If a divorced dad finds out that a child from the marriage belongs to another man, should he still pay child support? A recent judgment handed down from the Ontario Supreme court ruled that divorcee Pasqualino Cornelio continue to pay child support for his 16-year old twins even though paternity DNA testing revealed that he is not in fact the twins’ biological father. The original conflict arose when, after a successful separation agreement involving joint child custody, Cornelio’s ex-wife demanded an increase in child support payments and a decrease in paternal visitation. In response, Cornelio acted on an earlier suspicion that the children may have been conceived outside the marriage and used a paternity kit to verify that the children were actually from an extra-marital affair. The judge in the case ruled that Cornelio is legally the father even though he was not the biological father and therefore is still responsible for any support the children must legally receive. Cornelio was also denied a request for back-payment of previous financial support.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has chilling implications for any male who has either “stepped up” to help raise another man’s children or suspects his wife / common-law partner of infidelity. Hypothetically, a woman can cheat on her partner, fail to disclose the true paternity of the child and reasonably expect full support for the children when her partnership dissolves. The man responsible for creating the children would escape responsibility while the man who acted in good faith bears the financial burden.
While the Cornelio case is not paternity fraud by strict definition (the mother must intend to deceive the would-be father, whereas Cornelio’s ex says she “forgot” about the affair), several high-profile cases in the United States have resulted in non-biological fathers being required to continue child support payments despite deliberate deception by the mother. Do the American and Canadian systems reward paternity fraud?
The counter-argument to genetic-based paternity rights is that fatherhood should be defined not by blood but by the length and quality of the relationship between the man and child. Family bonding takes place via actions over the length of a child’s life and does not require a confirmation of heredity. Suddenly discovering the lack of blood ties does not erase history, nor should the supporting parent try to erase this history by demanding back-payment. Many U.S. states have a presumption of paternity and do not even permit a married man to use DNA evidence in rebuttal.
In short, your father is the man who raised you – nearly every child assumes this until told otherwise. The non-biological definition of family seems better-suited to a society where transnational adoptions, blended families and same-sex marriages are becoming commonplace. Legally declaring parenthood strictly along hereditary lines could lead a torrent of court challenges from households that don’t fit the standard nuclear family image.
Despite court challenges by Pasqualino Cornelio and others who have been duped into supporting non-biological children, the overlying lesson seems to be that if a man is unsure about the paternity of his child then a paternity test should be demanded immediately. During separation or divorce, family courts make a conscious effort to make decisions in the best interest of the children. The essential needs of a child will almost always take precedence over a jilted man’s desire to punish a deceitful ex.
I was actually considering doing a write-up on this story: I saw it on the Italian station (I’m part Italian). This story gives quite a new meaning to the term “Divorce Italian Style.”
In any event, it’s a complicated case. At first I felt that Mr. Cornelio should have been exonerated from making child support payments. Then however I learned that apparently while he had always suspected the children were not his biologically, he had sought joint custody of them. So I think if he took that step he should always be considered legally their father with that role’s attendant rights and responsibilities.
I know that in Anglo-Saxon law a child born in a marriage is presumed to be the child of the mother’s husband, even if in reality the child was conceived by adulterous intercourse, artificial insemination or rape. In the latter two cases I think the woman’s husband should be considered legally the baby’s father (unless she had artificial insemination without telling her husband, a rather improbable scenario). What if however the man discovers he’s not the biological father of his wife’s children? In that case, I believe he should be presented with two options, which should be ratified by paperwork and notarized. If he chooses not to recognize the children (which he may very well do if he feels embittered towards their mother), he should be relieved of any responsibility towards them, financial, emotional, etcetera, but then he is not entitled to any form of custody of them (or visitation) without the mother’s consent. If he chooses to recognize them as his children, however, he will continue as their legal father, again with all attendant rights and responsibilities.
I know there’s the argument that the child’s interests should take precedence over heredity or over the jilted husband’s resentment against his ex-wife. However, there are many situations where a woman knowingly puts herself in a situation where she cannot get financial support from the father. For example, if she has artificial insemination from an unknown donor, there is no way she can sue for support from him. So if a married woman cheats on her husband, she takes the risk that maybe she can’t get child support if he finds out.
Anyway, this is just my opinion!
Man….this seems like something that men may need to start adding to pre-nuptual agreements. If the kid(s) turn out to be from someone else …..
Each individual would need to fill that blank. Personally…I would feel bad to cut a child off….but it would be done on MY TERMS. What the kid needs….I go and buy myself…not one damn dime lands in the palm of that @#$%#! that went behind my back and got knocked up by some other dude.
This is a sad case really.
As for getting with a woman that has kids already….forget it…I dont ever want to do that. Women with kids just may start pulling things… hunting for a man….then get him…the kick him out her life…then hold her hand out and have the court’s backing. I really hope that sh!t doesn’t become common.
Anyways…like that ridiculous case in Quebec where the child successfully took her dad to court to get a grounding lifted….lets hope this crap never ever happens again (goes to court and prevails) and judges are smarter in the future.
B
The law should balance interests by giving a man a limited time to seek disestablishment of paternity–after he had strong reason to know of his non-paternity. Otherwise, a man can hide behind the log, willing to support the children while he enjoys the benefits of marriage, then ambushes the mother when the divorce comes. And why require a man to show fraud, when all he really should need to show is mistake and clean hands?
Erik’s idea sounds reasonable to me. I think the premise should be that his doubts are proven by a DNA test (and in reality, in 70% of cases, paternity tests show that the child really is the biological offspring of the man requesting the test) or if the mother refuses to let the child undergo the test (which in itself is suspicious – I mean if she “innocent,” why should she be reluctant to have her child take it?). I think though that the man should be required to show fraud. As I mentions, 70% of paternity test turn out to be “mistaken” – the man’s doubts are found to be misplaced. And of course there are jealous men who suspect that their wife/girlfriend is having an affair even if she talks to another man (I know; I dated a guy like this). But if it happens the child is not his, he should be allowed to disestablish paternity.
My husband has been raising a child that he recently found out is not biologically his own. His ex definitely duped him. He wants to remain her father but the moral issue has arisen–when and how to tell the child the truth. The mother is against her ever knowing. His daughter is only 8 and questions her identity. Her skin tone is different than her brother and the rest of the family, It is becoming more apparent that she is of a different race. I adopted my daughter at the age of 8 from a third world country. My daughter is adament that the child needs to know sooner rather than later.
Some opinions would be helpful. Unfortunately, we have to go to court to get the “right” to be honest with his young daughter. How absurd!
My husband recently found out from his alledged daughter that she was told by her mother that he was not her biological father. My husband then took a paternity test and was with out a doubt not the girls father. My husband and I have both worked long hours to pay support for this child that all along knew that my husband was not her father. Now my husbands life and money (not to mention my money too!) are in the hands of a judge. The girl is 14 years old and has been taught that its ok to lie for money! I am pesimistic about the courts ruling- for my husband. This is an injustice and teaches the youth that its ok to lie!!! The only person paying for the mothers lies is my husband and me! The money we spent raising another mans child could have been put towards our own family and children. The mother has stole from more than just my husband. Truth is Truth. How can a judge rule that the truth is not JUSTICE?! Im so disappointed in our judiciary system!