Twins not his, but man must pay child support

A Toronto-area man must continue paying child support to his former wife despite DNA tests proving he is not the biological father of her 16-year-old twins, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.

Pasqualino Cornelio will also not recoup any of the child-support money he paid out since the couple separated a decade ago, Justice Katherine van Rensburg wrote in her decision.

In making her recent ruling, the judge referred to a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision that said if someone acts as a parent and provides support for a child during a marriage, they are obliged to continue that financial support after separation or divorce -- even if the child is not biologically theirs.

"While the failure of Ms. Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair and that the twins might not be his biological children may well have been a moral wrong against Mr. Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support," Judge van Rensburg wrote.

Mr. Cornelio had argued his former spouse, Anciolina Cornelio, provided him with "incomplete and misleading information" that led him to believe he was the biological father of the twins.

He told the court his ex-wife failed to disclose an extramarital affair before the twins' birth, concealing the fact that he may not be their father.

Mr. Cornelio was seeking repayment of the child support he paid out since the couple separated in 1998, or at least from May of 2002, when the pair agreed to joint custody and child support.

But the judge pointed out that Mr. Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone named Tony, who may have fathered the twins -- but he sought joint custody regardless. He only began pursuing the issue after Ms. Cornelio began seeking increased child-support payments, the judge noted.

Ms. Cornelio had told the court that she did not know the identity of the twins' biological father, saying she had no memory of an extramarital affair prior to their birth. She attributed the memory lapse to medication she was taking at the time.

Citing precedent, Judge van Rensburg said her ruling was based on the best interests of the children.

"The right to child support is the right of a child, and is independent of a parent's own conduct," she wrote, noting that Mr. Cornelio was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage and that they developed a "natural relationship between a parent and his children."

"The fact of that relationship, which continued for six years before separation and then for 10 years after separation, even if it has now become strained, is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs," Judge van Rensburg wrote.

He treated them as his kids, and them as their dad, for all those years.
THAT's what being parent mean, regardless of genetics, and therefore he should continue to act like one and pay for their education.

What next? adopters taht divorce wouldn't have to support the kids either?

(on the other hand, I don't think that a genetic father that had no decision on the kids being born and never raised them should pay for child support..unless he forced the mother of course.)

He treated them as his kids, and them as their dad, for all those years.
THAT's what being parent mean, regardless of genetics, and therefore he should continue to act like one and pay for their education.

What next? adopters taht divorce wouldn't have to support the kids either?

(on the other hand, I don't think that a genetic father that had no decision on the kids being born and never raised them should pay for child support..unless he forced the mother of course.)

So basically, you're saying that the kids he raised and supported and considered his for all those years, and I would presume/hope, loved, now means nothing to him just because he's found out he's not their biological father?
I'm sorry but he's still their Dad! That's what the ruling means.

I'm not defending the mother, she's a cow too lying to him and her kids, but that's not a reason to punish the kids even further.

No, he's not their Dad.

And why does everything have to be punishing with you? Anything remotely negative is a "punishment" being "inflicted" by someone.

With better protection from the law, women should also have increased responsibility. I think there should be some kind of mechanism by which even the biological father does not have to pay child support if they objected to having the baby. In this day and age there are too many ways to not get pregnant, if women have 100% right to choose to have the baby, they should be ready to take 100% responsibility.

There are so many ways men can get screwed by women and there is no protection at all for them. Women can lie about being on birth control. They can lie about being pregnant. They can lie about who the father is. These things can earn women an extra paycheck for the next 18 years, and that isn't right.

So basically, you're saying that the kids he raised and supported and considered his for all those years, and I would presume/hope, loved, now means nothing to him just because he's found out he's not their biological father?
I'm sorry but he's still their Dad! That's what the ruling means.

I'm not defending the mother, she's a cow too lying to him and her kids, but that's not a reason to punish the kids even further.

yes he IS.
Dad is who raises you. Father is whose semen you come from.
You can very well call Dad someone that's not your father! I did, and Mum too!

The money is not necessarily going to the kids anyway, it most likely goes through the courts to the mother. So in effect the mother is using his relationship with the children to extort money from him. Sounds incredibly fair to me! Now someone explain again why an increasing number of men don't want to get married?

You seem to have some difficulty separating morality from legality. Of course he is morally responsible for the kids, and I would bet he does not want to sever his relationship with them. However, the mother extracted money from him under a pretense. That's fraud, and she should have to pay him back. He shouldn't be forced to support them by the law, but of course he has a moral obligation to the kids and I would hope he would do the right thing by them.

You seem to have some difficulty separating morality from legality.