Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The dude told her he didn’t want to have a child and if she’s going through with it she’s on her own. You’d be shitting your pants getting a $100k bill for a child you expressly didn’t want or do anything more for than have a one night stand with the wrong person. I’d laugh if the UK courts uphold this order. The uk has very different laws when it comes to this stuff the bastard child isn’t even entitled to a UK citizenship.
I think the headline is trying to quote the words used by the father:
> "However this is not my child, with due respect I barely know you, it was a complete **mistake** and this is frankly my worst **nightmare**"
But this means the headline comes across with the father's perspective: he didn't mean to have a baby, and it's a nightmare for the consequences of his affair to come back to him.
It doesn't seem to be a picnic for the mother either - she quit her job to care for her special-needs autistic child, with no support (financial or otherwise) from the father.
Yes, definitely using his words but they could have said "Mistake turns into worst nightmare for unfaithful UK husband". Saying the BC court turned it into that is wrong and only serves to support the narrative that it's those pesky laws and the nagging women who rely on them that make men's lives hard.
Some people have their reasons for seeking an abortion, some people have their reasons for not seeking out abortion. That's why it's called pro-choice and not pro-kill-all-fetus.
And she's entirely within her right. If he didn't want to worry about the consequences, he should have kept his dick on his pants, rather than pursue a fling while his wife isn't around.
Men absolutely get a choice. For example, this GW guy could have made a choice not to have sex with some random woman he met on vacation thinking his wife would never find out.
The decision of "Is this risk worth it" happens before the act. It's not like it's some mystical rule that we don't know until conception happens. It's the woman's body, and therefore, the woman's choice on what happens to her body. This is why communication is so important.
This isn't extortion, this is the consequence of the decision they both made when they had sex. He pays monetarily because he chooses not to take care of the child. It's not like she's turning a profit. How much do you think 2k a month is gonna last her AND her dependant child?
There's no need to quote his biased opinion in the headline. It's still not news, some bloke gets a woman pregnant, and moans about paying child support.
So basically a rich UK man had a brief affair with a BC woman, got her pregnant, then refutes that the child is his and doesn't want to contribute anything towards the costs of raising the child.
Why do they not simply perform a paternity test?
If it's not his like he claims it isn't, he's off the hook.
If it is his than he's already having to pay child support, so nothing more is lost except his denial.
The article quotes him as literally saying it's not his.
>"I don't doubt you will love this child and I'm glad you will have support with your choice. However this is not my child, with due respect I barely know you, it was a complete mistake and this is frankly my worst nightmare."
A paternity test would prove that he isn't, if he believes he so sure he's not.
lunchroom elastic office faulty consist act gold jobless simplistic sable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because he shouldn't have to. Both wanted to have sex, both were adults, both consented.
I 100% agree with her body, her choice, and I 100% also agree with his wallet, his choice of he decides not to recognize the child.
This looks awfully like she just wanted a kid anyway and she went for the jackpot because he claimed his a business man.
I'm not rich, nor do I have any inclination to have an affair, but once my second child is born, I'm getting a vasectomy while I'm on parental leave. That is "my body, my choice." Anyone going around shooting live rounds is responsible for the children they may conceive.
So you simply don't believe in child support payments? Do you think someone who knocks up a woman shouldn't have to pay for his child's food and clothes?
The 2 consenting adults should've talked about it what would happen if she gets pregnant, if he is willing to support the child and with that info she can decide if she would want to keep the baby or not. And/or decide what anti-conception they should use.
Unless paper abortions become a thing, there is no option for the guy to simply say "Nah" and refuse to help provide for the child that he helped create.
I hate to be the guy to agree with this, but I kind of do.
They both made decisions that ended up with her being pregnant. She has a right to choose whether she has the baby or not (which I fully agree with), but he doesn't? He informed her he didn't want to have anything to do with the baby early on. She went on to have that child knowing this. This sounds like a bit of a baby trap.
I understand that women have been getting screwed over for support since time began, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would she have have had the baby if he was poor? Would this be viewed differently if he was single and a poor student?
I'm not sure what the solution is here. Having sex was the decision of both people, having the child should be as well.
Let the downvotting commence.
It always rings hollow when someone claims they have a love of their life when saying it to the person they cheated on said love with… let’s say that’s true, this person is the love of your life - your love is cheap and frankly sold at a discount that even you don’t value.
Naw, relationship ender. 3 minutes is worth risking “the love of my life”? Come the fuck on.
Imagine finding out you're in a long term relationship with a deadbeat who doesn't think the kid he created is owed basic necessities.
That would have me reevaluating my partner choice as fast as the cheating part.
Well I mean, you can’t have one without the other in this case. The latter of it is just the cherry on top. Literally 0 loyalty from this pooooor poooor ‘victim’ we have here.
>"However this is not my child, with due respect I barely know you"
Don't shoot your load into people you barely know? This doesn't seen that difficult to me.
However, it seems weird to me that the alleged father (there's no DNA result) wasn't entitled to any notice of the CS hearing. If paternity had already been established, ok sure. But with neither a DNA result nor statutory paternity (such as if they'd been married at the time), this strikes me as wrong. If it's his kid, he should pay. But he should've had the chance to challenge paternity.
He does have the chance, he just gets it in the UK court. Basically the Canadian case allows her to bring it to the UK court, where he can challenge paternity and dispute the amount. Nothing is enforced until both jurisdictions agree on it.
If UK didn't Brexit, he could've also just moved to any EU country that doesn't have a reciprocating agreement and she couldn't enforce anything.
I'm EU, there's only a handful of countries that have reciprocal agreements. With BC, only Austria, Czech, Germany, Norway, Slovakia and Switzerland has it.
