father-child relationship regardless of biology. I am not suggesting that fathers who learn otherwise, should not be angry or even perhaps have some rights. What those rights should be I don't know, but I do know that having an excuse to stop financially and emotionally supporting those they have looked upon as their children and those children who look upon them as fathers, is just plain wrong. Imagine as a child learning, this man you thought is not your dad, he now longer wants to love you or support you. How is this children's right? Grant Wilson, you may have some valid arguments, but not for children's right. I think it is a disgrace that this organization is called what it is, it should instead be, Canadian Father's Rights Council. Let's be honest here, you are all about protecting your own rights. Don't insult and pretend this is about the protection of children. If this "Council" is trying to protect children's rights we have a bigger problem in Canada.

Posted by: Laura Lau | Jan 11, 09 11:00 AM

My god, their should be mandatory DNA testing at birth to prove that the alleged father, is the father he believes he is.

It has been proven, and shown (ex. on discovery channel) that many women will have two partners when they want to conceive. It is genetically built into our DNA , Darwinian Theory, that many women will have relations with physically more compatible partners and use more responsible men who are great earners to provide.

No man deserves the right to be deceived in such a way, and then suffer the emotional shattering of finding out that a child is not theirs in later years. Then have that man pay to keep raising that child because they were deceived. Who wrote this law? If I were the father of the guest woman on the panel, I would go have a DNA test done on his children.

The man should have the right to decide at birth what he wants to do. I am sorry, but the woman made her bed, she needs to lay in it. So to for the Man. If DNA testing is done at birth, then she has a better chance of finding the father, than at a later date, and not burdening the sucker.

Posted by: Mike | Jan 11, 09 11:08 AM

The simple fact that Judith Huddart commented that "One night stands and affairs happen all the time and they are OK" shows the state of Canadian society and the value of a marriage in the minds of lawyers and the Canadian justice system. As a divorced father I thought I got the short end of the stick with my divorce and the monies I had to pay to my wife and kids. But this poor guy has set a new low on the justice bar. Anyone who thinks the Canadian justice system is not female biased when it comes to decisions on divorce and children is sadly mistaken.

Posted by: Richard Coulson | Jan 11, 09 11:08 AM

I find it odd that one pertinent question was neither asked nor considered. Why would the father of these boys not want to pay child support for the sons he thought were his and, one supposes, loved for the first 16 years of their lives? These boys knew no other father; and his desire to no longer support them would suggest to them that he no longer loves them. I can only imagine the anguish they must be suffering, and all in the name of money and pride on the 'father's' part. He and Mr. Wilson shame fathers and all men, everywhere.

Posted by: Roselyn Jory | Jan 11, 09 11:12 AM

Hi There. Good segment.

I am a single Dad from BC with 3 boys in school.

My X-Wife has opted to be a welfare recipient for as long as she is allowed. So far the BC FMEP arrears are in excess of sixteen thousand dollars over more than 4 years, without a single penny ever being collected. Before that court order, there were years of time without a maintenance order. The oldest boy is almost 13 now.

I could sure use some financial assistance from my X, and even more, I could sure use some assistance from the system which is supposed to ensure that the children receive support from BOTH parents. Unfortunately, The children's Mother will most likely be permitted to collect welfare, and therefore be exempted from paying any child support, for the rest of her life.

My X is one quarter first nations and holds a status card.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has declined to offer status cards to our children.

Posted by: mike | Jan 11, 09 11:14 AM

Society believes it's a disaster when a father doesn't live up to his responsibilities to provide for his paternal child/ children. I've always wondered if it's the same for a mother when the tables are turned. The 'father' has every right to request a stop-payment on child support. This wasn't a situation of his own doing. This is essentially fraud by family association (or responsibility). Is the 'father' being ethical is requesting a stop-payment on child support? That's for personal judgment. We'll debate that for many years to come. But to say the 'father' doesn't have the right to request limitations on the financial and emotional damage done is adding insult to injury. Don't take aim at the 'father'.

Posted by: Richard | Jan 11, 09 11:39 AM

The children really take the brunt of this situation but a man forced with financial responsibility for children that are not his biologically is the equivalent of extortion.

Posted by: mike | Jan 11, 09 11:41 AM

When a child is born and the hospital does the test for DNA both the father should be told if he is not the biological father....it is not right that a man thinks he is a father when his wife knows full well he is not Posted by: unknown | Jan 11, 09 11:43 AM I think that the government should do a paternity test when the child is born. If the significant other is not the biological father, then he should have the right to make the decision as to whether he wants to support the child as his own. When he makes that decision and starts to care for that child (even though he knows it is not his biological child)he should then continue to pay for that child.

Posted by: Jan | Jan 11, 09 11:43 AM

Excellent debate, and I'm sure it will result in lots of comments, but I'd like to focus on one point that wasn't discussed: the health burden that a child faces when they don't know who their biological father is. Health complications that arise later in life such as diabetes, cholesterol, genetic disorders, etc... are all things someone looks for when they are hereditary. Mothers should have a responsibility to do their best to identify who the biological father is to their children, so that cases like the one being discussed never happen. When there is any chance the identification of the father could be in question, a woman should put aside her personal embarrassment issues, and look out for the best interests of the child.

Posted by: David Yokom | Jan 11, 09 11:45 AM

A quick genetic test at birth would prevent harm in many ways. It would also give the father a choice whether to invest in fatherhood. It would also force the mother to take responsibility for her actions. Posted by: David F | Jan 11, 09 11:45 AM

I am outraged at the court's decision! To continue to "grease the wheels" of deception is shocking! I absolutely agree that both the man and the woman should know at the time of birth whether or not they are indeed the biological parent! We as a society need to stop this type of deception for once and for all...this is imperative for all concerned! Why, was it never discussed just how deplorable this behavior is? I mean the mother's behavior has probably devastated this family. This is a crime and not a victimless one at that, yet the courts are going to protect the one person that has perpetrated this crime?!

INCREDIBLE!!!!

Carolyn

PS: I am a A mother/Wife/daughter/sister and Canadian

Posted by: Carolyn | Jan 11, 09 11:47 AM

In the paperwork that is filled out at birth - or some other paperwork that a father can fill out at that time (and the mother also signs so he can't state he believes they are his when he knows they are not) that will either state that he believes the children are his biologically OR that he knows they are NOT his biological children but will ACT as the social father. That way if a case such as Grant Wilson's occurs they can look back at that paperwork and say: okay the mother obviously deceived the father you don't have to pay child support - but he may or may not be entitled to get previous payments back. However, if he knew they were not his & decided to act as the social father knowing they were not his child(ren) biologically they would still continue to pay the child support.

