Summary

A Canadian court has held that a man whose wife gave birth to another man's child is not required to pay child support - because he has not acted as a parent since the discovery.

Body

Link to article

The couple had been married for three years before the child was born. Guy assumed it was his, and supported the child accordingly. For an unnamed reason, a paternity test was performed 4 years later, immediately followed by divorce proceedings.

During the divorce, the woman admitted the child belonged to another man and did not claim child support. The divorce judge warned them that paternity was not necessarily determinative of child support obligations.

The woman took off and went to another Canadian province with a guy she met on the internet and went no contact with her former husband.

A few years later, she filed for child support in her new province, claiming that her ex had acted as parent between the birth and marriage breakdown.

The ex-husband responded by claiming that he had no contact with the child since a few months after their separation (as distinct from the formal divorce - I'm assuming they split up pretty much as soon as the results were back) and that he had only assumed the role of parent by a "serious mistake of fact".

To this point, it all sounds familiar and straight-forward. However, the new judge ruled in the man's favor, noting that

  • The husband believe the child was his at the time of the birth

  • The husband provided for the child until the truth came out

  • The child would have accepted the husband as his father

  • but they had by now been estranged for longer than together with the child

The judge then ruled that he doubted the child had anything other than vague and dim memories of the husband, and that he doubted the child had formed any "durable expectations of the respondent". He also noted that it would not be in the least bit fair to order the husband to support the child.

Summary

This is a single case, so there is no giant cultural shift, but it is interesting. Going by the first judge's words, if the woman had sought support at the divorce, they guy would already have been paying. But because she waited until the child had no real memory of his 'father', the new judge ruled that it would be unfair for the man.

Oh, and of course, the woman has no idea who the real father was...