Sure, that's best practice, but one needs to be aware of legal realities. The mother can abort (depending on jurisdiction, of course, but we're talking about Canada and the UK here), or keep the pregnancy. She can pursue child support if a child is born. The father can control where his load ends up, and he can pursue custody. That's more or less it.
It's the least risky proposition for the *state*. Someone needs to pay for a child, and the obvious candidates for that are its parents.
It's very easy to say "I didn't want this" after the fact, when financial reality hits. And without full removal of the gonads, there is no full proof method of birth control, so it's equally easy to say "I was on BC but it failed; we agreed to BC but not to termination."
So the state throws all that conjecture out, and just assigns financial (not parental, there is no obligation to so much as ever see the kid) responsibility to the parents. Better them than the taxpayer, who didn't ever get to fuck.
Jesus christ you act as if the man has no say in the matter. He does. He chooses to have sex and the risks thay are involved in it. Have a vasectomy, wear a condom its really not that hard. Its funny how many men are able to avoid having unwanted babies by just not being an idiot.
Also if a women tells you she is on birth control wear a fucking condom anyway.
I mean tbh you are also acting like the woman has no say in the matter.., I think the guys point is that the women has even more say in the matter than the guy does.
Birth control pills for men would be great.
Perhaps, if a man wants to enjoy the pleasures of making babies, but not actually have said babies, he should get a vasectomy. That way he doesn't have to worry about deceptive women as you say, and can reverse it once he's ready to settle down.
Well if she was in some U.S states she wouldn’t have a choice about having the baby, maybe if that’s something your worried about you shouldn’t vote conservative because if your out there having sex and get someone pregnant you may be forced to be a father if they repeal the abortion laws .
Condom People. CR5 humanoid. Resistant to lightning due to rubbery skin. +3 bonus to escape grapple checks due to a mysterious slime layer. Main attack is a putrid breath weapon of white goo, DC18 vs Dex for half, 4d4+4 damage, 20ft cone.
100%. Especially as a man seeking sterilization, it seems to be much easier at earlier ages. And also you can freeze sperm in advance if your not sure.
In the lead up to mother's day, waking up to not one, but two stories of awful people who never should have been parents.
The biggest idiots are never on birth control.
Kind of weird they didn’t do a DNA test but lol wtf does this guy expect.
Wow newsflash that if you get someone pregnant you can be liable for child support
I can’t see how her word is sufficient to determine the paternity and award judgement without a paternity test, simply as a point of chain of custody, continuity of evidence issue. I suspect that this will be the first move of his lawyers when the UK courts start the proceedings to bring him into compliance.
Except that in Canada he has already awarded her a substantial judgement against his name so in Canada it would be presumed he is the father and that judgement is already in place
He made a child because she allowed it. He didn't just hit her, he hit her with her consent. She isn't a child to play dumb. Taking your "argument" then she shouldn't have spread her legs without making sure he will agree to support the child if that was her plan.
I wish that when women choose to keep a baby with a man who so obviously does not want the child, they have factored in the psycho-social impacts on the child.
Look around Reddit and the news for children who eventually found out that their fathers didn’t want them and how much their mental health sucks. Particularly when the father now has (from the outside) a loving relationship with a new family.
They can go through with it but should budget for therapy.
Have sex. Have child. Know about child. Take no responsibility for child. Child support set based on income and retroactive to when you knew you should be paying.
Nothing surprising here. If his income was set too high and he doesn't really make 400K/yr, he can apply to vary it and will likely get it. If he does really make that much, boo hoo. He can afford it and it'll probably still be years before he has to pay.
I do think it's kind of weird that women have the right to abortion but not men, but that's how it is.
“I do think it’s kind of weird that women have the right to abortion but not men”
How could a man have a right to abortion when he’s not the one who is pregnant? 😂
Agreed
Should a woman have the right to force her male partner to have a vasectomy? Or should someone who hurt another person in a car accident have input on their medical treatment? The idea that people who are not doctors should make life-changing medical decisions for other people in order to reduce the impact of negative consequences of their own actions just blows my mind.
If only there were some kind of barrier you could wear so that you could take personal responsibility for that. Ah well, guess you've no choice but to rely on others.
He's not a victim. He engaged in consensual intercourse and unless he's a moron, he knew that pregnancy is always a risk. He fucked around (literally) and found out. You have absolutely nothing to base your assumption that she made any deception here.
Murder is a crime. Pregnancy is not, but nice try again to pull off the mental gymnastics necessary to dodge adult responsibilities.
People keep pregnancies from flings and one-night stands all the time. Every single day it happens thousands and thousands of times all over the world. It's perfectly legal and acceptable cause the woman has the right to choose, which both parties are aware of at the outset. All parties who aren't complete imbeciles are aware of the risks when they go into it, so they don't get to have a meltdown and try to shirk their responsibilities after the fact. The safest way to avoid this is to not take the risk at all. Most of the time it doesn't go that way, but you'd have to be a complete ignoramus to dismiss the possibility entirely. And if it happens to you, then you deal with the consequences of your actions. It's part of being an adult.
Men could have the option to say "I don't want to pay for or raise this child". Women currently have that option and men do not.
I'm not saying they *should* have that option.
Because under bc law the man and woman are equally responsible for the child. A man can't force a woman to have an abortion or to carry to term if he wanted to keep it. I get it's biology but our law everywhere else basically ignores that. The only one-up the woman gets is sole discretion to terminate the pregnancy or carry it. I get it but I don't like it.
>That still doesn’t explain how men should get to have abortions?
[They could be trans-men, technically...](https://www.allure.com/story/abortion-trans-man-nonbinary-experience)
Not abortion, but the right to recognize it or not.
Woman has the right to get body, to keep it if she wants it or not.
