Man Loses Child Benefit Because He Has A Girlfriend

I thought this was interesting, albeit a bit odd. Here, a single father in Canada has been recieving child care benefits from the government, not unlike systems we have in the US.  However, since his girlfriend moved in with him, he stands to lose the benefits. Despite her having no genetic or custodial ties to the children, the government is considering her the de facto caregiver, thus putting the benefits in her name rather than his.  It seems that there's a custodial rule referred to as the 'female presumption' rule that sees the woman as the primary caregiver of the children, thus being eligible to recieve benefits toward their support.

I guess I don't quite understand why this was. I remember that, in the past, custodial arrangements favored the mother in the event of a divorce. Unless the mother was deemed incompetent or otherwise unfit, she got the children. This is what happened when my father divorced his first wife-my brothers went to live with their mother, who effectively cut off all contact between them and my father for about twenty years.  Even though there was a court order that he have visitation, it wasn't enforced.  I've never met my dad's ex-wife, but from what I've heard, she was not 'all there' mentally.  Eventually she got treatment and gave my father my brothers' addresses...I met one of them for the first time in 1993, and the other two years ago.  The first one passed away about two years later, but I still talk with my other brother.

But, I digress. The father in this case has been raising the kids on his own for the past eight years.  I'm not sure what happened with their mother, but the point is that he's been the one supporting them and taking care of them. However, since they now co-habit, the girlfriend in this case is considered the common-law wife, thus giving her legal 'sway' over the children. Whether or not she treats them as if they were her own is irrelevant here; what's relevant is the fact that the Canadian government immediately *assumed* that she was the primary caretaker because of her gender, so she was the one to recieve benefits. If she doesn't accept the benefits, they stop altogether and the kids are basically left high and dry.  I don't understand this because the father is the one who has an actual genetic and legal tie to the kids; she has none.  I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in the US a stepparent isn't even given primary custody of the children unless he or she legally adopts them, which the girlfriend here has not done. Some states don't even recognize common law marriages or, if they do, they require that the couple live together for a lot longer than 'just moving in'. So, I don't quite understand why *she* is considered their primary caregiver, especially since their father is still in the picture.  Also, what happens if she moves out?

Yes, I know that Canada and the US are two totally different places, but basic logic would still consider the father as the 'head'.  Also, I can think of quite a few other laws in the US that don't make any sense either. I'm sure the father will appeal the government's decision, since he also sees it as questionable. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out.