It is pleasing to learn that ethics are now playing a role in child support. For too long women have been cheating former partners by demanding that they pay child support for children whom they have not fathered.
Now Section 143 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act makes it possible for a man to challenge paid child support in a case where the child is proven to be not his. I applaud this move because my sympathies have always been with the man who has been duped into paying. I’ve written about this before and I am astounded that Kathleen Swinbourne who is president of the Sole Parents Union cannot concede that a man has the right not to pay child support for another man’s children when the relationship with the mother is over.
Swinbourne argues that children will be hurt by this. Well, that’s too bad. The woman should not have cheated in the first place and she should not have lied to her partner. How could she live with herself knowing that some poor bloke is paying for children who aren’t even his? That is morally wrong.
Worse still, Swinbourne has the audacity to claim that men who have been cheated should continue to be cheated for the sake of the children.
“If you’ve raised these children and parented them, you can’t turn around later and change your mind. It doesn’t matter what the DNA says”
Ms Swinbourne, it does matter to the man who brought them up when he wrongly believed they were his. Had the mother told him the truth he could have decided whether he wanted to be a father to them or not. But that would be up to him and not up to the cheating cow who lived a lie. I would charge these women with fraud. I would also expect them to repay the money they had stolen.
All this angst could be avoided, of course, if all children had paternity tests at birth.