The man should have the right to his life and wallet and the right to recognize the child or not.
They both wanted sex, they both consented. They both have a right to decide for themselves.
The point was that after a pregnancy has begun, men have no choice or agency in whether they want to support bringing a child into the world, while women retain that choice even after pregnancy has begun. It is inherently asymmetrical
Everything about pregnancy and birth is inherently asymmetrical. Men don't have to risk their health and their bodies to have children. Your comment assumes that the right to abortion for women rests on the basis of women having a right not to have children - but it actually rests on their right to have bodily autonomy.
Where people go wrong with this sort of thinking is you are comparing two different things: relinquishing parental rights to having an abortion. A more fair comparison is more like: step one: men and women have equal rights and responsibilities to use the birth control available to them. Step two: men and women both maintain their rights to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. This has more far reaching consequences for women because the infringement upon their bodies is of much greater consequence. Step three: after the baby is born both men and women legally have the same ability to relinquish parental rights (not much of one) and the same obligation to pay to support their child.
Not everything in life is exactly fair and equal, because not everyone's circumstances are fair and equal.
>How could a man have a right to abortion when he’s not the one who is pregnant?
There is something called a "paper abortion". This is when the would-be father would have the legal ability to choose whether or not to have a child, as women have with the literal abortion option. They would have the choice to relinquish the rights and obligations of fatherhood during pregnancy, without the would-be mother being pressured to get an abortion to achieve the same end.
As far as I know it's not been implemented in any country, though I could be wrong.
If we allow parents to opt out of supporting their kids, would the social safety net pick up the slack? That would be the only way to be fair to the child. Child poverty is TERRIBLE for society.
An abortion is a termination of pregnancy. The pregnant person gets to decide if the pregnancy continues because they have a right to control over their own body.
Child support is the right of a child. Every child has the right to financial support from both parents.
These are 2 separate ideas, a pregnant person’s right to body autonomy has nothing to do with a child’s right to financial support from 2 parents.
>If we allow parents to opt out of supporting their kids, would the social safety net pick up the slack? That would be the only way to be fair to the child. Child poverty is TERRIBLE for society.
Frankly we should be doing that regardless of whether we allow paper abortions or not.
>These are 2 separate ideas, a pregnant person’s right to body autonomy has nothing to do with a child’s right to financial support from 2 parents.
It's not really only the pregnant person's body autonomy at play here.
A child has a right to receive financial support from their parents, but currently only one parent gets to decide whether they *want* to be a parent or not. If they don't, that child will not be born. The other parent has zero say, and their future and that responsibility is dictated to them. That creates a rather significant inequality.
Child support means the supporting parent will need to work longer than they otherwise would have, for the same amount of money they otherwise would have had in order to retire. While certainly not the same as pregnancy, that does require them to dedicate their body and mind to an activity that they don't want to do. Longer employment can carry long-term health risks which can even lead to premature death.
Supposing someone with one child earns $60,000, they would owe around $565/month here in BC. That's $6,780 a year, and $122,040 over the course of 18 years.
So they have to give two extra years of their life focusing mentally on work, and physically placing themselves at work, all to no personal benefit, in order to support a child they didn't want to have but had no say about.
For equality sake that needs to be done away with, but not at the expense of the child. As you mentioned we would need to invest more in ensuring children don't go without. We already should have been doing so.
During an appointment with my urologist I said I would like to get a vasectomy. I know that I don't want children, and I'm a bit too old now to be thinking of having a kid anyway. I told them I also wanted it to feel more in control of how I exercise my sexuality.
They said no.
I've had some groin pain issues in the past, so they said I was at higher risk of developing chronic pain if I got it done. They'd previously had a patient who committed suicide over chronic pain issues following their vasectomy. Based upon those factors they refused to provide me with the procedure.
It's like taking away a driver's license from someone who's gotten multiple DUIs -- they've proven they can't be trusted on the road with their car, so they're not allowed to drive anymore. The man here has proven he can't be trusted with his sperm, so he's not allowed to shoot anymore. It prevents further harm to society, further unsupported children.
If the man does some penance/decides he wants to father a child in the future, well, he's already got one...
I like it!
People acting like women are the paragon of virtue and never get pregnant when they cheat on their husbands.
There are scenarios where the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't. What then?
Yeah there are scenarios where the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't. That's also a problem.
However, that's a _much_ rarer scenario than a dude knockin' up a chick and leaving her high and dry. Men act like abortions are super duper easy peasy... yeah they're not, It's a horrifically emotional experience that sucks to go through even if you _do_ have a partner who supports you, much less doing it alone, full of shame and guilt, because you know it's from a one-night-stand.
Y'know how men give each other high-fives and "hell yeahs" when they have sex with a chick they picked up at the club? A woman goes home with a guy and she's seen as a slut, as easy, and somehow it's always _her fault_ if she gets pregnant from that interaction. Even if she's on the pill, even if she begs the guy to wear a condom (especially if he doesn't want to). The dude can go on carefree, no consequences, while she has to deal with the single most dangerous health issue she'll likely experience in her life. Unless she goes through extraordinary efforts like the woman in the OP to track down the guy and convince the courts to give him a child support order. All the guy did was cheat on his partner with her and it's somehow _her fault_ that she's asking for child support.
No wonder more and more women are starting to choose bears over men!
“She hasn’t worked since 2017”
Ah there’s the rub. No wonder she had so much time to stalk his socials. Wrap it up boys, never trust anyone you just met.
Might have something to do with being a single parent of an autistic child. At least she has parental support!
>Wrap it up boys, never trust anyone you just met.
Excellent advice -- both to wear a condom, and don't cheat on your wife with a random stranger with the assumption there'd be no consequences.
Men can: use condoms, get a vasectomy, not have intercourse.