My sister's ex knows 'his' oldest daughter is not his biologically however he knew this BEFORE the birth. They got together just before she found out she was pregnant with her previous ex's child & he still acted as the (social) father KNOWING this. If the father was deceived no I do not believe they should have to pay child support. IF he had been told in the beginning would he have stayed with his wife and acted as the father of the child? Not likely in most cases and therefore he would not have acted as the SOCIAL father to the child either.

Posted by: Naomi G | Jan 11, 09 11:49 AM

The "social father" became so through deception by the mother! Once it becomes known it should be the man's choice whether to continue support in any way he chooses, not by some brain dead civil servant. The mother should be held responsible and accountable for the deception!

Posted by: Ron Champagne | Jan 11, 09 11:53 AM

If he is not the father and he has truly paid 10 years worth of child support (possibly $250000.00 as I know from my parents situation) for children who are not his ... should he not be reimbursed for those same 10 years. It is inhumane for his espouse and the government to expect to be able to legally blackmail this law abiding citizen.

Posted by: Chris | Jan 11, 09 11:56 AM

Morals and ethics forms a large portion of family law and ethics identifies different parent types. A mother can be biological, maternal or social and with reproductive technology can be one, two or all three of the defined mothers. Fathers can be biological or social. The child's right to support is the responsibility of both parents regardless of which it may be.

A woman would never nor could she ever be made to support a child she was mislead to believe was her own by any of the definitions above. The same applies to a man who has been the social father of a child but when this situation comes to light, as in this case the women should be made to pay in some way for her deception. This marriage ended more than mother is actively trying to restrict access to? This relationship seems to have ended many years ago and this women is withholding the evidence that would help bring a more suitable ending to the situation. It should not end the mans responsibility but it would place the main responsibility of support upon the biological father.

As for genetic testing of new born babies, it should be made available to the father at his discretion and privacy. This would at the least remove the unfair trapping of men into child care and raising of children that are not his own when it is not at his consent.

Posted by: Ivor | Jan 11, 09 11:59 AM

Typical! I have to agree with Grant Wilson. Equality is promoted everywhere (as it should be) except in this area! The most important relationship in society one can hope to have is that of parent and child. Yet, a man, and his child can have this called in to question years later!? When is the court system gonna catch up? We hear the term "dead-beat father", What would we call a woman guilty of this? I can suggest many things, and "mother" would not be one of my suggestions!!! Women like this are bottom feeders!

I am disgusted!

David

Posted by: David | Jan 11, 09 12:00 PM

This is an outrage. How can this un-witting step father have to pay for child support, ordered by the courts? the judge must have been a feminist.

This is a case of injustice!

If this women does not know who the father is of her child, she is considered a dirty pirate hooker in my books!

She should be jailed for 3 years and her child taken away for psychology. the unwitting step father can be given a choice by the court system to either continue child support or discontinue! He is free to leave when he wants because he is a victim. otherwise the gov. should raise the child because the mother is not mentally capable of doing so. Look at this way, if she didn't know that cheating with another man would result in her having to pay for her incompetence. then she shouldn't have children at all!

Women are the ones that seduce men. Men take what they can get because women are full of BS!

A mans life is full of problems to overcome, while women somehow think they can deceive men and make them do w/e they want, women hardly do anything but make man's life harder. really when it comes down to it, that women is lying! she knows who the father is, she knows she cheated, she knows that she is now alone and must take care of the child or submit him for adoption. The man in this case is the innocent victim that this women is trying to steal from. She is stealing this man's life. His family blood line could be at risk if he does not have a child. Thank God for the miracles of DNA testing. otherwise women would rule the earth. And we all know if that would happen, the human race would become extinct within a matter of a decade.

Posted by: Matt | Jan 11, 09 12:04 PM

Very interesting story... I only wish you had taken more time to delve further into the issues. In the headline regarding the recent Ontario Supreme Court decision I would suggest that the father continuing to pay is cruel but still justified based on his past role as the "social father". At the same time, I think he should have the ability to sue the mother for damages (pain and suffering etc). I believe the mother was fraudulent in the relationship and completed a malicious act that likely imposed financial, social, emotional and mental suffering on this man... I believe she should have to be held accountable for imposing this suffering. In your news report, I wish you had been able to talk more about what "should be" vs. what "is" in our laws. As a clinical Social Worker for 12 years, I can attest to the fact that family courts are still very bias towards women getting custody/control of children after a divorce and the amount of support paid. So lets just imagine a case where a woman gets pregnant and the man commits to a relationship partly or solely based on his feelings of responsibility as a father/parent, then he finds out that he is not the father. In effect, this man has been fraudulently pushed (possibly related to his own morals/values) into being a father and spouse... all while the deceptive (in my view criminal woman) has secured a paying father for 20+ years. I'm sure any of us can conjure up some other crimes that would be comparable in terms of the financial costs, let alone the social, emotional and mental costs. Please bring this issue back to your show… with more time. Take care Carl W

Posted by: Carl Walsh | Jan 11, 09 12:10 PM

No one should be ripped off like that man. He should file a fraud - based civil suit against the mother. The OSC doesn't care about individuals as much as it cares about their money. (as it must be with our present social system) PS: If you want a show topic that is relevant to today's social and economic situation, seek out, watch, publicize, and make people aware of the video documentary called "Truth Rising" for educated insight, as well as solutions to the present societal messes of the world.

Posted by: Ehchey H. | Jan 11, 09 12:10 PM

I have a second comment and wanted to make it separately. The lawyer on your panel made a comment to the fact that the women may have had a one night stand and that is why she can't remember or doesn't want to say who it was. She was in a marriage and knows full well her responsibilities to her husband and the possible results of sex outside the marriage. She got pregnant and it is causing an uproar, thank god for this man she didn't contract HIV because she obviously didn't use a condom. That makes the point she must have had some indication that her indiscretion had caused her pregnancy and at that point she had an obligation to come clean about the "one night stand".

