A rose by any other name.

In writing this blog I am reclaiming outdated legal terms: bastard, illegitimate child, etc. I do this to help me uncover the rights of illegitimate kids. They are seldom named in legislation. To help you understand my process, I direct you to the legal term "Indian". See this current notice from the CRA website:

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) wants you to be aware of GST/HST requirements that apply to you as an Indian, an Indian band, and band-empowered entity, under the Indian Act. We recognize that many indigenous people in Canada prefer not to describe themselves as Indians. However, the term Indian is used because it has a legal meaning in the Indian Act.

Sometimes we are forced to use stigmatized labels. We have no choice.

Now consider the legal definition of child given in The Family Law Act:

“child” includes a person whom a parent has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody; (“enfant”)
“parent” includes a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody; (“père ou mère”)
An illegitimate child is one who has not been recognized by her father through his demonstration of a "settled intention" to parent her. Accordingly, he has no obligation to support the child. The child can seek relief through the Children's Law Reform Act (where illegitimacy was "abolished" in 1977). However many rulings at our Social Justice Tribunals don't take this act into account.

           Obligation of parent to support child
31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.
Idem
(2) The obligation under subsection (1) does not extend to a child who is sixteen years of age or older and has withdrawn from parental control.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (2).
So how do "deadbeat dads" end up paying child support? Through a lot of coercion and legal wrangling.  Through legal loopholes and social policy. Through coming to terms with their responsibility in ways that are very personal. Through societal shaming. Ultimately, many fathers never acknowledge their illegitimate children. The costs of that are huge, however men will never give up walking away from their kids. That's called "child abandonment" (another tricky legal definition).

Read this story to get for a synopsis on how most men feel. "I did not succumb to the societal pressure to pay an ex-wife, child or spousal support because men have historically done so."

So. You now have some idea about the odds against illegitimate children ever attaining legitimacy through child support awards that confer 'acknowledgement' on the child. Legitimacy (in law) is a MONEY FACTOR (unless "marriage"...but those aren't the kids I'm talking about on here). No money no legitimacy, by law. Legitimacy in society is even harder to attain. No daddy and social stigma/policy is guaranteed to negatively impact the child. Hence the need for Charter protection.

Finally, if an illegitimate child's mother flounders financially, but has succeeded in making her child whole and legitimate in Family Court, imagine the heartlessness of the government to then reverse that child's legitimacy when his mother files an application for social assistance.



(I've used gendered pronouns in this writing. Sorry if that creates offence for you the reader. I'll do better next time.)




Comments

Post a Comment