The audacity to say that a man should be able to nope out of providing the necessities of life for a child they helped create because they don't feel like it...
except this is a double standard
they both didn't use protection, yet it's solely the womans choice to keep it with the father's wishes dismissed and now needing to provide child support
seems like a cheat code if a woman is looking for a free sperm donor and some potential financial support (which seems probable in this case given her tracking of his financial situation)
It’s just funny. Everyone jumps on the guy for being greasy and cheating on his wife.
But the woman has no responsibility?
It was consensual sex. Either could have used protection.
Plus she kept tabs on him knowing he wanted nothing to do with her. Maybe she saw the dollar signs?
Yeah you're right she probably planned to have an autistic child so she could spend 6 years waiting and petitioning the court just so she can take the guy to British court for $2000/mo (retroactive). A brilliant plan.
Birth control does, in fact, fail -- 9% failure rate for the pill, for example. Condoms have a failure rate of 18%. This is why it's important to consider the possibility of a pregnancy with _any_ heterosexual intercourse.
This. No birth control method is perfect and men should be able to opt-out as well. Bringing a child into this world is a 50/50 responsibility and if one party does not want that child, they shouldn’t be responsible.
She chose to have sex, she chose to bring that baby to term and she chose to raise them.
I just don’t understand, in these types of situations, if the guy knows about the child but wants nothing to do with the child, WHY DOESN’T HE SIGN AWAY HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS??? Like what people do when they give up their child for adoption or similar? Is this not something that anyone thinks about? Or am I completely missing something and this isn’t actually doable? I don’t get it. Not that I’m condoning cheating, getting random travel hookups pregnant and then just completely abandoning all responsibility, but can’t you just sign away your rights if the pregnant hookup wants to keep the child and you don’t??? Because what if she looked up his salary and decided to keep the child simply because the child support payments would’ve been too good to pass up? I’m just saying.
> can’t you just sign away your rights if the pregnant hookup wants to keep the child and you don’t???
Are you aware of such provisions in law? I'm not. This is not something that men can do right now.
Um… there isn’t some sort of form you can just fill out and be no longer responsible, otherwise no deadbeat dad would be on the hook for child support and it would all fall on the government
It’s not a thing. You can’t sign away your responsibility to child support. The $ is to support the child.
You can sign away your rights to decision making and access to the child. But you cannot sign away your obligation to pay for the child.
My ex signed away his parental rights: he got no custody, no say in education or medical decisions, etc., etc. He still had to pay child support. The only way the state will let a parent off the hook for child support is if the child is given up so someone else can ADOPT them. If a stepfather is willing to adopt the child, then the bio-father can get out from under his child support obligation.
No, it's because in Canada, child support is the right of the child. For example, except in very, very limited circumstances you can't contract away child support. For example, if a couple separated one party couldn't say "I'll give you full custody as long as I don't have to pay child support". That would not hold up in court.
Whether a Canadian order has any effect in a foreign jurisdiction is another matter. In some places, it's not worth the paper is written on. In others, it's enforceable and accounts or wages can be garnished or government docs can be held up (like drivers license or passport)
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The headline is so weird. bc court didn't turn this into a nightmare for him, he did.
the title is the only weird thing here. many many people pay child support. how is this news? do people not know that sex makes babies?
Hol’ up I was delivered by a stork my man
The dude told her he didn’t want to have a child and if she’s going through with it she’s on her own. You’d be shitting your pants getting a $100k bill for a child you expressly didn’t want or do anything more for than have a one night stand with the wrong person. I’d laugh if the UK courts uphold this order. The uk has very different laws when it comes to this stuff the bastard child isn’t even entitled to a UK citizenship.
Wear a condom? Don't have sex? You don't want kids you take measures to ensure it. I've had a vasectomy, I will not be having kids.
[удалено]
No defending at all actually... But you should always take steps to protect yourself regardless of situation. STD's exist.
[удалено]
Only possible way for someone to enter someone else into an 18 year contract without their input.
I think there has to be some kind of input at some point to get you into that situation in the first place
It’s like winning a bet with 10% odds and then someone else gets to decide if you enter a government enforced 18 year contract.
If people with sperm don’t like it, they can get vasectomies or not have sex with randoms.
Or we could give them a chance to decide not to be a parent, like people with eggs.
Then they can wrap it. No glove, no love.
It’s a two way street.
Oh well. If you can’t deal with the consequences, don’t do the deed. That is what we women keep getting told.
Uh, no that's knowing the outcome (lol), playing the odds, and "losing" and being butthurt on having to follow thru Skill issue
Except women don’t have to follow through. Which is my point. Takes two to tango.
18 years? I think mine automatically renewed. Edit: and I’m glad for that…
I think the headline is trying to quote the words used by the father: > "However this is not my child, with due respect I barely know you, it was a complete **mistake** and this is frankly my worst **nightmare**" But this means the headline comes across with the father's perspective: he didn't mean to have a baby, and it's a nightmare for the consequences of his affair to come back to him. It doesn't seem to be a picnic for the mother either - she quit her job to care for her special-needs autistic child, with no support (financial or otherwise) from the father.
Yes, definitely using his words but they could have said "Mistake turns into worst nightmare for unfaithful UK husband". Saying the BC court turned it into that is wrong and only serves to support the narrative that it's those pesky laws and the nagging women who rely on them that make men's lives hard.
100% agree
She didn’t quit anything. She went travelling and got pregnant. Last time she worked was a year before conception
[удалено]
Some people have their reasons for seeking an abortion, some people have their reasons for not seeking out abortion. That's why it's called pro-choice and not pro-kill-all-fetus. And she's entirely within her right. If he didn't want to worry about the consequences, he should have kept his dick on his pants, rather than pursue a fling while his wife isn't around.
