Reply #53: no, that just makes no sense [View All]

[iverglas]

They wait until the child is born, then the parties can divorce, and child support orders can be set up. They do this so the child will be financially supported by the Dad - otherwise if the divorce went through, there would be no financial provision for the new child.

Why would that be?

Gazillions of children are born outside of marriages all the time. What about them?

There would be no financial provision for the new child in the divorce order/judgment/decree -- but there are no provisions for support for whole loads of children in divorce decrees. One might suspect that the law is a hangover from a time when children born outside marriage did not have support claims equal to the claims of children born inside marriage, perhaps. But methinks those days are long gone.

If the divorce went through, the child would simply be a child whose paternity had to be established, if the person who was named as father denied it. Just as it would be if the divorce did *not* go through and the divorcing husband denied paternity. Paternity is only a presumption during marriage, after all.

I'm one of the ones who can't get my head around the complacency in such evidence in this thread. A woman's right to divorce her (abusive) husband may be denied because of her reproductive status (or her unwillingness to disclose it)? What *is* that about?

Just FYI, I've never heard of such a thing before, and I can tell you that if it had ever been in Canadian law, it sure as hell would not have been there for at least the last 4 decades.