Posted by: Ivor | Jan 11, 09 12:13 PM

My first post was a little too long, so I had to cut an important paragraph... I've included that para below. My belief is that while the woman's movement has done wonderful things towards advancing equality, Canadian lawmakers have succumbed to some of that pressure of the more radical end of this movement and have punished men to the benefit of women. I'm not saying that the best interest of the children is not paramount here (it is) I'm saying that fraudulent parents must be held accountable for fraudulent activities… just as in any other criminal act.

Posted by: Carl Walsh | Jan 11, 09 12:13 PM

If the law is to be objective (not necessarily fair), it should treat the question of parental obligation like a contract. If a man is deceived into raising children that are not biologically his own but represented as such by the spouse, then the parental obligation should be voided. There was a deception, and like a contract that is based on deception, it should be made nullified. To argue that being a father is more than just biology may be valid (adoption, step-parent, IVF, etc...), however, in all these situation, the father entered into the situation having FULL knowledge. We cannot say the same for someone who has been cuckolded.

To have the father in question continue to pay child-support for children who are not his and justifying it by saying it is meant to be fair to the child who is an unwitting party means that the law condones behavior where in order to be "fair" (being a subjective word) to someone, it is OK to be unfair to someone else. Is that fair? I think the law should steer away from such arguments. And what about the mother? Where are her responsibilities? It should be incumbent upon her to find the biological father. It is certainly within her means to do so. To say she is unable to remember an extramarital affair prior to the children's birth seems too convenient. It is not as if she was a victim of rape by an unknown assailant. The mother should bear the responsibilities of infidelity and deception. It would seem the mother is the winner with many victims in her wake.

Posted by: H. Duong | Jan 11, 09 12:14 PM

How convenient is this situation to better understand the predicament of men when faced with the devastating knowledge that the child he believes was made by him, of him and as him, turns out to be a lie. I summit that every other aspect of that union prior to the insight of knowing he is not the creator of said child is unjustified. MEANING; a man that believes a child has certainly come from his heritage will walk the pillars of hell to provide for that offspring. While believing in his own mind that it is his responsibility to take this child from embryo to adulthood. If however there is the slightest chance (that being infidelity), of the child not coming from himself, how in God's name can a piece of shit like this pig expect financial compensation from this poor soul. Is the devastation of her trickery and deception not enough? As its left linger in this man's head for the rest of his life! And what of the other bounties ie house, car, bank account, cloths, jewellery, does this pig deserve from her LIES. The thought that he has any other duty to this pig, tramp, slut, harlot, jezebel, whore, is outrageous!!!! This pig should be charged with criminal theft!!!! She stole his heart, soul, manhood, determination, reason, and responsibility!! If a man stole this from a woman does he not go to jail as a con artist? She should be in jail for her deception, not compensated!!!

Posted by: mark villeneuve | Jan 11, 09 12:17 PM

How wrong. It seems the children have rights, the mother has rights but not the father, who is not the really the father but the "social father". A term it seems invented to takeaway the mothers responsibility in the matter of relationships and of being a mother. Will a woman have to pay child support if the man has an affair outside the relationship and the other woman bares a child and the father leaves the relationship to take care of this child, because it is his responsibility, with the mother of the new baby and ask child support of the old girlfriend because they were in a loving relationship, wanted children, and well now he has one although not hers, but the relationship was there, so she should pay because the new couple are very poor financially and the child does have rights you know.

Posted by: Eric Vachon | Jan 11, 09 12:19 PM

Fatherhood is an admirable and rewarding undertaking that requires a lifetime of commitment and devotion. To be duped into such a role under false pretenses is a deplorable deception. The question becomes; was there intent to commit fraud. Did the mother have reason to doubt whom the real paternal father was? If there was any doubt, this information should be available to the man so that he could make an informed decision as to whether or not he wants to become the father. It would be wrong to assume that all men would not choose to be the child's father regardless of paternity. As to Judith Huddart's comment that child support is the right of the child; who is ensuring that the support actually reaches the child? The child support recipient has total discretion as to how the money is spent and can receive significant collateral benefit from such support. Having children should not be a potential source of income.

Posted by: John Sims | Jan 11, 09 12:35 PM

I believe if a guy has been deliberately deceived into believing he is the biological father, or is the victim of adultery, I think he should have the legal right to discontinue child support if he so chooses. If the mother wants future child support, give her the responsibility of seeking the biological father for continued support. A deception as this would want me to cut any support to my partner and permanently damage me for any future trust in a mate. Don't get me wrong, the well being of the child must be the primary concern. The adults' differences is secondary. Posted by: Roland Penny | Jan 11, 09 12:36 PM

Re: The meaning of Fatherhood. Yes I am disgusted with this age old law {The presumption of parentage} and the way in which it is being used as State sponsored fraud. I have been involved in a case in the recent past in which the presumption of parentage was overturned in the Province of Nova Scotia. The case is {Miller v The Stapels Estate}. Interested parties should view this case to learn how it can help them to overturn the presumption of parentage in their case.
Wes Miller
BC
Posted by: Wes Miller | Jan 11, 09 12:38 PM

RE: child support for a his wife's indiscretions Just because there is a law that states this guy must pay doesn't doesn't make it right or even logical. men are persecuted in todays society and are paying the price for past social wrong doings. Why should this poor Joe pay for the house he can not live in. I am a truly lucky man I have the greatest wife in the world but I have witnessed many male friends of mine who have had their lives destroyed financially and socially by some of these disjoint family laws.
Respectfully
Michael A. Stickland

Posted by: michael a stickland | Jan 11, 09 12:41 PM

It gives me a sick feeling in my stomach to think that a woman can choose for me to not know that I am a father, to steal from me the opportunity to be a part of my child's (early) life. As in this case she can also take away my chance in life to be a biological father (I don't just mean a sperm donor).

Posted by: Jeff | Jan 11, 09 01:07 PM

I hope the spouse is brought up on charges. She has sworn legal documents and has lied. The registration of the baby father in the birth registry to the divorce documents. She has lied to her kids and to her family and friends. She must be made to account for the misdeeds. I believe these are criminal offenses and she must account for her actions. I hope the CBC would look into this and ask the appropriate authorities if they will be pursuing charges for lying on sworn documents.

Family courts turn a blind eye to these lies on documents. If they did not I believe eventually spouses would not use the courts to settle their marriage problems. I hope the man sues his former wife. However, the courts may simply just say to bad. The remedy is taking her all of the money but where does that leave the kids? Hopefully their is no statute of limitation on this. This lady gives women a bad name.