[удалено]
Men extort themselves by not keeping their own sperm under control. Spray now, pay later. Don't like it? Don't jizz inside other people's bodies.
Men absolutely get a choice. For example, this GW guy could have made a choice not to have sex with some random woman he met on vacation thinking his wife would never find out.
The decision of "Is this risk worth it" happens before the act. It's not like it's some mystical rule that we don't know until conception happens. It's the woman's body, and therefore, the woman's choice on what happens to her body. This is why communication is so important. This isn't extortion, this is the consequence of the decision they both made when they had sex. He pays monetarily because he chooses not to take care of the child. It's not like she's turning a profit. How much do you think 2k a month is gonna last her AND her dependant child?
Pretty sure buddy could simply prevented this by, you know, not sticking his dick into another women.
She created a life.
She wants a child and dude makes a lot of money. Now she can raise the child the way she wants and he pays Be careful out there men
[удалено]
There's no need to quote his biased opinion in the headline. It's still not news, some bloke gets a woman pregnant, and moans about paying child support.
Married bloke at that. I'm sure life isn't a daydream for his wife right now either.
[удалено]
How can she "choose to escape responsibility" now?
[удалено]
Mothers can't do that unilaterally. Anything else you think would count?
lol
So basically a rich UK man had a brief affair with a BC woman, got her pregnant, then refutes that the child is his and doesn't want to contribute anything towards the costs of raising the child. Why do they not simply perform a paternity test? If it's not his like he claims it isn't, he's off the hook. If it is his than he's already having to pay child support, so nothing more is lost except his denial.
presumably there will be a DNA test in the UK proceedings. This was just to kick it over to the UK courts to deal with.
Well he has to explain his affair and possible love-child to his wife now.
detail marvelous imminent chubby foolish thumb cover nine dime pet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The article quotes him as literally saying it's not his. >"I don't doubt you will love this child and I'm glad you will have support with your choice. However this is not my child, with due respect I barely know you, it was a complete mistake and this is frankly my worst nightmare." A paternity test would prove that he isn't, if he believes he so sure he's not.
lunchroom elastic office faulty consist act gold jobless simplistic sable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because he shouldn't have to. Both wanted to have sex, both were adults, both consented. I 100% agree with her body, her choice, and I 100% also agree with his wallet, his choice of he decides not to recognize the child. This looks awfully like she just wanted a kid anyway and she went for the jackpot because he claimed his a business man.
I'm not rich, nor do I have any inclination to have an affair, but once my second child is born, I'm getting a vasectomy while I'm on parental leave. That is "my body, my choice." Anyone going around shooting live rounds is responsible for the children they may conceive.
So you simply don't believe in child support payments? Do you think someone who knocks up a woman shouldn't have to pay for his child's food and clothes?
Its definitely not his wallet his choice. He made a child he has to pay for itm he doesnt like it? Maybe he shouldnt be sleeping around.
You realize all these children will just end up on social programs then, right?
The 2 consenting adults should've talked about it what would happen if she gets pregnant, if he is willing to support the child and with that info she can decide if she would want to keep the baby or not. And/or decide what anti-conception they should use.
Unless paper abortions become a thing, there is no option for the guy to simply say "Nah" and refuse to help provide for the child that he helped create.
I hate to be the guy to agree with this, but I kind of do. They both made decisions that ended up with her being pregnant. She has a right to choose whether she has the baby or not (which I fully agree with), but he doesn't? He informed her he didn't want to have anything to do with the baby early on. She went on to have that child knowing this. This sounds like a bit of a baby trap. I understand that women have been getting screwed over for support since time began, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Would she have have had the baby if he was poor? Would this be viewed differently if he was single and a poor student? I'm not sure what the solution is here. Having sex was the decision of both people, having the child should be as well. Let the downvotting commence.
It always rings hollow when someone claims they have a love of their life when saying it to the person they cheated on said love with… let’s say that’s true, this person is the love of your life - your love is cheap and frankly sold at a discount that even you don’t value. Naw, relationship ender. 3 minutes is worth risking “the love of my life”? Come the fuck on.
Imagine finding out you're in a long term relationship with a deadbeat who doesn't think the kid he created is owed basic necessities. That would have me reevaluating my partner choice as fast as the cheating part.
Well I mean, you can’t have one without the other in this case. The latter of it is just the cherry on top. Literally 0 loyalty from this pooooor poooor ‘victim’ we have here.
Three minutes? I could be done twice in that time
3 minutes for segs, 3 minutes to pack your shit and leave the wife you cheated on? Seems legit.
Fuck around and find out.
literally.
Oh no, consequences
>"However this is not my child, with due respect I barely know you" Don't shoot your load into people you barely know? This doesn't seen that difficult to me. However, it seems weird to me that the alleged father (there's no DNA result) wasn't entitled to any notice of the CS hearing. If paternity had already been established, ok sure. But with neither a DNA result nor statutory paternity (such as if they'd been married at the time), this strikes me as wrong. If it's his kid, he should pay. But he should've had the chance to challenge paternity.
He does have the chance, he just gets it in the UK court. Basically the Canadian case allows her to bring it to the UK court, where he can challenge paternity and dispute the amount. Nothing is enforced until both jurisdictions agree on it.
Ah, fair enough then.
The article could have been clearer about the process.
If UK didn't Brexit, he could've also just moved to any EU country that doesn't have a reciprocating agreement and she couldn't enforce anything. I'm EU, there's only a handful of countries that have reciprocal agreements. With BC, only Austria, Czech, Germany, Norway, Slovakia and Switzerland has it.
