2009 January 11 Sunday
Toronto Guy Must Pay For Kids Not Genetically His

A Toronto Canada man has to pay child support for kids who genetically are not his.

Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg ordered Pasqualino Cornelio to continue paying child support to the 16-year-old twins – regardless of whether he was bamboozled by a philandering wife.

“While the failure of Anciolina 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 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 said.

Does anyone know of American states where discovery that the kids are from an extramarital affair lets the guy off the hook for child support? Even better, for alimony?

Marriage is in dire need of a more realistic appraisal of its uses and abuses.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2009 January 11 09:25 AM  Cultural Wars Marriage

Jerry Martinson said at January 11, 2009 12:18 PM:

I think there was a California Supreme court decision in 2005 or 2006 that effectively ended the "Mansfield" rule (a 1700's era precedent that is the origin of the case law causing this BS to continue well-after DNA testing) presuming paternity of the father without any way to contest it. This was a couple years after a statutory effort failed with then Gov Grey Davis vetoed it. Perhaps he was worried if it passed ;-)

Jerry Martinson said at January 11, 2009 12:27 PM:

Off-the-hook for alimony for an affair would be complicated. There could be many underlying and complex causes for a divorce with the affair being the last one. The idea that one party may be solely culpable for a broken marriage is sometimes true but usually both parties are at fault.

I just have a problem with the amounts and duration of alimony that is often awarded. Particularly how difficult it is to change when circumstances do. Many people have highly variable incomes and if the alimony and child support formulas are based off of a peak, rather than a running score, then it becomes absolutely nutty. Family law judges should follow a point system for deciding custody and alimony so that gets reviewed and checked for anti-mail gender bias. There's a lot of nutter out there on the bench.

kurt9 said at January 11, 2009 12:46 PM:

If you're going to screw around, get a vasectomy. Plain and simple. No "Ifs" or "buts". You just do it. Never trust a woman when she says she's on birth control. Women are simply not rational when it comes to the issue of having kids.

You have have your sperm cryo-preserved so that you have the option of having kids down the road. Also, you need to "cover up" anyways to prevent from getting STDs.

Jerry Martinson said at January 11, 2009 1:18 PM:

So here's a question:

What if we have Mr. Perfect, a smart, good-looking, athletic guy, and have a good temperament. A '10' across the board.

Should we be making it legally and financially difficult for Mr. Perfect to spread his seed around? Most people think that the wrong people are having kids; certainly genes have something to do with more than eye color and whether you can wiggle your knuckle funny. The problem is Mr. Perfect will only have 2 kids in today's society. Maybe he should be having 20! Are the polygamists on to something?

tim said at January 11, 2009 6:27 PM:


Yes we should limit Mr. Perfect, he isn't going to reproduce with the lowest classes, he is going to displace beta males who are unexciting but perfectly capable providers. Also genetics is potential, its perfectly possible not to reach that potential, without parental support.

Polygamy is not the way to form a society. You might think the most fit would breed more, I think people would just game the system. It's like capitalism, when it works, the best product/price ratio is hit, but that's hard and people realize its much easier to change the game with government intervention.

SF said at January 12, 2009 5:46 PM:

A friend of mine in California, sterile, separated from his wife before the baby was born. He got out of child support, but they used the threat of child support to extract a better settlement re alimony and property. If he had still been together with the woman when the baby was born, he probably would have been SOL.

Jerry Martinson said at January 12, 2009 11:55 PM:


Was this after the strike-down of absolute Mansfield in 2005?

momochan said at January 14, 2009 1:16 PM:

Years ago I heard of a judgment wherein a man who turned out not to be the father was ordered to continue visitation with "his" child. The reason given was the child's psychological wellbeing, since suddenly yanking away what the kid had thought was Daddy would be too much trauma. This seems reasonable to me.
But continued payment of child support does not seem reasonable at all.

Ross said at January 17, 2009 9:27 PM:

Most court cases side with the female for child custody. Men make calculations of the genetic fitness of women to bear fit children. High IQ men calculate the costs of raising kids through college, such that said kids are equipped with the skills required for success in society.

The population, particularly the high IQ cohort, has declined in birthrates to below replacement level. This is entirely a cost calculation: 1) The cost of a dependent wife, and her behavior 2) The costs associated with a judicial system that almost always sides with the female 3) The high tax burdens and other costs associated with raising kids.

It is a wonder men are marrying and having kids at all, given the inherent risk of bankruptcy.

The statistics bear out this contention: Those states that have low tax rates, cheap housing, and religious affliations, have greater than replacement population rates. Those (blue) states that are government dependent, with high housing costs, have below replacement birth rates.

If you want to marry a non-philandering wife, and have successful children, the data suggest moving to a low tax bible belt state.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©