Posted by: Leo | Jan 11, 09 02:36 PM

Carole/Evan: Indeed Carole welcome back, love your show. Like Evan's piece with the scumbag promoter (aka exploit anyone, anything in the name of profit & entertainment), NO bleeping WAY should the man be FORCED to pay child support if he is not the biological father but rather given the OPTION to provide support until they ID the biological father. He is being tormented & punished twice over; 1st sentence heart broken, betrayed by his wife & lied to about the children; 2nd sentence (life) the court basically saying "we won't to let you forget that your wife shared the ultimate intimacy of life with another man; you may suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from this is irrelevant; we will remind you of this tragic event monthly when we force you to pay child support". Little wonder you hear stories in case such as this people choose suicide rather than pay & endure the life long psychological torment.

Since starting this there have been numerous comments posted & one area of consternation is "Why would the father of these boys not want to pay child support for the sons he thought were his and, one supposes, loved for the first 16 years of their lives?". 1st. the comment of OPTION but he should not be FORCED to provide child support. 2nd, what the hell does money have to do with being a father figure & his degree of love for these children when he is not even given access to them; paradox.. This issue is very complex like mental health there is no easy answer or "one solution fits all", there is definitely the crucial aspect of the children's needs & well being; it has to be considered & addressed appropriately. To force & demand "someone" out of circumstance, who was betrayed and lied to is just WRONG.

To really exaggerate, how about a court decision imposing victims of a scam who were conned, lied to & coerced into signing a legal contract to make monthly financial payments to the con artist for life. Talk about cruel & unusual punishment.

Posted by: Paul | Jan 11, 09 03:23 PM

I was appalled by the court's decision and your program's take. Apparently human rights in this country don't seem to apply to men. If the situation were reversed there would be a media uproar and feminist's and women's groups would be up in arms. I cannot imagine what this poor man is going through besides the emotional devastation and financial loss but that's not enough, he will have to continue paying for this injustice. Of course there are men who have decided to become fathers to someone else's kids, but the key word here is DECIDED which implies consent. Consent is the difference between borrowing and theft or a consensual sex and rape. This poor man and the thousands that go through the same ordeal NEVER GAVE THEIR CONSENT!

Posted by: Alfredo Layseca | Jan 11, 09 03:34 PM

I feel for that poor man. It wasn't bad enough that he finds out the children he's loved all these years are not his, but he's forced to keep paying for them. So unfair, but then again the system wrapped around this issue has always been in the mothers favor. I pay child support, and I don't mind it. But I can't afford to do anything else. My daughter is 19 going to University, which I am also paying portion of. What is the "new" guy doing? No law applies to him - that I know of. And if there is, then it should be upheld. So I live in a rental, my ex and her "new" guy bought a house, but even though I haven't much of a life because of it, I still have to pay. Who makes the stupid laws anyway?

Posted by: Alex | Jan 11, 09 05:03 PM

I am totally amazed with society and the laws that represent a system of total chaos. Get back to the basics people and and quit acting on crap that continues to control our lives and families. Marriage should be based on honesty and not about fraud, money and convenience, just for the sake of support. Too many outside influences tend apply compromise where compromise it totally out of the question. This is not one of these cases where you are innocent until proven guilty. This gentleman has supported these two children for sixteen years and it's not likely that the support would cease. Regardless, it should be his choice and not the demands of the wife and the current court system that represents family law in Canada. As far as the ex-wife, it's a wonder that people are still willing to get into long term relationships or are they?

Posted by: John Lewicki | Jan 11, 09 05:31 PM

I almost fell of my chair when I saw Grant Wilson look upwards (not at Judith Huddart) while she was speaking. He may as well have rolled his eyes. We women have a choice and we all need to be responsible and accountable. Men as well as much as women. In a perfect world there would not be deceit - how much can one fix? It all starts with the individual. PS: Grant Wilson could benefit greatly from some public speaking instruction! He lost me on a very good subject when he performed that very rude gesture!

Posted by: Michelle A Yuzik | Jan 11, 09 05:52 PM

It is beyond belief that while being with her husband, this woman had an affair resulting in these twin son's, yet has no recollection of who the biological father may be. Perhaps she has a long list of suspects? The courts are grossly unfair I side with Grant Wilson and the father. Paternity testing at birth would prevent some of these miscarriages of justice. Why would any one object to paternity testing at birth unless they have something to hide?

Posted by: Donald K | Jan 11, 09 06:30 PM

Wow, what next? Watch out Big Brothers and Big Sisters organizations, neighbors, grandparents etc. With laws as they are now, you may find yourselves liable for child support payments should you move away from the children you are trying to be socially involved with. What a gold digger this woman is. Sadly, these teen boys will certainly have a lot of questions and heartbreak to deal with. I feel extremely sorry for this man who has been deceived all these years. Good luck to you. God Bless you and the boys.

Posted by: Rhonda P | Jan 11, 09 08:49 PM

Get ready to fall out of your chair again Michelle, I just rolled my eyes at your comment. We roll our eyes in disbelief of how naive some people are or maybe just stupid. I've been to war zones for my country, if only we could all just worry about someone rolling their eyes.

Obviously the female lawyer was on some other planet with her comments.

Posted by: Wayne Franklin | Jan 11, 09 10:02 PM

Since the radical feminist movement began men have been getting the raw end of the deal but I say, as a woman, that it's time men stood up for their rights. I think this is wrong that this man has to pay for children that aren't even his own. I didn't even get support from either of my two children's' deadbeat "biological" fathers! Women judges.....yikes!

Posted by: ann | Jan 11, 09 11:28 PM

Ridiculous. While I actually do support the judge's decision not to return him the previously paid child support (as doing so would likely cripple the children financially and ruin their lives), it is absurd that he should have to continue to pay into the future. Think of the pain he must have felt learning about the deception, and he's been denied the ability to sever himself from the situation and move on. Further, now that he's no longer the "biological father" do you think he'll actually get any custody should he want it? Almost certainly not. The fact that she cheated on him and lied to him for 16 years and committed fraud (it is fraud) may actually work out in her favour!

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 11, 09 11:53 PM

Additionally, a lot of people have spoken about feminism and how it has "infiltrated" the court system. That's pure hogwash.