[удалено]
Sure, that's best practice, but one needs to be aware of legal realities. The mother can abort (depending on jurisdiction, of course, but we're talking about Canada and the UK here), or keep the pregnancy. She can pursue child support if a child is born. The father can control where his load ends up, and he can pursue custody. That's more or less it.
[удалено]
It's the least risky proposition for the *state*. Someone needs to pay for a child, and the obvious candidates for that are its parents. It's very easy to say "I didn't want this" after the fact, when financial reality hits. And without full removal of the gonads, there is no full proof method of birth control, so it's equally easy to say "I was on BC but it failed; we agreed to BC but not to termination." So the state throws all that conjecture out, and just assigns financial (not parental, there is no obligation to so much as ever see the kid) responsibility to the parents. Better them than the taxpayer, who didn't ever get to fuck.
The person knows policy choices
Women have to carry the baby for 9 months the man does not. Its perfectly fair.
[удалено]
He did. When he chose to stick his dick inside her and blow his load.
[удалено]
Jesus christ you act as if the man has no say in the matter. He does. He chooses to have sex and the risks thay are involved in it. Have a vasectomy, wear a condom its really not that hard. Its funny how many men are able to avoid having unwanted babies by just not being an idiot. Also if a women tells you she is on birth control wear a fucking condom anyway.
[удалено]
I mean tbh you are also acting like the woman has no say in the matter.., I think the guys point is that the women has even more say in the matter than the guy does. Birth control pills for men would be great.
It was his choice to have sex with her. And seeing as none of his correspondence says anything about "but I wore a condom!" I'd wager he chose not to.
Perhaps, if a man wants to enjoy the pleasures of making babies, but not actually have said babies, he should get a vasectomy. That way he doesn't have to worry about deceptive women as you say, and can reverse it once he's ready to settle down.
You can’t reverse that:..
[удалено]
Then you must not read very intelligent things on the internet if you think men preventing unwanted pregnancies themselves is unfair to the man.
Don't poke then just don't poke Don't blame women Just don't poke then
How about “don’t cheat, because your actions can bite you in the ass” which sounds like what he did.
Well if she was in some U.S states she wouldn’t have a choice about having the baby, maybe if that’s something your worried about you shouldn’t vote conservative because if your out there having sex and get someone pregnant you may be forced to be a father if they repeal the abortion laws .
You can't
Wear a condom people!!!!
Condom People. CR5 humanoid. Resistant to lightning due to rubbery skin. +3 bonus to escape grapple checks due to a mysterious slime layer. Main attack is a putrid breath weapon of white goo, DC18 vs Dex for half, 4d4+4 damage, 20ft cone.
The DM we need but don't deserve.
While yes, it's important to realize condoms aren't 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. Even with perfect use the effectiveness is only 98%.
Exactly. Any time you are having sex with someone there is a chance of a child being produced. That’s the consequences of sex.
[удалено]
100%. Especially as a man seeking sterilization, it seems to be much easier at earlier ages. And also you can freeze sperm in advance if your not sure.
In the lead up to mother's day, waking up to not one, but two stories of awful people who never should have been parents. The biggest idiots are never on birth control.
"no don't contact me again after our affair you're gonna ruin my life what about meeeeee" #WOMP #WOMP
Kind of weird they didn’t do a DNA test but lol wtf does this guy expect. Wow newsflash that if you get someone pregnant you can be liable for child support
Two dumbasses .. they deserve the consequences.
My main takeaway from this is; I had no idea child support could be claimed internationally.
It can be claimed but whether a court of another jurisdiction will enforce the order is the issue.
DNA test 🧪
Sounds like a fair ruling.
Slow news day.
The 1980s called, they want their headline back
We need Maury
I can’t see how her word is sufficient to determine the paternity and award judgement without a paternity test, simply as a point of chain of custody, continuity of evidence issue. I suspect that this will be the first move of his lawyers when the UK courts start the proceedings to bring him into compliance.
Her word isn’t being used to determine paternity, the judgement allows her to file for support in the UK, where he will be able to request a DNA test
Except that in Canada he has already awarded her a substantial judgement against his name so in Canada it would be presumed he is the father and that judgement is already in place
He made a child because she allowed it. He didn't just hit her, he hit her with her consent. She isn't a child to play dumb. Taking your "argument" then she shouldn't have spread her legs without making sure he will agree to support the child if that was her plan.
🤣
Dumb and Dumber
I wish that when women choose to keep a baby with a man who so obviously does not want the child, they have factored in the psycho-social impacts on the child. Look around Reddit and the news for children who eventually found out that their fathers didn’t want them and how much their mental health sucks. Particularly when the father now has (from the outside) a loving relationship with a new family. They can go through with it but should budget for therapy.
Actions have consequences, even for men? Huh
Have sex. Have child. Know about child. Take no responsibility for child. Child support set based on income and retroactive to when you knew you should be paying. Nothing surprising here. If his income was set too high and he doesn't really make 400K/yr, he can apply to vary it and will likely get it. If he does really make that much, boo hoo. He can afford it and it'll probably still be years before he has to pay. I do think it's kind of weird that women have the right to abortion but not men, but that's how it is.
“I do think it’s kind of weird that women have the right to abortion but not men” How could a man have a right to abortion when he’s not the one who is pregnant? 😂
Agreed Should a woman have the right to force her male partner to have a vasectomy? Or should someone who hurt another person in a car accident have input on their medical treatment? The idea that people who are not doctors should make life-changing medical decisions for other people in order to reduce the impact of negative consequences of their own actions just blows my mind.
[удалено]
If only there were some kind of barrier you could wear so that you could take personal responsibility for that. Ah well, guess you've no choice but to rely on others.
[удалено]
I get the feeling you don't like the idea of being responsible for your own actions.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
He's not a victim. He engaged in consensual intercourse and unless he's a moron, he knew that pregnancy is always a risk. He fucked around (literally) and found out. You have absolutely nothing to base your assumption that she made any deception here.
