Brickbat: Daddy's Little Girls


A Quebec Superior Court has ordered a man to pay child support to his ex-wife even though genetic testing has shown that three of her four children are not his. The man, who wasn't named in press accounts, demanded the testing when the couple separated in 2010. The tests showed their three daughters were not fathered him him. Only their son was his.

NEXT: Director of National Intelligence Responds to the World Finding Out About PRISM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The most important thing is what’s best for the state children.

  2. Canuck Court Crushes Cuckold

    1. Artistic Alliterative Appeal Aids Alimony Acrimony Alleviation

  3. Sorry but when he got his government issued marriage license he signed a contract with the government which the government gets to not only interpret but also change whenever it wants. What did he expect?

  4. Is that Warty’s website or somthing?

    Oh, it says rapgenius, not rapegenius. 🙁

    1. He’s an analrapper.

      1. Sounds like he needs a new start.

  5. Another example of the type of logic usually employed by government:

    Wilie Sutton type logic – as in when asked why he robbed banks he replied “that’s where the money is”

    Government starts out by looking at who they can fleece and then works backward from there to gin up a rationalization for it.

    1. Please, please tell me that this numbnuts has some sort of avenue for an appeal. Maybe there’s a fair-minded judge somewhere in Quebec. You know, an accident.

      1. If it’s anything like California, there’s no basis for appeal. My ex got artificially inseminated, forged my signature on the consent form, and I’m still stuck with child support (not to mention alimony for life). Judge said that the presumption was that the child was mine, and if I didn’t know at the time and found out a few years later, tough luck, there’s a legal time limit independent of when the fraud and forgery was discovered.

        1. Like I said – Wille Sutton logic.

        2. Wow. 8-(

          Do you have a restraining order on her?

        3. I understand the presumption that the child is the husband’s. But presumptions should change when evidence contradicts it. Like, say, a DNA test or insemination records.

          1. You make a logical error, Auric- you assume logic. This is LAW, not anything that is supposed to make sense.

            1. That is my grave error. It’s why I’m an engineer/programmer, and why Pro Lib is the lawyer.

  6. i wish this would link to a proper story so we could find out the legal basis of this

    For the JDs here, the Australian High Court considered whether the tort of deceit can be applied in marital context in relation to false representations of paternity in 2006. The father lost, but for reasons which suggest a future claim to recover against a lying wife could succeed

    1. Want to un-Aussie and un-lawyer that for us poor, American engineers?

      1. Husband discovers some of his putative children are not in fact his. He tries to sue his wife via the tort of deceit (ie a civil claim that false statements were made, he relied on them, and suffered damage as a result).

        The various ways that you could lose on this claim:

        the statements weren’t made
        the statements weren’t false
        the statements weren’t relied upon
        the statements were relied upon, but that reliance didn’t cause you any damage
        you made the claim too late (there is a statute of limitations for civil claims); or
        possibly, you just can’t sue your spouse (because courts don’t want to get into years of your married life)

        A majority of the High Court found against the husband but there was no majority reason. Some judges said the claim just isn’t available, others said it is but the husband failed for other reasons.

  7. Like I needed ANOTHER reason to hate Quebec

    1. Sorry, but there’s no reason to expect that the poor schmoo would have done any better in American courts.

      1. Michael H. v. Gerald D. is still controlling law in the U.S. on the subject, right? At least as far as whether state laws like CA’s presumed paternity are constitutional.

        Not controlling in Quebec, duh, but maybe they reciprocate with the whole ‘letting foreign decisions advise our rulings’ thing?

        The part I love about Michael H., is the language that goes:

        based on the state legislature’s determination as a matter of overriding social policy that the husband should be held responsible for the child and that the integrity and privacy of the family unit should not be impugned.

        Because getting cuckolded doesn’t do shit to the integrity or privacy of the family unit.

        Let’s call a spade a spade here. The state, like Paulie, wants its fucking money. The mom often doesn’t have it and will go on assistance. The state would like to avoid that, would also like to avoid having to track down the John Doe that she fucked, and so will hold the dad financially responsible. In an era where, what, ~50 percent of children are out of wedlock, that the court went on and on about the effects of bastardy on the kid is really funny.

        1. Insert ‘husband’ for ‘dad’ in the above, though I think you get the point.

  8. To make matters worse, his ex-wife told him his three daughters were all fathered by different men, he said.

    To make matters worse yet, she told him that the men were all members of the Quebec Superior Court.

    1. I wonder if he has a valid tort against the actual fathers?

      He has to pay the child support, but can then sue them for the damages they did to him?

      1. i doubt it. He might be able to sue his wife in tort (see my post above)

  9. Who’s yo daddy? Probably this guy.…..y-14-women

    1. “I love women. You can’t knock no man for loving women. I love my kids and I can care less about what anyone thinks about it. I’ll be sure we’ll [his family legacy] be here for years and years to come.”


    2. Tell me his father’s day isn’t awesome. 22 presents? Fuck yeah. Also, averaging 1.6 kids per woman is goddamn impressive.

      1. I have to assume that the women who are doing this are not exactly the cream of the crop. But even still, impressive.

  10. Did the court also forbid alt-text? I’m pretty sure Reason is out of their jurisdiction.

    1. Blasphemer! NOTHING is out of the State’s jurisdiction. NOTHING!

      1. Dude, it’s not a state. It’s Canada. They call that shit provinces.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.