The current system isn't set up to abuse men, or favour women, though it may do so in a small number of cases such as this one. Really it isn't even set up to favour the children. It's all about the money. They want to make sure the children are being paid for by anyone, because otherwise the government would be the one paying for them.

They've showed their hand in this case, basically stating how far they're willing to infringe on the rights of an individual to avoid being economically responsible for children. Dangerous.

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 12, 09 12:07 AM

This is absolutely and completely ridiculous and borders on stupidity. When we as a society reward bad behaviour, it is a slippery slope. I would hope the judge would make the same verdict if I lied on a job interview that I had an MBA and later my employer fired me for realizing it was not true. According to Miss van Rensburg, they should still pay my salary.

This is a gross betrayal to Mr. Cornelio. What she did is criminal and if she was in the Middle East would most likely be stoned to death. Why should the wrong doer be left totally unscathed. Her actions and her actions alone have hurt the children and probably robbed Mr. Cornelio of ever having kids of his own. It really raises the question as to why a young man should ever commit to a women when doing the right thing only leads to you being treated like garbage and victimized and holding the bag. If this case were reversed you could bet your lucky stars women would cry foul.

Posted by: Paul | Jan 12, 09 12:36 AM

l am a white Irish decent, the women i married is white English decent, the birth of our first child came out coffee colored [brown] she has all the traits of Muslim decent, the mother's relationship was with a Muslim male hence the look of the child, I tried to raise it as me own for now 16yrs,knowing it's not mine, we do have two other children that look like my ex-wife and I, they wonder why the oldest looks nothing like them, but I HAVE TO PAY FOR ANOTHER MAN'S KID !!! I think she and her real father should know one an other and yes I pay for all three kids, however the one that is not mine has just disowned me so I have stopped payments for that child. I do see my kids and the oldest even skipped x-mas with me and I spent it with the two youngest ages 11 and 14.I was duped and now have to pay plus the child will never know her true roots in life, we are setting her up to fail..

Posted by: tom | Jan 12, 09 08:00 AM

I have a child that is Muslim decent, I am white irish, she [ex-wife] white english, our other two children look just like us, I've stopped payments because deep in to my gut I know this is not mine, she should know who and where she come's from, she's disowned me however the other two see me as much as they want, the one I am talking about is 16 and the other's that are mine are 14 and 11,Ive been duped and should not have to keep paying at least full amount...

Posted by: dug | Jan 12, 09 08:14 AM

I am more ncrend that this guy in the interview, The President of Child Rights, did not want to talk about child Rights but spent the whole time defending the men.? He needs to atep aside and have someone who is truly for childs rights in charge of child welfare. He just dosen't get what is job is. P.S. His eye roll was totally inappropriate....what a pompus ass.

Posted by: Linda | Jan 12, 09 08:26 AM

It's a "mommies court". Any man or woman who has ever been in a divorce w/children is aware of this. Attorneys, Judges, case workers all know it too. Even joke about it.

Until the women stand up strait and fight for equal rights for men, equal rights will never happen. Raising child support and limiting the fathers access goes hand in hand. I've seen it in court a 100 of times. Usually under the guise that Dad is bad and therefore deserves less time w/the kids. It's a tried and true "strategy". Often it ends up leaving fathers depressed and in financial ruin. The house and everything in it goes with the kids(mom). etc.

The comment the lawyer made about a step father should also pay support for children that were never his is scary and typical of the courts attitudes towards fathers. The majority of us feel like a paycheque and sperm donation. Saying we don't love our kids because we want equal rights is cruel.

The children feel the brunt of all of this. As a single dad w/5 kids. One of which is not biologically mine. I know first hand the inequality of the family courts as does every dad in my position.

We need a lot Read More ..scussions on this subject. Thank you for taking time on your program to address this issue.

Posted by: Butch Griggs | Jan 12, 09 09:32 AM

ridiculous that a father should have to pay for kids that are not his. The Ontario family courts are about the most misandric entity alive in Canada today. The hate war on fathers and men is in full swing and must be stopped. The courts justifiable use of the "best interests of the children" by taking one parent out of a child's life is some severely twisted thinking that is pushed forward by the status of women and their government. funded hate machine.

Posted by: outdoors | Jan 12, 09 10:46 AM

The BC Supreme Court did hand down a decision last year regarding child support payable for a 15 year-old that had left her mother's home to live on her own. The Court ordered that neither parent was required to provide support because the child was apparently no longer a 'child of the marriage'. Overall I really wasn't surprised by the result in this particular case anyRead More ..an I was when your guest commissioned the rather circular and infamous 'child support is the right of the child' argument in order to make the result somehow easier to swallow. Although the 'father' in this case presumably would have preferred to devote his affection, guidance and resources to his own children had he been given the choice.

Given that ex-spousal support is built into the Federal Child Support Guidelines, I think the additional moral offence arises when recognizing that this child, like every other Canadian child, will actually receive less of the child support as the non-custodial parent's income rises, while the mother's portion continues to escalate.

To illustrate, a parent earning $30,000 will be obliged to provide $280.00/month for a single child, and $472.00/month for 2 children.

If however the children live in separate homes, the non-custodial parent is required to pay $280.00 for each child, or $560.00/month.

Since the only difference between 2 children living in one home and 2 children living in different homes is the custodial parent, the $88.00 discrepancy between $472.00 and $560.00 ($1,056/annum) is the portion of the maintenance that is awarded to the custodial parent or 18.6% of the monthly award at that income level.

Using this analysis, the custodial parent is not only guaranteed a portion of each payment, but also receives a larger share (and the child less) as the non-custodial parent's income increases (19.7% of a monthly maintenance award at the $80,000 level).

Contrary to the marketing campaigns, child support isn't the right of a child.

Posted by: Papaquinn | Jan 12, 09 06:25 PM

This women's adultery and dishonesty is being rewarded. That is just plain wrong. Award the Dad joint custody with primary care and remove the children from her. That way she can pay him child support but still see her kids. Her's is a her tawdry tale and she should be held accountable.

Posted by: crljones | Jan 13, 09 03:00 AM

This isn't really about doing what is best for children. It is really about punishing men for as much of their lives as possible. If they can't get the bio father to pay, they will get another man to pay. Because, as far as feminists are concerned one man is as good as another and none are any good.