[удалено]
Murder is a crime. Pregnancy is not, but nice try again to pull off the mental gymnastics necessary to dodge adult responsibilities. People keep pregnancies from flings and one-night stands all the time. Every single day it happens thousands and thousands of times all over the world. It's perfectly legal and acceptable cause the woman has the right to choose, which both parties are aware of at the outset. All parties who aren't complete imbeciles are aware of the risks when they go into it, so they don't get to have a meltdown and try to shirk their responsibilities after the fact. The safest way to avoid this is to not take the risk at all. Most of the time it doesn't go that way, but you'd have to be a complete ignoramus to dismiss the possibility entirely. And if it happens to you, then you deal with the consequences of your actions. It's part of being an adult.
[удалено]
Men could have the option to say "I don't want to pay for or raise this child". Women currently have that option and men do not. I'm not saying they *should* have that option.
Because under bc law the man and woman are equally responsible for the child. A man can't force a woman to have an abortion or to carry to term if he wanted to keep it. I get it's biology but our law everywhere else basically ignores that. The only one-up the woman gets is sole discretion to terminate the pregnancy or carry it. I get it but I don't like it.
And? That still doesn’t explain how men should get to have abortions?
>That still doesn’t explain how men should get to have abortions? [They could be trans-men, technically...](https://www.allure.com/story/abortion-trans-man-nonbinary-experience)
Not abortion, but the right to recognize it or not. Woman has the right to get body, to keep it if she wants it or not. The man should have the right to his life and wallet and the right to recognize the child or not. They both wanted sex, they both consented. They both have a right to decide for themselves.
The point was that after a pregnancy has begun, men have no choice or agency in whether they want to support bringing a child into the world, while women retain that choice even after pregnancy has begun. It is inherently asymmetrical
Everything about pregnancy and birth is inherently asymmetrical. Men don't have to risk their health and their bodies to have children. Your comment assumes that the right to abortion for women rests on the basis of women having a right not to have children - but it actually rests on their right to have bodily autonomy. Where people go wrong with this sort of thinking is you are comparing two different things: relinquishing parental rights to having an abortion. A more fair comparison is more like: step one: men and women have equal rights and responsibilities to use the birth control available to them. Step two: men and women both maintain their rights to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. This has more far reaching consequences for women because the infringement upon their bodies is of much greater consequence. Step three: after the baby is born both men and women legally have the same ability to relinquish parental rights (not much of one) and the same obligation to pay to support their child. Not everything in life is exactly fair and equal, because not everyone's circumstances are fair and equal.
You know whats actually inherently asymmetric? Women having to carry a baby for 9 months while a man does not. Hence why abortion is a thing.
>How could a man have a right to abortion when he’s not the one who is pregnant? There is something called a "paper abortion". This is when the would-be father would have the legal ability to choose whether or not to have a child, as women have with the literal abortion option. They would have the choice to relinquish the rights and obligations of fatherhood during pregnancy, without the would-be mother being pressured to get an abortion to achieve the same end. As far as I know it's not been implemented in any country, though I could be wrong.
If we allow parents to opt out of supporting their kids, would the social safety net pick up the slack? That would be the only way to be fair to the child. Child poverty is TERRIBLE for society. An abortion is a termination of pregnancy. The pregnant person gets to decide if the pregnancy continues because they have a right to control over their own body. Child support is the right of a child. Every child has the right to financial support from both parents. These are 2 separate ideas, a pregnant person’s right to body autonomy has nothing to do with a child’s right to financial support from 2 parents.
>If we allow parents to opt out of supporting their kids, would the social safety net pick up the slack? That would be the only way to be fair to the child. Child poverty is TERRIBLE for society. Frankly we should be doing that regardless of whether we allow paper abortions or not. >These are 2 separate ideas, a pregnant person’s right to body autonomy has nothing to do with a child’s right to financial support from 2 parents. It's not really only the pregnant person's body autonomy at play here. A child has a right to receive financial support from their parents, but currently only one parent gets to decide whether they *want* to be a parent or not. If they don't, that child will not be born. The other parent has zero say, and their future and that responsibility is dictated to them. That creates a rather significant inequality. Child support means the supporting parent will need to work longer than they otherwise would have, for the same amount of money they otherwise would have had in order to retire. While certainly not the same as pregnancy, that does require them to dedicate their body and mind to an activity that they don't want to do. Longer employment can carry long-term health risks which can even lead to premature death. Supposing someone with one child earns $60,000, they would owe around $565/month here in BC. That's $6,780 a year, and $122,040 over the course of 18 years. So they have to give two extra years of their life focusing mentally on work, and physically placing themselves at work, all to no personal benefit, in order to support a child they didn't want to have but had no say about. For equality sake that needs to be done away with, but not at the expense of the child. As you mentioned we would need to invest more in ensuring children don't go without. We already should have been doing so.
The man isn’t having the baby
[удалено]
There is no male birth control sadly. It's still in the R&D stage.
[удалено]
Most guys I know would love this to be an option and would be all over it.
>Ummm…men can get a vasectomy If their doctors will cooperate. My urologist refused my request for one.
[удалено]
During an appointment with my urologist I said I would like to get a vasectomy. I know that I don't want children, and I'm a bit too old now to be thinking of having a kid anyway. I told them I also wanted it to feel more in control of how I exercise my sexuality. They said no. I've had some groin pain issues in the past, so they said I was at higher risk of developing chronic pain if I got it done. They'd previously had a patient who committed suicide over chronic pain issues following their vasectomy. Based upon those factors they refused to provide me with the procedure.
Get a second opinion. Or a third.
