FEMINISM - An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a Toronto man to continue paying child support even though a DNA test shows he is not the biological father of his ex-wife's twins.
In her ruling, Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg decided that even though Pasqualino Cornelio did not father twins – now 16 – with Anciolina Cornelio, he must continue to pay child support because "he was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."
Pasqualino began paying child support in 1998, after the couple separated. In 2002, the two agreed to joint custody, when they also settled that he would continue to provide monetary support.
But after Anciolina asked for an increase in payments and a reduction in the time he spent with the children, Pasqualino demanded a DNA test. When the results showed Pasqualino was not the father, he asked to be excused from paying child support and demanded he be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars that he had paid in the past.
He claimed that their 2002 agreement failed to disclose that Anciolina had an affair while they were married, calling it an act of fraud or misrepresentation. But according to the judge, it should not be a question of whether he is the biological parent, but rather whether he was considered a parent by definition.
Because Anciolina can't remember the affair, she claims she has no idea who the twins' father is.
"Cornelio denies knowledge of who the twins' biological father might be," van Rensburg said. "In fact, she claims to have no memory of an extramarital affair preceding their birth, which she attributes to the medication she was taking at the time."
"The relationship that developed from the time of their birth was the natural relationship between a parent and his children," she said. "The fact of that relationship – even if it has now become strained – is sufficient to require Mr. Cornelio to continue to contribute toward the children's material needs."
The judge concluded that the children should not suffer because of the parents' wrongdoings.
This is a controversial issue for anti-feminists/deadbeat dads. Why? Because it sets a horrible precedent for their rights.
And for once I agree with the deadbeat dads.
I agree with the judge that the children shouldn't be made to suffer for the parents' wrongdoings, but why should the ex-husband be made to suffer for the wife's adultery either?
Regardless of the fact she "forgot" about the affair, as a feminist I disagree with the judge's ruling. This ruling will only cause future problems as it sets a precedent for men being forced to pay for children who aren't even theirs... and these men will then lash out at feminists in general.
Feminism is about being FAIR to both sexes. Not making men suffer and become bitter.