Posted by: Glenn | Jan 13, 09 03:02 PM

This is an outrage there is something terribly wrong here the "Justice" system is clearly broken. This man must be tormented and devastated by this woman's adulterous deceit. Also the children who now have found out the Father they thought they had is not theirs . There are 3 innocent victims hear whose lives are turned upside down by the adulterous and fraudulent acts of this poor excuse for a Mother and a wife. By rewarding her for her fraud society is perpetuating and encouraging like minded woman to use their children as meal tickets at an others expense....Shameful ...shameful

Posted by: Disgusted in Ont | Jan 13, 09 07:25 PM

I am happy that this matter is now being discussed in the Media. I was ordered to pay child support for two children who have different fathers by my ex-wife. So don't tell me about one night stand. This decision was made final on March 11, 2005. I started paying support in 2003 for these two children who are now 14 and 18. I am paying support for my daughter who is now 11 years old and I haven't had any access to her since 2002. The mother is keeping the children away from me with the assistance of the Canadian court. I would not give up paying for my daughter who I know is mine. I want to be fair to say that I should be paying support for my daughter but the court does not see any justice that I should be having access to her.

My case is on the Canadian Children's Right's Council website at: https://canadiancrc.com/Gene_Colman_Ontario_Courts_Paternity_Fraud_22MAY05.aspx

See the actual judgement on the right. It is simply horrendous and unjust to the highest extent. I am still in court with this case at this time. I've been paying $1160/mth ever since and she now want this increased to near 2K/mth and want 25K as retroactive payment. It shows that there is nothing as basic logics anyRead More ..I am a professional and I am daily trying to keep my sanity as this has been putting me under tremendous financial difficulty.

When my mother who lives with my brother in Florida heard of the decision she was so shocked and asked me what kind of law they have in Canada that someone has to pay for children that is not his. To make this simple for everyone, I will be asking a few question and answer them myself. Is this a case of Paternity Fraud?…..Yes.

When someone mentions the word Fraud doesn't it mean someone has committed a crime? To define Fraud in its simplest meaning is "deliberately withholding information with the intent to deceive". Who has committed a crime here?........the mother.

Posted by: Chandreka [Mickey] Ballmick | Jan 13, 09 11:47 PM

[continued

I am still in court with this case at this time. I've been paying $1160/mth ever since and she now want this increased to near 2K/mth and want 25K as retroactive payment. It shows that there is nothing as basic logics anyRead More ..I am a professional and I am daily trying to keep my sanity as this has been putting me under tremendous financial difficulty.

When my mother who lives with my brother in Florida heard of the decision she was so shocked and I daily ask myself what is the wrong that I've done that I have to be paying being a victim of paternity fraud. The persons that are guilty are being compensated for their crime.

Someone mentions that the Canadian Children's Right's Council is looking out for father's right and not the children. She is talking about father-child relationship regardless of biology. I want to ask the question, why the Court isn't also seeing this and give me access to continue the nice relationship with the boys. They are forcing me to pay and if they are hanging their judgement based on the rights of the child, then the child-father relationship should be force upon me as the payment of support is. I was duped, then the Court add a penalty to me to pay support for children that are not mine and I cannot have access to the children and the court see this as Justice. I still want to see the wise gurus behind all this.

A decision as this is telling all women in Canada that they have the free reign to commit this crime and once they find an eligible sucker [who is making good money] he will be on the hook to pay. I don't know if the Government and the Courts is not seeing that this is having a severe impact in destroying the fabric of our Canadian society. It seems to me that the judges are given the mandate from the government to put any sucker on the hook as fast as possible so that they can wash their hands off the case asap.

I am totally frustrated with this. No one would want to feel what I am feeling presently regarding this matter. As one person wrote, my life has been stolen from me.

What I would like to know is what is being done in changing the law….to ensure that justice is served? I would like anyone who is involved with anything to have this law corrected to contact me. You have my full support.

Posted by: Chandreka [Mickey] Ballmick | Jan 13, 09 11:48 PM

After watching this episode, I found it very disheartening that once again a supreme court has allowed politics and money to determine their final decision, and not the law itself. The Canadian charter of rights Section 15,(a) states clearly that we are all equal before the law regardless of gender, AGE, religious affiliation, etc. Judith showed utter contempt for all men by not agreeing with compulsory DNA testing, and diminished the integrity of all woman by dismissing the responsibility of the woman that perpetrated the fraud to begin with. Judith herself perpetuates this fraud further by elevating the child's rights above everyone else's, including the parents. I would love for someone to explain how destroying fathers benefits the children. While the courts may act like the great defenders of the children who are unable to speak for themselves, in reality, they reduce children to the level of pawns for their mothers because 80% of the time, women get custody. Parental alienation syndrome is rampant because there is literally no visitation enforcement, even when the father is paying child support, and I can't think of anything more insulting then paying for children that you are not even being allowed to see. Well, I guess I was wrong, now fathers are expected to pay even when the children aren't their own, and if you don't spend $40,000 on legal fees during the divorce, well, then you mustn't love your children. May I first suggest that if anyone wants sole custody, that implies sole responsibility. This in itself, would bring the unreasonable back to negotiate in good faith. If Judith finds this unreasonable, then I am curious how she would she react if the pendulum swung back to a time when wives and children were the property of men. I guarantee you truth and equality is a much better solution, so embrace it, because the "good old Days" weren't that good!

Posted by: Brad Bodnar | Jan 14, 09 04:11 AM

I am really disappointed in our Justice Department. They need to get with the times and do what is right for the right people not the wrong people.

What happened to equality? Men and women should be paying the same for their child support payments...not the men paying more. The men seem to be getting the raw end of the stick in our Justice System.

As someone else has already stated...as I understand it, legally fathers don't have any rights in the legal system or the constitution that mothers and children do. That is TOTALLY wrong! Everyone should be the EQUAL!

I agree with many of the postings stating that if the father did not know these kids weren't his and the wife was deceiving him...she should pay the consequences NOT him. She has gone out and done the dirty act with someone else and probably knows who the father, is even though she is pleading that she doesn't know, let her deal with it.

This poor man has been hurt and deceived enough. Give him back his rights! Even some of these people who are paying now for children that have passed away...my God, where is the legal system going? If the child has died, the father should not have to pay for them any longer. That's is just WRONG in every way.

As a happily married woman with two children, I believe we need a change in the people who are making these choices in our Justice System. They are so old school...Get rid of them! It is time to get new younger up-to-date judges, lawyers, etc. into our courts NOW who believe in equality for all so they can make the right decisions for the people!

