I believe Canada has one of the best legal systems in the world, but I am left speechless in regards to a recent judgment that not only denied returning past child support payments to a Toronto man who had found out the children were not his, but stated that the man in question must continue to make child support payments.
Kirk Makin from the Globe and Mail reports that:
"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."The story goes on to quote the Justice Rensburg who presided over the case:
“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."In regards to her justification, I find Rensburg's reasoning is severely flawed.
First in appealing to common sense she is wrong. She is wrong to make another man financially responsible for children that are not his. In doing so she forces Pasqualino Cornelio not only to be a one-time victim of his cheating wife, but a continual victim of his wife and our legal system. One can not imagine the psychological effects of having to provide for the children of the man who slept behind your back with the wife you swore to love until the day you died.
Second in appealing to reason Justice Rensburg is wrong. Rensburg argues that the social fathering aspect is what necessitates Pasqualino Cornelio to continue to pay child support. Though it should be admitted he did 'father' the children in the social sense of the word, when one considers that that fatherhood was built on false pretenses, it should just as be readily admitted that any social obligations to that family unit should be void.
In only holding Pasqualino financially responsible as a father, Justice Rensburg does not motivate anyone but Pasqualino to find the biological father. And this appears to end with Anciolina Cornelio, the woman responsible for the situation, to not only be free from finding the man she cheated on her husband with, but free from otherwise the financial difficulties that she had created.
In conclusion I must admit I do see that Justice Rensburg's intent was to do what was right for the children, but I believe in doing more harm to Pasqualino, an innocent citizen, not to mention a victim in this case, Rensburg failed justice. Rensburg only furthered such failure by allowing Anciolina Cornelio to be held not accountable for the very situation she created.