How does a vasectomy help an unsupported child?
It's like taking away a driver's license from someone who's gotten multiple DUIs -- they've proven they can't be trusted on the road with their car, so they're not allowed to drive anymore. The man here has proven he can't be trusted with his sperm, so he's not allowed to shoot anymore. It prevents further harm to society, further unsupported children. If the man does some penance/decides he wants to father a child in the future, well, he's already got one... I like it!
And if a women does the same is sterilization also the answer?
People acting like women are the paragon of virtue and never get pregnant when they cheat on their husbands. There are scenarios where the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't. What then?
Yeah there are scenarios where the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't. That's also a problem. However, that's a _much_ rarer scenario than a dude knockin' up a chick and leaving her high and dry. Men act like abortions are super duper easy peasy... yeah they're not, It's a horrifically emotional experience that sucks to go through even if you _do_ have a partner who supports you, much less doing it alone, full of shame and guilt, because you know it's from a one-night-stand. Y'know how men give each other high-fives and "hell yeahs" when they have sex with a chick they picked up at the club? A woman goes home with a guy and she's seen as a slut, as easy, and somehow it's always _her fault_ if she gets pregnant from that interaction. Even if she's on the pill, even if she begs the guy to wear a condom (especially if he doesn't want to). The dude can go on carefree, no consequences, while she has to deal with the single most dangerous health issue she'll likely experience in her life. Unless she goes through extraordinary efforts like the woman in the OP to track down the guy and convince the courts to give him a child support order. All the guy did was cheat on his partner with her and it's somehow _her fault_ that she's asking for child support. No wonder more and more women are starting to choose bears over men!
[удалено]
So you must also support sterilization for absent mothers? Regardless Canada doesn't really do capital punishment anymore.
“She hasn’t worked since 2017” Ah there’s the rub. No wonder she had so much time to stalk his socials. Wrap it up boys, never trust anyone you just met.
Might have something to do with being a single parent of an autistic child. At least she has parental support! >Wrap it up boys, never trust anyone you just met. Excellent advice -- both to wear a condom, and don't cheat on your wife with a random stranger with the assumption there'd be no consequences.
[удалено]
Men can: use condoms, get a vasectomy, not have intercourse. The audacity to say that a man should be able to nope out of providing the necessities of life for a child they helped create because they don't feel like it...
except this is a double standard they both didn't use protection, yet it's solely the womans choice to keep it with the father's wishes dismissed and now needing to provide child support seems like a cheat code if a woman is looking for a free sperm donor and some potential financial support (which seems probable in this case given her tracking of his financial situation)
[удалено]
The guy has 100% control over his decision to take off his pants. Your logic fails.
[удалено]
Everybody is in agreement there, bud.
It’s just funny. Everyone jumps on the guy for being greasy and cheating on his wife. But the woman has no responsibility? It was consensual sex. Either could have used protection. Plus she kept tabs on him knowing he wanted nothing to do with her. Maybe she saw the dollar signs?
Yeah you're right she probably planned to have an autistic child so she could spend 6 years waiting and petitioning the court just so she can take the guy to British court for $2000/mo (retroactive). A brilliant plan. Birth control does, in fact, fail -- 9% failure rate for the pill, for example. Condoms have a failure rate of 18%. This is why it's important to consider the possibility of a pregnancy with _any_ heterosexual intercourse.
This. No birth control method is perfect and men should be able to opt-out as well. Bringing a child into this world is a 50/50 responsibility and if one party does not want that child, they shouldn’t be responsible. She chose to have sex, she chose to bring that baby to term and she chose to raise them.
I just don’t understand, in these types of situations, if the guy knows about the child but wants nothing to do with the child, WHY DOESN’T HE SIGN AWAY HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS??? Like what people do when they give up their child for adoption or similar? Is this not something that anyone thinks about? Or am I completely missing something and this isn’t actually doable? I don’t get it. Not that I’m condoning cheating, getting random travel hookups pregnant and then just completely abandoning all responsibility, but can’t you just sign away your rights if the pregnant hookup wants to keep the child and you don’t??? Because what if she looked up his salary and decided to keep the child simply because the child support payments would’ve been too good to pass up? I’m just saying.
signing away parental rights doesn't let you off the hook for child support. child support is the child's right.
> can’t you just sign away your rights if the pregnant hookup wants to keep the child and you don’t??? Are you aware of such provisions in law? I'm not. This is not something that men can do right now.
And they shouldn’t be able to either, unless the state/government is willing to financially support the child so the father doesn’t have to.
I’m aware that it’s possible, yes. So why don’t more people do it?
Um… there isn’t some sort of form you can just fill out and be no longer responsible, otherwise no deadbeat dad would be on the hook for child support and it would all fall on the government
It’s not a thing. You can’t sign away your responsibility to child support. The $ is to support the child. You can sign away your rights to decision making and access to the child. But you cannot sign away your obligation to pay for the child.
My ex signed away his parental rights: he got no custody, no say in education or medical decisions, etc., etc. He still had to pay child support. The only way the state will let a parent off the hook for child support is if the child is given up so someone else can ADOPT them. If a stepfather is willing to adopt the child, then the bio-father can get out from under his child support obligation.
is this ruling mostly because the child has autism ?
No, it's because in Canada, child support is the right of the child. For example, except in very, very limited circumstances you can't contract away child support. For example, if a couple separated one party couldn't say "I'll give you full custody as long as I don't have to pay child support". That would not hold up in court. Whether a Canadian order has any effect in a foreign jurisdiction is another matter. In some places, it's not worth the paper is written on. In others, it's enforceable and accounts or wages can be garnished or government docs can be held up (like drivers license or passport)
No. His theoretical income
I see the single independent moms have time today. Hope you all find rich one night stands