I am just horrified at the way these cases have been handled by the Courts. Reading these other people's stories as well...they got suckered into paying for children who are not theirs...that's not right at all! My heart goes out to every one of them. These women should be paying the price for their one night stands, their deceptions, not these poor guys! We need to take a stand!

Posted by: Karen | Jan 15, 09 01:35 PM

Thought I would share this also: This might get some fairness to fathers and make the women think twice before they go out screwing around.

I'd like to see this law in Canada.

AUSTRALIA EASIER, QUICKER, SIMPLER: A CLEARER PATHWAY IN FAMILY LAW

Parties in family law cases will have an easier, quicker and simpler way to commence proceedings, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced today.

Mr Ruddock said a new combined registry would be established as a result of cooperation between the Family Court of Australia, Federal Magistrates Court and the Attorney-General's Department. "The combined registry is a key part of the package of the most significant reforms to the family law system in 30 years," Mr Ruddock said.

Part of the new Australian Family Law concerns paternity fraud and the repayment of child support received by mothers that deceived a man. Men that have been duped into paying for children that aren't their biological children automatically get their child support payments back and the cost of raising those children since the child's birth. The government department that collects child support on behalf of child support recipients is responsible for getting the money back from the perpetrator of the fraud as well as the man's portion that was paid to raise the child based on government calculations of the cost to raise a child.

Posted by: Alex | Jan 15, 09 02:58 PM

One has better odds of winning Power Ball than they do acquiring justice in any court ,in any country that is hearing any case of any matter in regards to family. Maybe all these upper and lower court justice wear dollar sign blinders when they rule, which obstructs their common sense. They should court order the mother to find out who the father is and reimburse the man that is a victim of her fraud.

Posted by: Steward2 | Jan 16, 09 12:57 AM

I can't do it, I can't comment without going into a huge rant. I'm extremely angry; not only because my rights and my son's rights were violated but, because it continues to get worse. Its blatant violations like these that cause people to snap and commit huge acts of violence. And Judith Huddart is just a parasite protecting its meal. Women like her can't be trusted because she's only interested in keeping the money tree blooming. How can you call that justice?

I know that I can only beg my hosts to have some kind of forum to allow people to voice how they have been treated. I know that I alone have a many stories to tell of having my rights violated. Telling me the system is fair is like spitting in my face.

Posted by: Rob H. | Jan 16, 09 11:54 AM

It is an act of violence against a man to pretend that he is the natural father of children when he is not. It is an act of violence against children to deny them to get to know and to be cared for by their natural father.

Grant Wilson said things very well, without identifying that a woman who conceived two children by a man she was not married to committed adultery. On the other hand, Judith Huddard thought that to be quite normal and not necessarily malicious, as a woman who conceives a child by a man who is not her husband could easily have forgotten whom all she had sex with.

Going by what Judith Huddard stated, marital fidelity does not matter, but all that matters is that a man who has been fingered to be the natural father of two children should be held responsible to pay for the consequences of him being successfully duped. By her reasoning, that is all that matters, as it is the right of the children to receive child support from a man who is not their father. According to her, child support is paid to children and not to the children's mothers.

I have got news for Judith Huddard. The name of the mother of the children is on the child-support checks she receives. Nowhere does it state what she must do with the money. She can do with it what she wants, and she will not be held accountable for how she spends that money.

According to the judge in my own case, with respect to child support that I had to pay for children who had been abducted for eight years, the money for the child support arrears had to be paid to the mother, not to the children, because child support is the income of the mother.

Posted by: Walter Schneider | Jan 16, 09 05:28 PM

This is not a Comment but a Question. Is there any sort of movement , motion or petition that is underway to change the the inequality in which these cases are handled. It is quite clear by the responses that people are FRUSTRATED. If I didn't just want to just pay lip service ,who would I and others contact to right these wrongs? Equality and fairness should be the right of everyone Man and Woman The Pendulum has to swing back to the middle The main focus is the Children, of that there is no question. In saying that, little Boys grow up to be Men. If it is not changed their rights will be violated too. Mothers and Fathers, look at your boys and think would I want this to happen to them.

Posted by: disgusted in ont | Jan 17, 09 05:40 PM

This is not a case of where the meaning of fatherhood has changed, but rather parenthood. A 'father' fertilizes an egg, a 'parent' fertilizes a child. The Department of Justice defines the type and amount of fertilizer, the Minister of Justice and Parliament enact the policy as a law and the Courts enforce it. Pretty simple really.

That being the case, imagine a civil or criminal matter where it was discovered that the primary testimony used to convict someone was in fact, false. One would reasonably expect that such a conviction would be overturned on appeal because there was nothing a jury or judge could use to support a finding of guilt. Of course, no Canadian court allows jury trials for family cases, not only because a jury can overrule existing law, but also, if these postings are any indication, a jury might come up with a result that doesn't support the prevalent political policy.

More over, imagine the ramifications if Justice van Rensburg had ruled that the mother was required to reimburse Mr. Cornelio: not only would Mr. Cornelio be free from providing any further maintenance, but such a decision would potentially effect every family matter currently or previously before the Court. Of course of all the options available to the court, its unfortunate that Justice van Rensburg decided not to fix Mr. Cornelio's 'obligation' at $1.00 or direct the mother to make efforts to find the biological father.

Too, Ms. Cornelio's behaviour interesting. Some Canadians, having discovered that they had greatly wronged someone else, would apologize, perhaps make amends if possible and definitely not continue to seek benefit from the person injured. Apparently neither Ms. Cornelio nor her 2 daughters are such persons.

Posted by: Euphrastophillus | Jan 17, 09 06:16 PM

Unfortunately this is long based on dead beat fathers, who are plentiful. How long did the Dad of those twins live with them? As for the commenter who says he is still paying for a deceased son, that is a travesty of justice, and I stand behind him. As a woman I have seen many of my ilk who are not suited for parenthood and yet she is allowed more rights than the father, it is skewed. Hopefully one day with enough men & women protesting this, the law will change to better represent the CHILDS actual needs.

Posted by: Terri Robson | Jan 18, 09 04:30 PM

RE: DUG's Post on Jan 12,2009

Wow! If you read my and my husband's post you'll see how we feel about your situation. But just outta curiosity, don't you still love that child (muslim decent) anyway? The child should know who she is, especially if she has been denied knowing her family, and her different heritage! You should be angry, but don't let your feelings of "being wronged" spill on the children...they are innocent victims!

Carly

Posted by: Carolyn | Jan 18, 09 06:14 PM

The mother (small m) has no recollection of an extra-marital affair? I guess she caught it from a toilet seat...hmmmm?

Judith Huddart is clearly an apologist for atrocious conduct on the mother's part and myopic rulings on behalf of the Ontario Superior Court.

As for Ann's comments about men standing up for their rights...madam you should look a bit more closely at the world around you. When 1 man or a group get together and voice their objections to being treated with a double standard and in a totally unjust fashion in modern society they're decried and derided as "sexist whiners" or "male chauvinists" some actually being charged with "HATE CRIMES" for standing up for their rights in some countries.

Although we are male we can assure any misandrists out there that there is not one in our ranks who've ever been involved in any fashion with Napoleon or his military despite the fact they may even be citizens of France.

Posted by: Barry | Jan 18, 09 11:30 PM

My husband and I watched this program a week after it originally aired and we totally agree with Brad Bodnar's comments. This same system denied my husband access to his "biological" children and was his ex wife - the mother ever sent to jail for not obeying court orders? We won't see any changes to this judicial system until judges start putting women in jail for not allowing fathers access to their children, biological or not. Women demand support payments but deny access - this action should not be tolerated in our society as it defines men as simply sperm donors and support payers. This idea that "social fathers" should exist is pure conjecture as 99.9% of divorced fathers want to see and interact with their children but the only valued contribution the courts want is their money. The courts have made money the issue, and we also totally agree with Grant Wilson. It was refreshing to see a child's advocate fight for the fathers rights for a change. Children want to know who their biological fathers are....they automatically know who their mother is!

Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun.... | Jan 19, 09 11:35 PM

The woman should be charged with contempt for not, "remembering" who the real father was. This ruling sickens me. As someone who is preparing to have a family I have to say that hearing stories like this one make me a little fearful of some mess like in the future.

I think I would simply move to another country and live in contempt. Happily.

Posted by: Keegan | Jan 23, 09 05:27 AM

I just cant believe this, it is awful, destroying the not really a fathers life, seriously disturbing the child's life, just so that the mother gets monies she isn't entitled to, this court is perpetuating and assisting in a fraud. It certainly sounds illegal. are the courts out to protect us?

Posted by: this is just wrong | Jan 23, 09 08:20 AM

As the author of the continuing disservice to men, "Ultimate Betrayal" (Formerly known as "Days of Tempest" The Liam Magill Story) I agree with Grant Wilson.

I was commissioned by Cheryl King, enduring power of attorney for Liam Magill, to write his story. Liam had endured 8 years of battling his ex-wife in the Australian Courts. He was supported by 96% of the population of AU.

The results of the trial were, at first, a win for Liam; however, his ex-wife appealed the decision and won her case on a technicality. In short, Liam lost everything he had; his home, car, money.

Posted by: Lea Anna Cooper | Jan 24, 09 12:44 AM

Two of the three children he was paying for were fathered by his then, best friend, Derek Rowe.

Derek Rowe and his wife fled the area, to escape not only the media, but the responsibility of paying for the two children he fathered. Derek was successful in changing all his monetary wealth over to his wife's name. As a matter then of public record, I have that proof in my possession.

Unfortunately, when the DNA evidence was presented to the Australian Courts and the CSA, they didn't waste their precious time pursuing Derek.

Having to search for the father is one thing, but when government is aware of who the father is and does nothing about it, it's a sad day in all governments and the innocent husbands who've been duped.

If women want other relationships, just as some men, then they have no right taking a vow of marriage. It's a waste of time.

In many cases, some women are in love with the idea of 'the wedding day.' The planning of the 'party,' the wedding gown, the big diamond ring. What they don't realize is when the party is over, real life fidelity begins. Too bad their mothers didn't explain it to them...and if they didn't, then my question is, 'are they actually their father's daughter?'

As harsh as it sounds, the vows of matrimony are near meaningless these days. There is absolutely no excuse for the missteps these women make, nor is it considered a notch on anyone's belt for the hop into the sack with someone other than the husband or wife.
Posted by: Lea Anna Cooper | Jan 24, 09 12:46 AM

Wow, where to begin. Woman's Movement by behind!!!! Wasn't it meant to make woman equal in the eyes of the law and in society in general, equal work for equal pay and all that. I am all in favour of that. The system in place right now is completely and utterly one sided. It takes 2 people to bring children into this world and 2 people to raise children. Child support...the most ridiculous thing every created. Such abuse.

Does it really take a woman 1000.00 a month for 1 child to raise them. No it doesn't and I can say that because I am a mother...it can certainly pay your mortgage so you don't have to work to hard...that's for sure. Is that fair. Is it right that a man goes to school for years to get a good education, a good job and then a woman decides she doesn't want to be married anyRead More ..cause he doesn't pay attention to her so she leaves, takes the kids (his children also) and gets child support and spousal support. This was a step back for woman's liberation ladies..Give your heads a shake.
to be continued

Posted by: L Villella | Feb 1, 09 12:48 PM

So...do I think that the entire family court system should be revamped to make it an even playing field for all parties and in "the best interest of the child" YES I DO. There should be an account set up for the child or children that both parties contribute to on a percentage base on income or more importantly potential to have an income...if you have a degree or diploma, get out there and work. We are just as responsible for the well being of our children..Do I think DNA or courts should decide. DNA. I think it should be a criminal offense to subject a man to the emotional and financial abuse that happens when a woman has an affair and misrepresents the paternity of the child in question. There should be a heavy fine, jail time and pay back for all the child support the father or "tricked into being the father" had to pay. It should be the fathers choice whether he wants to continue to have a relationship, emotional not financial with the child. The real parent should pay the financial obligation..Once again..What country do we live in.. 

Posted by: L Villella | Feb 1, 09 02:51 PM

Love your sons, love your daughters.

Fathers, remember,.. remember, and demand that your child's best interests require an equal participation of his or her father in his or hers life.
mikepotyrala@hotmail.com
Father Rock!

Posted by: Mike Potyrala | Feb 12, 09 11:50 PM

Share Your Thoughts
Note: By submitting your comments you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive, not all comments will be published, and those that are published will not be edited. But all will be carefully read, considered and appreciated.